Evelyn Reynolds

Many of Donald Trump’s critics may have become so inured to the treadmill of iniquities that his second presidency has brought, that a long-expected travel ban announced against citizens of a dozen countries failed to register the same intense shock and outrage as his similar move made during his first presidency.Of course, there was condemnation. Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator from California, accused the president of “bigotry”, while Chris Murphy, his Democratic colleague from Connecticut, suggested the timing may have been designed to deflect attention from the negative economic impact of his “Big Beautiful Bill” currently wending its way through Congress.But the denunciations seemed to carry a rote, lost-in-the-noise quality.It is easy to forget the storm of opprobrium that initially greeted the proposal for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” when then candidate Trump first made it nearly a decade ago. Even some of his fellow Republicans on the primary campaign trail at the time denounced the idea of a “Muslim ban” as “unhinged”.The context then was a spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks, first in Europe and then, in December 2015, in the California city of San Bernardino, where a radicalized husband and wife shot and killed 14 people at a health workers’ Christmas party.The policy met fierce legal and popular resistance after Trump tried to impose it immediately after taking office in January 2017, targeting seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.Chaotic scenes ensued, as protesters descended on US international airports. Only after the administration retooled the policy following protracted courtroom fights was it able to implement it – only for Joe Biden to rescind it in 2021 as “a stain on our national conscience”.The immediate and narrow backdrop to the latest ban is similar: an attack in Boulder, Colorado, this time by an Egyptian citizen, on an event in support of hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza.“The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,” Trump said in a video message announcing the policy. “We don’t want them.”Yet the broader context is vastly different – and illustrative of how successful the president has been in shifting the Overton window of political acceptability compared with eight years ago. This new ban is taking place against a backdrop of creeping authoritarianism, brutal government cuts and an ideological attack on civic institutions ranging from universities to scientific and cultural organisations.Effective legal challenges to the travel ban this time round seem much less likely, experts believe. “They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,” Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University law center, told the New York Times.The length of time taken in preparing the restrictions – in contrast with the hastily imposed 2017 ban – and the varied character of the 19 countries singled out make it less susceptible than its predecessor, Vladeck said.Strikingly, Egypt – a signatory to the 1979 Camp David peace accords with Israel and a recipient of US military aid – is absent from the list of countries affected, strongly suggesting that last weekend’s attack was merely a pretext for a move already in the works.Of the 12 included on the main ban list, some are predominantly Muslim, but five – Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Myanmar, Eritrea and Equatorial Guinea – are not. The others are Iran, Afghanistan, Chad, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen. Of course, all are non-white and part of the developing world.Additionally, less stringent restrictions have been imposed on another seven countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Laos, Togo, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Turkmenistan – but only the last two have Muslim majorities.Rather than being based in Islamophobia, the latest crackdown is playing out on a wider canvas of xenophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment, manifested most visibly in Trump’s drive to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. Some groups, namely Venezuelans and Haitians, have already lost temporary protected status in a move that has been upheld by the courts.It is also happening in tandem with a prohibition issued against Harvard University from enrolling foreign students as Trump resorts to all levers available in an effort to prevail in a power struggle with the world’s wealthiest higher education institution.Yet the ban has roots in prejudices that emerged early in Trump’s first term, when he railed at an Oval Office meeting with congressional leaders against immigration from “shithole countries”, an unflattering description which, according to the New York Times, included Haiti.“Why do we want people from Haiti here?” Trump said in the January 2018 meeting, when told that they were among those who could benefit from a proposed immigration bill. At the same gathering, the president lamented the failure to woo immigrants from white European countries like Norway.At an earlier meeting, he complained – based on a policy paper given to him by Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff – that 15,000 Haitians had entered the country since his inauguration, adding that “they all have Aids”. Similar complaints were issued against the entry of 2,500 Afghans.The anti-Haitian animus re-emerged in last year’s presidential election campaign. Trump, in a debate with Kamala Harris, his Democratic presidential opponent, issued his notorious “they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs” accusation against a Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, Ohio, based on a false internet rumor that police had previously officially denied.That backdrop will surely condemn Trump in the court of public opinion, whatever rulings the judiciary may decide.Amid a chorus of condemnation from Democrats, many of whom compared this ban to his first “Muslim ban”, Amnesty International captured the more universal principle at play.“Trump’s new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,” the organization said. “By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.”Even if judges issue future rulings upholding the policy, it seems a fitting judgment likely to stand the test of time, if not the strict letter of the law. More