Travel Ban Proposal: National Origin Discrimination in U.S. Policies

By Amy Khaing ‘27

On March 14, 2025, several news sources, including the New York Times, released a draft list for a new travel ban by the new administration. The proposal targeted 43 countries, with ranked categories in red, orange, and yellow corresponding to the severity of visa restrictions. Citizens from the 11 countries on the “red” list would be flatly barred from entering the United States, while those from the 10 countries on the “orange” list would be restricted in travel. In the latter case, only affluent business travelers might be granted entry, excluding immigrants and tourists, which accounts for the majority of the population. As social and political journalist Alex Nowrasteh notes, this draft travel ban reveals a plan “to create a national origins hierarchy.”

Existing federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits “discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Yet, the administration’s proposed travel ban clearly violates this principle and the Constitution by targeting individuals based on nationality. Indeed, this isn’t the first time national origin was use for exclusion. In 2017, he introduced a travel ban on predominantly Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Though the US Supreme Court overturned a block on the devastating ban in June, the overlap between the 2017 travel ban and today’s proposed “red list” is striking. Of the 11 countries currently marked for full exclusion—Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—all of the Muslim majority countries are repeated targets. As such, this travel ban alone reveals discrimination both on national origin and religion. Meanwhile, the remaining countries on the orange and yellow lists also share common traits. They are either generally Muslim-majority or otherwise nonwhite, poor, and have governments that are considered weak and corrupt.

In his January executive order, President Trump justified the travel ban as a measure to protect American citizens “from aliens” who “intend to commit terrorist attacks” and “threaten national security.” Domestic terrorism, is an extremely low probability event – the annual chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack by a refugee is about 1 in 3.3 billion. Investigations from the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed immigrants have had lower incarceration rates than the U.S.-born for the past 150 years. Relative to the US-born, immigrants today are also 60% less likely to be incarcerated. Many of the very individuals being labeled as threats and “aliens” have not only abided by the law but have substantially contributed to the American economy. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in the past 20 years, immigrants accounted for nearly 3/4 the major driving force behind U.S. labor force growth over the past 20 years. Their contributions are projected to grow: the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated immigrants will add $7 trillion to the economy over the next ten years. If imposed, the travel ban that largely deters immigrants from major workforce countries will lead to an economic decline in the United States.

The travel ban proposal, though still not enacted, reflects a government effort to discriminate against people based on national origin. Security restrictions should be tailored to the threat, which is usually the result of individual and not national characteristics. Promoting an absolute blanket ban will be a huge step back for the U.S., both in violating its constitution and damaging the economy. To stop such discriminatory policies, each of us must make a conscious effort to reject bias based on national origin. These policies only operate on public support. So, before judging an immigrant or traveler, look beyond their passport and recognize their personal virtues instead.