Less than six months into his current term in office, President Donald Trump has already imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from eleven countries in North and Sub-Saharan Africa traveling to the United States. In official statements, the Trump Administration has made several arguments for why such country-specific visa and travel restrictions are necessary. On national security grounds, the administration maintains that some countries are failed states, state sponsors of terrorism, and/or have a significant terrorist presence. On other grounds, the administration states that some countries have untrustworthy screening and vetting processes, authorities or governments that refuse or significantly delay accepting the return of their nationals eligible for deportation, and/or nationals who have high overstay rates. The US Congress may want to examine a couple of important things about the recent visa and travel restrictions on African countries. First, it might wish to examine whether the administration has used the correct criteria for imposing visa and travel restrictions on foreign nationals. Second, it might want to examine whether the administration has selected African countries that best match those criteria. In the long run, the US Congress may wish to do more. For example, it may want to consider limiting the broad discretion that the executive branch currently has for imposing visa and travel restrictions. That could be achieved through the creation of a unified statutory framework for visa and travel restrictions.

On unequivocally national security grounds, the Trump Administration has imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from two African countries. The administration has imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from Libya based on the argument that the country has a significant terrorist presence. It has imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from Somalia based on the arguments that the country is a failed state and has a significant terrorist presence. Most of those claims appear to be valid:

On other grounds, the administration has imposed visa and travel restrictions on nationals from eleven African countries. The administration argues that visa and travel restrictions on nationals from Eritrea, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan are necessary because those countries have untrustworthy screening and vetting processes. It argued that visa and travel restrictions on nationals from Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and South Sudan are necessary because authorities in those countries are uncooperative in accepting their nationals who meet the criteria for deportation. And, it has argued that visa and travel restrictions on nationals from Burundi, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, the Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Togo are necessary because those countries have high visa overstay rates. At least some of those claims appear to be valid:

The US Congress may want to consider whether the criteria selected by the Trump Administration are the key factors for imposing visa and travel restrictions on foreign nationals. For example, some argue that the presence of an active conflict should be a key factor in determining whether visa and travel restrictions are imposed on foreign nationals. According to the Global Conflict Tracker, five African countries would match that potential criteria. They include Chad, Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. However, the White House made no mention of the presence of an active conflict in the fact sheet on the recent imposition of visa and travel restrictions on foreign nationals.

Separately, the US Congress may want to consider whether the African countries selected by the Trump Administration are the most appropriate. That is because there appear to be stronger matches for the selected criteria than some of the selected countries:

These discrepancies beg important questions about the coherence, congruence, and consistency of the aforementioned visa and travel restriction determinations.

To address these questions, the US Congress may want to consider requesting the following information from the executive branch:

In the long term, the US Congress may want to consider whether statutory changes and increased oversight are needed for country-specific visa and travel restrictions. For example, the US Congress may want to consider whether it would be beneficial for the legislative branch to limit the discretionary power of the executive branch through:

If so, then the US Congress may want to consider whether to pursue a recodification of the US Code on visa and travel restrictions in the process. That would not only create a unified statutory framework. It would streamline future executive decision-making and Congressional oversight.

(Image: Wikipedia |US Customs and Border Protection)

Michael Walsh is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Africa Program.