Against the law

US President Donald Trump lost two rounds of legal contests over his banning the entry of nationals of seven countries whose populations are mostly Muslim, and all signs indicate that his final round of litigation at the level of Supreme Court will also be lost.

Trump’s legal difficulties arose from the fact that he singled out citizens of some countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Iran, as targets of his ban on grounds that smack of religious discrimination that is repugnant to the US Constitution and international human rights conventions.

If Trump sought a more stringent screening of people entering his country because of terrorism-related fears, he could have adopted a legally safer route by simply calling for screening all incomers, regardless of where they come or what religions they belong to.

This way, he could have achieved his goal of putting people from some countries under closer look and surveillance before being admitted to the US without appearing to be so flagrantly discriminatory.

The US already has in place a visa system that thoroughly vets people of all nationalities before being granted entry into the US. 

Trump might also be unaware of the international implications of his executive order to ban the entry of certain groups of people from entering his country.

The US is a state party to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits all forms of discriminating in all matters.

It is surprising that neither side in the legal context over Trump’s ban bothered to engage this covenant and the jurisprudence that developed over it in pursuing its legal argumentation in favour or against the controversial ban.

This issue needs to be argued and decided on the basis of international human rights conventions, and not on the US constitution alone.