A few thoughts about Trump’s new immigration ban

Raju Korti
In a move that is bound to stir both domestic and global discourse, US President Donald Trump has signed yet another sweeping proclamation restricting entry from 12 countries -- many of them conflict-ridden or economically fragile -- while partially limiting nationals from seven others. Citing national security and public safety threats, Trump has cast the net wider than ever, echoing the contours of his earlier “Muslim Ban,” now with an expanded scope and a more forceful tone.

This isn’t new terrain for Trump. During his first term, similar restrictions drew fire globally but were upheld by the US Supreme Court. His justification remains consistent: protecting American citizens from "aliens" with alleged hostile intent or ideological extremism. This time, the recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, seems to have offered him the political ammunition to reassert his hardline immigration stance.

For India, and for nations observing the evolution of US foreign policy, this move highlights a persistent contradiction. The countries now barred or restricted -- from Afghanistan and Iran to Venezuela and Sudan -- have had varied relationships with Washington, often transactional, sometimes turbulent. In many cases, these same nations were once recipients of US aid, military support, or geopolitical backing. Afghanistan, for instance, bore the brunt of US intervention for two decades; Libya was once courted as a partner in counterterrorism; Iran’s rollercoaster relationship with Washington has swung between rapprochement and ruin. And now, they stand blacklisted.

For Indians who track US immigration patterns with intense interest -- particularly students, professionals, and families with diaspora links -- the implications are more than academic. Trump’s new proclamation doesn’t target India, but the principle behind the move raises red flags. The message is blunt: ideology and identity can override individual merit or due process when national security becomes the catch-all rationale. It also reopens the debate on how vetting processes are politicised and selectively enforced.

Globally, the move reinforces the narrative of an insular America, where fortress-like policies overshadow the country’s founding ideals of openness and pluralism. While Trump’s supporters hail it as strength, critics warn it chips away at America's soft power -- its global image as a destination of opportunity and freedom.

In essence, Trump’s proclamation is less about immediate threat mitigation and more about domestic posturing. But for the barred nations and their citizens -- and for the rest of the world watching -- the wall has indeed grown taller, both literally and metaphorically.