Donald Trump ’s latest travel ban isn’t about making America It's about ensuring safety. But really, it's about normalizing cruelty.
The administration aims for us to view this as a thoughtful and measured security initiative. Twelve nations have been placed on the blacklist. An additional seven face partial restrictions.
The rationale? As Trump stated: “We can’t allow unrestricted immigration from countries where we aren’t able to properly vet and screening individuals seeking entry into the United States.”
It appears the claim is that these nations represent a danger to the United States owing to past events.
Let's accept that as true for now.
Myanmar For instance, everything is in chaos. The UK Government recommends avoiding travel because of civil disturbances. armed conflict , along with inconsistent application of local regulations.
Therefore, it could be the case that they have an ineffective nationwide screening mechanism.
As far as I'm aware, there hasn't ever been even a solitary instance of an individual from Myanmar conducting a terrorist act on American soil. Not a single occurrence.
The individuals fleeing Myanmar are escaping pervasive violence rather than instigating it. Then, what precisely is Trump aiming to protect against?
The solution doesn't come from intelligence reports or airport procedures. Instead, it lies in a distinct type of calculus—a political one.
This serves as a warning to Trump’s supporters that the world—particularly individuals of differing beliefs or backgrounds—is perilous. It suggests that only he can safeguard them and portrays empathy as an adversary to be eradicated rather than a principle to cherish.
This follows the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate deportation protection for approximately 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants residing in the United States. These individuals had been permitted to stay and work there due to a program designed for citizens from nations considered unstable. However, this decision was halted when a federal judge intervened.
The U.S. government has stated that both residents and visitors in Venezuela face risks such as 'unjust imprisonment, torture while detained, terrorist threats, abduction, misuse of local regulations, criminal activity, civic disturbances, and inadequate healthcare facilities.'
Cruelty is not an unintended consequence; it is the intention itself.
It could rip families apart during airport transfers and leave individuals stranded after they've sold all their possessions for the hope of safety or better opportunities.
International students aiming to pursue education or participate in exchange programs are at risk of being eliminated —a move that, I assure you, has nothing to do with the legal dispute between Harvard and the Trump administration. frozen billions of dollars in federal funds following accusations that it failed to eliminate anti-Semitism in educational institutions.
And let’s discuss those who aren’t included on the list. For instance, Egypt, individual involved in the recent Boulder incident originated from. It was not included. Despite this, Trump particularly cited this terrorist attack as the reason for introducing the new measures. travel ban .
Saudi Arabia, whose citizens were responsible for 9/11 ? Also not included.
People who are barred frequently escape from conflicts, violence, or oppression due to their gender, sexual orientation, or convictions.
This clearly indicates: The issue at hand is not about managing risks but about how things appear to others.
Through intention or innocence, women and girls, who have already had their reproductive rights restricted, weaponised and criminalised by Trump, and LGBTQ+ People who have had their safeguards removed are now becoming the targets of this demonstrative and penalizing ban.
Even without considering the ethical debate, the legal grounds are evident.
Nobody is pushing for entirely unrestricted borders, but assuming travelers possess the necessary documents, how could we defend refusing their entry?
When Trump introduced a similar order in 2017 , aimed at seven predominantly Muslim nations, it was denounced as a ‘ Muslim ban’ and entangled in never-ending legal battles.
President Joe Biden repealed it in 2021.
This time around, Trump claims that the selection of these nations is justified due to their high visa overstaying rates or political unrest. However, I believe the data does not support his argument.
The White House wants you to view this as a short-term step, a break until matters can be thoroughly evaluated, yet there is no openness, no final timeframe, and no uniform standards.
As typical, this is nothing more than political theater. Using cruelty as a strategy and exploiting people’s lives for media attention.
In U.S. politics, theatre has taken center stage as the new norm, yet we must still identify it for what it truly is.
Harsh. Meaningless. And most importantly, unproductive.
A policy that penalizes students, rejects refugees, and leaves families behind does not constitute national security; it represents moral capitulation.
This goes beyond border control; it represents moral control in Trump's America, where showing compassion is seen as a sign of weakness.
Would you like to share your story? Reach out via email for collaboration. jess.austin@Mountaintravel.co.uk .
Share your views in the comments below.
Get the latest on all the buzzworthy stories by subscribing to Mountaintravel's News Updates newsletter.
Posting Komentar