Executive Order 13769
Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, labeled the "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his supporters[1][2] and critics,[3][4] and commonly known as such,[5] or commonly referred to as the Trump travel ban, or Trump Muslim travel ban, was an executive order by President Trump. Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780, a second order sharing the title "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".
Type
Part of a series of executive actions, Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) listed these countries as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. Iraq was also included until it was dropped following sharp criticism from the Iraqi government and promises of improved vetting of Iraqi citizens in collaboration with the Iraqi government.[6][7] More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked".[8]
The signing of the Executive Order provoked widespread condemnation and protests and resulted in legal intervention against the enforcement of the order. Critics referred to it as a "Muslim ban," because President Trump had previously called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States,[9] and because all of the affected countries had a Muslim majority, although the affected Muslims were only 12% of the global Muslim population.[10][11] Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates were also notably excluded, despite being located in the same region as the countries subject to the ban and home to large Muslim populations. Despite this fact, critics proposed a theory that this was due to Trump having business ties with these countries.[12][13] A nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on February 3, 2017 in the case Washington v. Trump, which was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 9, 2017. Consequently, the Department of Homeland Security stopped enforcing portions of the order and the State Department re-validated visas that had been previously revoked. Later, other orders (Executive Order 13780 and Presidential Proclamation 9645) were signed by President Trump and superseded Executive Order 13769. On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the third Executive Order (Presidential Proclamation 9645) and its accompanying travel ban in a 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion being written by Chief Justice John Roberts.[14]
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked Executive Order 13780 and its related proclamations with Presidential Proclamation 10141.[15]
Impact[edit]
Terrorism[edit]
Trump's stated reason for issuing the executive order was to prevent terrorism.[150] An internal report compiled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Intelligence and Analysis Unit, however, concluded that people from the seven nations affected by the travel ban pose no increased terror risk.[151] The report found that "country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" and that few individuals from the seven affected countries access the U.S. in any case, since the State Department grants a small number of visas to citizens of those countries."[150][151] The report found that of 82 people determined to have inspired by a foreign terrorist organization "to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States, just over half were U.S. citizens born in the United States," while the rest came from a group of 26 countries, only two of which were among the seven nations included in the ban.[150] White House and DHS officials downplayed the significance of the report, saying it was only a draft.[151]
The New York Times reported that "for an action aimed at terrorism, the order appeared to garner little or no support among experts and former officials of every political stripe with experience in the field."[152] Experts on terrorism, such as Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina, Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation, and Daniel Benjamin of Dartmouth College, formerly the State Department's top counterterrorism official, all commented upon the order. Benjamin said that the order was unlikely to reduce the terrorist threat, and "many experts believe the order's unintended consequences will make the threat worse."[152] Kurzman noted that since the September 11 attacks in 2001, no one has been killed in the U.S. in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from the seven affected countries.[152] Jenkins explained that of the 147 Jihadist plots and attacks since 9/11, 105 were perpetrated by U.S. citizens and 20 involved legal permanent residents. "In other words, 85 percent of the terrorists lived in the U.S. a long time before carrying out an attack—they were radicalized within the nation's borders."[153] Jenkins went on to say: "Had this temporary prohibition been in effect since 9/11, how many lives would have been saved? Not one."[153] While Jenkins conceded that there were two individuals whose entry would have been prevented had the ban been in place since 9/11, both were in the country for years prior to engaging in terrorist related activities. According to Jenkins, the "... failure to identify these individuals before they entered the United States is not a flaw in the vetting process; it is our inability to predict human behavior years into the future."[153]
According to The New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the seven countries in the executive order had a "random quality"; the list excluded Saudi Arabia and Egypt (where many jihadist groups were founded) and Pakistan and Afghanistan (where extremism has a long history, and which have "produced militants who have occasionally reached the United States").[152] Benjamin stated that the order might be counterproductive in terms of counterterrorism cooperation and feeding into "the jihadist narrative" of a West at war with Islam.[152] Jonathan Schanzer of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies said that "The order appears to be based mainly on a campaign promise," and did not appear to be tied to any effort to improve vetting or other procedures.[152]
A 2021 study in the American Political Science Review found that Trump's refugee ban (which caused a 66% reduction in refugee resettlement) had no impact on crime rates.[154]
Implementation at airports[edit]
Shortly after the enactment of the executive order, at 4:42 pm on January 27, border officials across the country began enforcing the new rules. The New York Times reported people with various backgrounds and statuses being denied entry or sent back; this included refugees and minority Christians from the affected countries as well as students and green-card holders returning to the United States after visits abroad.[131][155]
People from the countries mentioned in the order with valid visas were turned away from flights to the U.S.[156] Some were stranded in a foreign country while in transit.[157] Several people already on planes flying to the U.S. at the time the order was signed were detained on arrival.[156] On January 28 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimated that there were 100 to 200 people being detained in U.S. airports,[158] and hundreds were barred from boarding U.S.-bound flights.[159] About 60 legal permanent residents were reported as detained at Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C.[160] Travelers were also detained at O'Hare International Airport without access to their cellphones and unable to access legal assistance.[161] The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) offers free legal help to travelers who experience problems with the "ban". Attorneys are stationed, around the clock, at the Chicago airport and CAIR also encourages travelers to register with them, prior to travel.[162] The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on January 28 that the order was applied to "less than one percent" of the 325,000 air travelers who arrived in the United States.[163] By January 29 DHS estimated that 375 travelers had been affected with 109 travelers in transit and another 173 prevented from boarding flights.[164] In some airports there were reports that Border Patrol agents were requesting access to travelers' social media accounts.[165]
