Q&A with UNC professor Isaac Unah about Trump travel ban

On Sept. 24, President Donald Trump announced an executive order placing new travel restrictions on eight countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Chad, Venezuela, Yemen and North Korea.

Isaac Unah, a political science professor at UNC, has research and teaching interests in judicial institutions, public policy and bureaucratic behavior. Staff writer Blake Weaver asked Unah about the new executive order.

The Daily Tar Heel: Please explain the ban generally.

Isaac Unah: The recent travel ban essentially does a couple of things. One is that the administration added three more countries to the list of countries for which there are going to be restrictions of their citizens traveling to the United States. The three countries added are North Korea, Venezuela and the country of Chad, which is in the western part of Africa. I should also mention that the administration took out from the original list of countries the nation of Sudan, which is kind of surprising to a lot of people.

DTH: What is the difference between this ban and the previous bans?

IU: So it is unclear why Chad was actually included. Obviously, that is something that will have to be fleshed out in due course. The addition of Chad is just kind of strange. If there is any different element in the overall program of preventing certain individuals from coming into the United States, I think the Chadian dimension is the most different to actually fathom.

DTH: What is the rationale for selecting these nations?

IU: I’ll just go by what the administration says: their explanation is that these countries have not provided adequate information to U.S. authorities about what they are doing to actually make sure that their citizens traveling to the United States will not pose a security risk.

DTH: Has there been hostile action from individuals from these countries (North Korea excluded)?

IU: The answer to your question is no — not to my knowledge. There has not really been any kind of terrorist activity that has been perpetrated by citizens of these various countries in the United States. The American people have not been shown any kind of evidence that citizens from these countries pose and resemble any kind of danger to the security of the United States. We just don’t know what the evidence is.

DTH: What role is the Supreme Court playing in all of this?

IU: I know that there have been cases making their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Different judges have ruled at the lower court level that the travel ban is unconstitutional. There have been airports that revised the travel ban by the administration. Some courts have sided with the administration. I think ultimately the Supreme Court will have to make a statement on this, but that statement is not yet made, as far as I know.

DTH: What does the Constitution say about the president’s power to restrict immigration?

IU: The president does have a great deal of authority when it comes to international affairs. So the president can suddenly issue an executive order that affects immigration issues, that affects international politics. Of course, as with executive orders, they are temporary because the next president can come along and basically undo those executive orders. The president does have significant authority under the constitution to address issues of national security, issues of foreign affairs. Of course, what the president does has to be based on perceived threats to the United States.

DTH: Does this action make Americans safer?

IU: I think it is questionable that it actually makes Americans safer. The individuals that are thinking of doing harm to the United States are using this executive order as a recruitment tool. We just really don’t know. My feeling is that the policy actually is being used to recruit potential individuals or individuals that might potentially harm us.

@Cblakeweaver

state@dailytarheel.com