Trump vetting review could lead to 'backdoor' travel ban

The Trump administration has started a global review of vetting procedures used to screen foreign travelers that critics believe could result in a "backdoor travel ban," restricting entry to people from more countries.

The White House has said the aim of President Trump's travel ban, which temporarily suspends most travel from six majority-Muslim countries, is to give the government time to conduct a review of procedures used to screen incoming travelers. The travel ban against those six countries remains blocked by courts, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco last week allowed the administration to move ahead with its review of vetting procedures.

The 70-day review, which began Monday, will examine information provided by all foreign governments about its citizens to ensure the U.S. knows enough about those travelers before allowing them into the country. At the end of the review, Trump may issue a presidential proclamation implementing a wide range of travel restrictions against any country.

Betsy Cooper, a former attorney adviser in the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, said it's critical to conduct occasional reviews of vetting procedures. But she worried this one could lead to a "backdoor travel ban" that could reignite the heated debate over Trump's efforts to limit immigration in the name of national security.

"I think the administration deserves the benefit of the doubt in doing a broad review," said Cooper, now the executive director of the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity at the University of California-Berkeley. "But if this turns out to be a way to shut down immigration again, of closing the border again, then you can expect more litigation."

James Norton, a Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush, expressed similar concern. He said the recent terrorist attacks in Europe show how important it is to review vetting procedures, but warned that imposing further restrictions on foreign travel could undermine Trump's national security goals.

"Every day we're seeing attacks. Everyone wants these things to stop. But the best way to do that is to have a broader coalition to defeat these things," said Norton, now a security consultant in Washington, D.C. "The department needs to work with these countries to share intelligence. For the U.S. to impose an isolationist policy can offer up new challenges."

Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan said the review is needed to raise the "global security bar" in the face of constantly changing threats.

"This is a step forward for (the Department of Homeland Security) and the administration's efforts to protect the country from persons looking to travel here to do harm," Lapan said.

Read more:

Trump administration restarts vetting review called for in travel ban

How Trump's travel ban might prevail in the Supreme Court

DHS: No progress on 'extreme vetting' behind purpose of temporary travel ban

Appeals court rules against President Trump’s revised travel ban

The review will work in two phases.

Homeland Security, the State Department and the intelligence community will spend 20 days analyzing the information that all foreign governments share with the U.S. They will then turn over a report to the White House listing countries that are not sharing enough information.

The countries listed in the report will then have 50 days to negotiate with the U.S. government to be removed from the list. They could do so by sharing more of their criminal and terrorist databases or improving their systems to track stolen or fake passports.

For example, Iraq was one of the country's targeted by Trump's first travel ban signed on Jan. 27 but was removed from the revised travel ban signed on March 6 after negotiations. Iraq was removed because it started sharing more information with the U.S., improved its ability to detect fraudulent travel documents and started accepting Iraqis who had been issued final deportation orders in the U.S.

The review ends by giving Trump the option of issuing a presidential proclamation to "prohibit the entry of appropriate categories of foreign nationals" from countries that do not fully comply with U.S. demands.

Seth Stodder, a former Homeland Security official under the Bush and Obama administrations who focused on targeting terrorist threats, said the U.S. has information-sharing agreements with dozens of trusted countries. For the rest of the world, he said the U.S. relies on informal arrangements with governments to provide information on their citizens as they apply to enter the U.S.

In some cases, Stodder said the countries don't have the ability or the willingness to share that information, meaning the U.S. must use other means to screen people.

"Does Libya have a functioning government that could share information with us? Probably not," he said. "But there's all kinds of other information you can get on people. We have other sources and methods."

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, said some countries willing to cooperate may not have the technological capabilities the U.S. demands. He believes the U.S. should be "realistic in assessing what kind of information and the quality of information they are receiving from other countries."

The big question will be how many more countries face restrictions following the vetting review. Norton said the department could cast a wide net, focusing on friends and foes alike.

The Trump administration has already increased vetting procedures against countries the U.S. is closely allied with, such as the recently-implemented electronics ban on U.S.-bound flights coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey and other nations. Norton said the past several administrations have also been concerned over some of the 38 countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program, which allows most citizens of those countries to travel to the U.S. without obtaining a visa.

"I can see them being put into the mix," he said.

Yale-Loehr said the inclusion of friendly countries could lead to tense negotiations between security-minded officials at Homeland Security and diplomacy-minded officials at the State Department. 

"It may be a hard list to come up with," he said.