On February, 3 attorneys for the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation advised a judge hearing one of the legal challenges to the order that more than 100,000 visas have been revoked as a consequence of the order. They also advised the judge that no legal permanent residents have been denied entry.[166] The State Department later revised this figure downward to fewer than 60,000 revoked visas and clarified that the larger DOJ figure incorrectly included visas that were exempted from the travel ban (such as diplomatic visas) and expired visas.[167][168]
Number of affected people[edit]
On January 30, Trump said on Twitter "Only 109 people ... were detained and held for questioning";[169] Homeland Security officials later said this number referred to the initial hours of the order's implementation.[170] On January 31, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported that 721 people were detained or denied boarding under the order; CBP also reported 1,060 waivers for green-card holders had been processed; 75 waivers had been granted for persons with immigrant and nonimmigrant visas; and 872 waivers for refugees had been granted.[170] On February 23, the Justice Department provided the ACLU with a list of 746 people who were detained or processed by CBP during the twenty-six hours from Judge Ann Donnelly's ruling at 9:37pm on January 28 to 11:59pm on January 29; the ACLU has identified at least 10 people meeting this description who are not on the list they received.[171] Detentions continued at Chicago's O'Hare airport on January 30.[172]
The effect of the order was far broader, however, than the number of people detained. In terms of barred visa-holders, the federal government reported that more than "100,000 visas for foreigners inside and outside the United States have also been revoked, at least temporarily."[173] The Washington Post fact-checker, citing State Department figures, reported that 60,000 U.S. visas were issued in the seven affected countries in fiscal year 2015.[174] The New York Times reported that 86,000 nonimmigrant-temporary visas (mostly for tourism, business travel, temporary work, or education) have been granted to citizens in the seven affected countries in the 2015 fiscal year.[173] The executive order also barred people from the seven countries from obtaining new immigrant visas. In 2015, 52,365 people from the seven affected countries had been issued green cards (which are typically awarded soon after the arrival of an immigrant visa-holder to the United States); "[i]n general, about half of recent new legal permanent residents are new arrivals to the country, and the other half had their status adjusted after living in the United States."[173]
In the weeks of 2017 prior to the executive order, the U.S. admitted approximately 1,800 refugees per week (total) from the seven countries covered by the order. While the executive order was in effect, the U.S. received two refugees from those countries.[175]
Impact on U.S. industry[edit]
Google called its traveling employees back to the U.S. in case the order prevented them from returning. About 100 of the company's employees were thought to be affected by the order. Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a letter to his staff that "it's painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues. We've always made our view on immigration issues known publicly and will continue to do so."[176][177] Amazon.com Inc., citing disruption in travel for its employees, and Expedia Inc., citing impact to its customers and refund costs, filed declarations in support of the states of Washington and Minnesota in their case against the executive order, State of Washington v. Trump.[178][179]
However, Committee for Economic Development CEO Steve Odland[180] and several other executives and analysts commented that the order will not lead to significant changes in IT hiring practices among US companies, since the countries affected are not the primary source of foreign talent.[181] According to the Hill "a cross-section of legal experts and travel advocates" say that the order "could have a chilling effect on U.S. tourism, global business and enrollment in American universities".[182][183][184]
One effect of Trump's election and policies, and in particular, Trump's executive order, is the "Trump Slump" on the U.S. tourism industry, which contributed $1.47 (~$1.86 trillion in 2023) trillion to the country's GDP in 2014. As reported by Frommer's, according to Global Business Travel Association, as well as local tourist offices, with policies such as Executive Order 13769 making foreigners feeling less welcome, fewer tourists began traveling to the U.S., with all foreign tourism down 6.8%, online searches for flights from foreign countries down 17%, and foreign business travel dropping by $185 million during the first week of the immigration suspension.[185] Economic Research Firm Oxford Economics found that Los Angeles County could lose 800,000 visitors—who would otherwise account for $736 million (~$900 million in 2023) in tourism spending— as a direct result of the ban.[186]
Travelers and patients[edit]
According to Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, the order distressed citizens of the affected countries including those holding valid green cards and valid visas. Those outside the U.S. fear that they will not be allowed in, while those already in the country fear that they will not be able to leave, even temporarily, because they would not be able to return.[187]
Some sources have stated that the executive order, if upheld, is likely to contribute to a doctor shortage in the United States, disproportionately affecting rural areas and underprovided specialties.[188] According to an analysis by a Harvard Medical School group of professors, research analysts and physicians, the executive order is likely to reduce the number of physicians in the United States as approximately 5% of the foreign-trained physicians in the United States were trained in the seven countries targeted by the executive order. These doctors are disproportionately likely to practice medicine in rural, underserved regions and specialties facing a large shortage of practitioners.[189] According to The Medicus Firm, which recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs, Trump's executive order covers more than 15,000 physicians in the United States.[188]
Impact on education[edit]
Many universities were impacted by the issuance of the travel ban. One example is Bennington College. Since nearly twenty percent of students are from around the world, some students were not allowed to return. Even students who planned to attend this college in the future were unable to.[190] Universities like New York University, updated its students on each iteration of the travel ban to keep students educated on what they can do if they are affected by the order.[191] Many university administrators believe that due to President Trump's view on immigration, students abroad have become reluctant to study in the United States.[192]
Students that have the F1 visa are put at risk with this executive order. Since F1 visas only allow these visa holders one-entry into the United States, this executive order may not allow these individuals to come back if they decide to leave the country for a school break. Due to the ban, the students on F1 visas may not be able to see their families for several years especially if their parents cannot enter the United States as a result of the ban.[193]