Trump’s Updated Muslim Ban Won’t Protect Americans

As threatened, President Donald Trump has come back with round two of his travel ban. The administration insists that this controversial executive order aims to protect the United States from terrorism, not to exclude people of a specific faith. But the ban applies to people from majority-Muslim countries and accompanies repeated rhetoric about shutting down Muslim immigration.

Here are the key points to know about this new executive order:

  • It will take effect in 10 days — on March 16 — a move that the administration says will prevent chaos and confusion as airport personnel and travelers have time to prepare.
  • It will not apply to current visa holders and lawful permanent residents — people with green cards.
  • It covers six majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
  • It puts a temporary hold on entry for 90 days.
  • It puts a 120-day suspension on the refugee program.
  • Yes, we already have a petition going.

If you want to play a game of spot the differences, you can check out the ACLU’s side-by-side comparison of the original policy and the most recent ban.

Trump’s first attempt at this ban was an unmitigated disaster, sparking chaos at airports all over the world, outrage and a robust legal challenge. Americans showed up at airports in solidarity with Muslims and others from the targeted nations. Ultimately, courts halted enforcement of key parts of the order. In the new document, the administration officially withdraws the earlier attempt, while maintaining that it would have prevailed in court eventually.

By law, the president actually enjoys considerable scope when it comes to restricting entry to the United States — something the Trump administration hopes will ensure this executive order’s legal standing. Of course, there’s a long history of using travel bans and restrictions to support racist policies – and this looks like no exception.

Will this order run into the same problems as round one?

The American Civil Liberties Union certainly thinks so. And some Republicans are unhappy about it too, noting that the agencies responsible for enforcing the ban weren’t consulted when it was crafted. Even the Department of Homeland Security isn’t convinced the ban is necessary, according to internal reports.

It’s also a human rights disaster, as halting the refugee program puts thousands of people at risk. Refugees desperate to reach the West are endangering themselves in treacherous Mediterranean crossings. Meanwhile, those trapped at home risk dying in air strikes, enduring starvation or being unable to access medical care in depleted cities and towns. In Somalia, for example, drought and famine are rapidly reshaping the landscape.

The administration insists the ban is necessary to protect national security, so it’s worth taking a moment to delve into that claim. Specifically, the executive order states:

Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees.

But in detailed analysis examining individuals who plot against the United States — rather than being involved in terrorism-adjacent activities, like funding overseas organizations — those numbers don’t hold up. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in the United States are domestic in nature, with one outlier: the September 11 attacks, committed by Saudi Arabian nationals. No terrorists from nations on the list have ever killed anyone.

Terrorism is an important national security consideration, which is why it behooves the federal government to accurately identify and investigate it. Evidence suggests that monitoring domestic groups would be a far more effective approach to combating terrorist action in the United States. Some experts believed the earlier ban could actually increase the risk of terrorism through unintended consequences.

It’s certainly a gift to Daesh, which revels in crackdowns on freedom of movement and association for Muslims in the West. After all, these actions make valuable propaganda for the terrorist group.

It’s also a blow to foreign relations — Iraq, included the first list, was so outraged by this move on the part of a purported ally in fighting terrorism that the president was forced to drop the nation from this go-round. Meanwhile, other Western nations may be concerned about the risks this ban creates and disappointed by the bigotry on display. The earlier attempt provoked a condemnatory response from numerous world leaders.

The bottom line: This order won’t protect Americans from the risk of terrorism. In fact, it may increase the risk of terrorist attacks. A new Muslim ban will condemn untold numbers of refugees to death as they scramble for entry to the West, as well as undermine America’s status on the global stage.

Please join the tens of thousands of Care2 members fighting against Trump’s new travel ban by signing and sharing this Care2 petition.

Photo credit: Daniel Arauz


Marie W
Marie W8 months ago

Thanks for posting.

Sarah Hill
Sarah Hill9 months ago

Why would we let people into our country who hate us & want to kill us? Look at what has happened in Europe! That WILL happen here too! Wise up people!

Telica R
Telica R10 months ago


Mark Spiegel
Mark Spiegel11 months ago

Part 1:

There has been a lot of talk about Trump’s travel bans. Perhaps you have thought this would not affect you since you are an American citizen and you would never do harm to the United States. Well this crap just got real for me. My friend, a captain in the U.S. Army, was deployed to the Middle East leaving his wife of two months. All of us were excited when he was on the way home to attend an Army training session.

This morning he sent a Facebook post to all his friends. Let me show you what he wrote. (Part 2)

Mark Spiegel
Mark Spiegel11 months ago

Part 2:

“I was wondering how U.S Customs Enforcement would treat me in this new world of the Trump Administration. I was traveling with another Officer, same passport, but different ethnic background - went straight right through...didn't even wait 1 minute in line. Customs even smiled and said Welcome Home.

Sure enough! I get selected for extra screening. After waiting in line for 30mins with the non-Americans, I get to the counter and give the Agent my Military ID, brown Official passport, and ask him - I want to know why an American Army Officer on Active Duty, traveling on a US Government "Official Business" Passport, is getting treated like a second class citizen.

After recovering from being shocked, he quickly says - well Sir, if you give me one minute I can tell you... and then quickly changes to the topic to where I'm deployed to blah, blah, blah...

He then asks me what my birthday is and after me telling him, he tells me that I match a "be on the lookout for"..... WFE buddy, good job pulling that one out of your ass!”

A U.S. Army officer IN UNIFORM is pulled aside while his fellow officer is waved on through.

Did I mention my friend is Mexican-American?

Does anyone really think things will not get worse?

Meena p
meena pharo11 months ago

This is NOT a Muslim Ban. Titles like these are typical Liberal/Left FAKE NEWS. Stick with animal issues. Heaven forbid the U.S. protects its citizens!

Philippa P
Philippa Powers11 months ago


Dan Blossfeld
Dan Blossfeld11 months ago

Yes, these "home grown" jihadists have been radicalized by those methods. Additionally, most of them then traveled to one of the radical Islamic countries prior to carrying out their attacks. These people need to he monitored.

Sally Fisher
Sally Fisher11 months ago

Ted Francis - you are correct in saying that the real problem is the "home grown" radical - radicalised usually over the internet or by people they "know on Facebook" or suchlike. Finding, watching and stopping THOSE people is tough work - and is being done by the security services. The danger of bans such as this one is that it hands insecure or uncertain young people to the radical organisations "on a plate" - by making them feel that the country/citizenship INTO WHICH THEY WERE BORN (in most cases) does not have a place for them. That - not "bleeding heart liberalism" - is my reason for wanting this ban rescinded.

ted francis
ted francis11 months ago

Whilst I agree with all the protestations against the ban, there really is an element of the theatre of the absurd about it. Does anyone seriously imagine that the dedicated jihadist is going to be deterred? And what about the home-grown variety, the 'sleepers'? One can presume that the security services have an ear to the mosques.........yes? And prisons?