Proposed Travel Ban Under Trump Administration Targets 43 Countries

The Trump administration is developing a travel ban targeting citizens from 43 countries, including a total ban for 11 nations and restrictions for an additional 10. The draft is currently under review by officials, with potential changes before finalization.

The Trump administration is contemplating a new travel ban affecting citizens from up to 43 countries, surpassing the previous restrictions established during his first term. This proposal, drafted by diplomatic and security officials, categorizes countries into three tiers, with certain nations facing complete entry bans to the United States.

A “red” list has been proposed, containing 11 countries whose citizens would be entirely barred from entry. These nations include Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. This list was generated by the State Department, and adjustments may be made before it is finalized by the White House.

Embassy officials and security specialists are currently assessing the draft’s content, expressing concerns over the accuracy of the classifications and the potential impact on U.S. foreign relations. They are evaluating whether the situation in these countries justifies the proposed restrictions, considering other critical cooperative priorities.

Additionally, the proposal outlines an “orange” list, which includes 10 countries where travel would be limited but not entirely banned. In these instances, business travelers with significant financial means might still enter the U.S., while those holding tourist or immigrant visas could be restricted.

In conclusion, the Trump administration is drafting a travel ban that could impact 43 countries, including a complete ban for 11 listed nations. As evaluations and discussions progress, further changes may arise. The implications of this proposal are significant, as it may adversely affect international relations and the movement of individuals based on their nationality.

Original Source: www.nytimes.com