Latest news with #CATOInstitute
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Data fail to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Data fails to support Trump's justifications for latest travel ban
A man sells U.S. flags and other national flags in Yangon, Myanmar, on Thursday. A day earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation banning travel from 12 countries, including Myanmar, to the United States. Photo by Nyein Chan-Naing/EPA-EFE The Trump administration on Wednesday announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled "Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," is aimed at "countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries." In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said, "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted." The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the United States. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to non-White applicants. Terrorism and public safety In the past five years, the United States has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the United States cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the United States are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants -- authorized and unauthorized -- have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Degrading the concept of national security Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the "dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country." His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the United States. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that "radicalize isolated individuals" as "the most dangerous threat to the Nation" -- not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more White, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against non-White immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for White immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by non-Whites as a danger to White supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. Charles Kurzman is a pProfessor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's justifications for the latest travel ban aren't supported by the data on immigration and terrorism
The Trump administration on June 4, 2025, announced travel restrictions targeting 19 countries in Africa and Asia, including many of the world's poorest nations. All travel is banned from 12 of these countries, with partial restrictions on travel from the rest. The presidential proclamation, entitled 'Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,' is aimed at 'countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the entry or admission of nationals from those countries.' In a video that accompanied the proclamation, President Donald Trump said: '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.' The latest travel ban reimposes restrictions on many of the countries that were included on travel bans in Trump's first term, along with several new countries. But this travel ban, like the earlier ones, will not significantly improve national security and public safety in the United States. That's because migrants account for a minuscule portion of violence in the U.S. And migrants from the latest travel ban countries account for an even smaller portion, according to data that I have collected. The suspect in Colorado, for example, is from Egypt, which is not on the travel ban list. As a scholar of political sociology, I don't believe Trump's latest travel ban is about national security. Rather, I'd argue, it's primarily about using national security as an excuse to deny visas to nonwhite applicants. In the past five years, the U.S. has witnessed more than 100,000 homicides. Political violence by militias and other ideological movements accounted for 354 fatalities, according to an initiative known as the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, which tracks armed conflict around the world. That's less than 1% of the country's homicide victims. And foreign terrorism accounted for less than 1% of this 1%, according to my data. The Trump administration says the U.S. cannot appropriately vet visa applicants in countries with uncooperative governments or underdeveloped security systems. That claim is false. The State Department and other government agencies do a thorough job of vetting visa applicants, even in countries where there is no U.S. embassy, according to an analysis by the CATO Institute. The U.S. government has sophisticated methods for identifying potential threats. They include detailed documentation requirements, interviews with consular officers and clearance by national security agencies. And it rejects more than 1 in 6 visa applications, with ever-increasing procedures for detecting fraud. The thoroughness of the visa review process is evident in the numbers. Authorized foreign-born residents of the U.S. are far less likely than U.S.-born residents to engage in criminal activity. And unauthorized migrants are even less likely to commit crimes. Communities with more migrants – authorized and unauthorized – have similar or slightly lower crime rates than communities with fewer migrants. If vetting were as deficient as Trump's executive order claims, we would expect to see a significant number of terrorist plots from countries on the travel ban list. But we don't. Of the 4 million U.S. residents from the 2017 travel ban countries, I have documented only four who were involved in violent extremism in the past five years. Two of them were arrested after plotting with undercover law enforcement agents. One was found to have lied on his asylum application. One was an Afghan man who killed three Pakistani Shiite Muslim immigrants in New Mexico in 2022. Such a handful of zealots with rifles or homemade explosives can be life-altering for victims and their families, but they do not represent a threat to U.S. national security. Trump has been trying for years to turn immigration into a national security issue. In his first major speech on national security in 2016, Trump focused on the 'dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country.' His primary example was an act of terrorism by a man who was born in the U.S. The first Trump administration's national security strategy, issued in December 2017, prioritized jihadist terrorist organizations that 'radicalize isolated individuals' as 'the most dangerous threat to the Nation' – not armies, not another 9/11, but isolated individuals. If the travel ban is not really going to improve national security or public safety, then what is it about? Linking immigration to national security seems to serve two long-standing Trump priorities. First is his effort to make American more white, in keeping with widespread bias among his supporters against nonwhite immigrants. Remember Trump's insults to Mexicans and Muslims in his escalator speech announcing his presidential campaign in 2015. He has also expressed a preference for white immigrants from Norway in 2018 and South Africa in 2025. Trump has repeatedly associated himself with nationalists who view immigration by nonwhites as a danger to white supremacy. Second, invoking national security allows Trump to pursue this goal without the need for accountability, since Congress and the courts have traditionally deferred to the executive branch on national security issues. Trump also claims national security justifications for tariffs and other policies that he has declared national emergencies, in a bid to avoid criticism by the public and oversight by the other branches of government. But this oversight is necessary in a democratic system to ensure that immigration policy is based on facts. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charles Kurzman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Read more: 3 ways the government can silence opinions it disagrees with, without using censorship Who are immigrants to the US, where do they come from and where do they live? Removing Cuba from list of countries 'not fully cooperating' over terrorism may presage wider rapprochement – if politics allows Charles Kurzman has received funding for research on terrorism from the National Institute of Justice and the National Science Foundation.
USA Today
28-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Trump's first 100 days have blown my mind. He's delivering on his promises.
While progressives scream louder and louder into the void, millions of ordinary Americans are sticking with President Donald Trump and his agenda of rapid and dramatic change. I'm one of them. President Donald Trump has done more good for the United States in his first 100 days in the White House than Joe Biden did in four years. Yet, much of the mainstream news media, chock full of journalists with a leftist bias, portrays the Trump presidency as a chaotic disaster. Trump has been smeared, scorned and labeled an authoritarian. If the news is any indication, America is already in steep decline because of Trump's first 100 days. But I want to show a different side of what we've seen unfold since Jan. 20 as Trump moves at an extraordinary pace to implement policies that 77.3 million Americans voted for in November. Those measures will in time improve our lives and strengthen our nation. DOGE's mission to instill fiscal responsibility is vital If I had to describe Trump's first 100 days in just four letters, it would be DOGE. The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has undertaken the Herculean task of trying to bring fiscal responsibility to a federal government that doesn't blink at trillion dollar deficits. DOGE's critics snipe at every cut to the bloated bureaucracy, but none has offered a credible alternative. Democrats have become the party of the status quo, and the status quo has respected financial experts forecasting economic disaster for the United States if we don't cut the deficit and slow the growth of the national debt. As the CATO Institute has noted, Musk overpromised with his goal to slash federal spending by $2 trillion. But don't miss something remarkable that Musk and Trump have done in only three months: The mindset in Washington for years has been that deficits and the debt don't really matter, that the bureaucracy will grow without fail, that taxpayers just need to suck it up and pay more to keep the federal spending machine chugging along. That mindset has now been shocked back to reality. Federal workers and entire bureaucracies have to justify their work − just like most ordinary American workers. And the expectation of endless government growth is gone. Trump's tariffs show signs that they're working Trump's tariffs have ignited a firestorm of criticism and sparked predictions of a recession. But there have been indications that the tariffs are bringing jobs back to America. Here are a few examples: Swiss drugmaker Novartis on April 10 announced a $23 billion investment over five years to expand manufacturing and research in the United States. The company estimated that it will add 4,000 jobs here. Honda Motor has announced that it will move production of its Civic hybrid hatchback from Japan to America. Drugmaker Eli Lilly announced in February that it will build four pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in the United States. The company said the expansion will create 13,000 jobs in manufacturing and construction. In addition to his big initiatives, Trump also has signed executive orders for obscure but important matters that modernize the government and strengthen the economy. One of the orders will end the antiquated practice in our government of issuing and accepting paper checks. Trump also ordered the creation of a bitcoin reserve and digital asset stockpile, managed by the Treasury Department. The goal with these executive orders and others is to modernize and streamline the government, which far too often moves at the speed of snail mail in a nation that expects overnight delivery. Trump is still far more popular than Biden To hear Trump's critics on the left and in mainstream media tell it, the president's first 100 days have brought us to the brink of economic ruin and an authoritarian dystopia. But while Trump's approval rating has dropped since he took office, far more Americans now say Trump is doing a good job than said the same thing about President Joe Biden in January − 45.3% for Trump versus 36% for Biden. So while progressives scream louder and louder into the void, millions of ordinary Americans are sticking with Trump and his agenda of rapid and dramatic change. I'm one of them. History will show that Trump's first 100 days involved a policy blitz of epic proportions. I didn't think he could drive so much change so fast, but he has, and I'm glad.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Approval Rating Is Tanking by Every Indicator That Matters
Americans at large disapprove of President Trump's performance on virtually every key issue, according to recent polling from Reuters/Ipsos. About 48 percent disapprove of his performance regarding the 'rule of law,' 49 percent disapprove of his performance on the environment, 51 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy, 52 percent disapprove of his performance on international trade, and a whopping 57 percent disapprove of his performance on the cost of living. Trump has overhauled the government, upturned the economy, and completely eroded any sense of security or power that the United States offered as a global trading partner. His wantonly placed tariffs will keep the cost of living high (so much for those grocery prices he campaigned on) while doing nothing to reduce inflation. While it's unusual for performance ratings to be this paltry this soon in a presidential term, the speed at which Trump has undertaken his chaotic policies certainly explains the numbers. And it's far from over. 'There's a big risk for Trump that it's only going to get worse from here,' said the libertarian CATO Institute's Scott Lincicome.
