President Trump's Travel Ban Did Nothing

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (36 posts)
  1. crankalicious profile image93
    crankaliciousposted 14 months ago

    President Trump has convinced his followers that he took swift, decisive action to stop the Coronavirus from spreading by banning travel from China.

    Unfortunately, this turns out not to be true. Hundreds of thousands of people flew in directly from China in January and 40,000 flew in from China after the so-called "ban".

    Further, there were no procedures put into place to test incoming passengers, allowing them easily into the United States.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/c … tions.html

    https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-trump … ce0b3.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … china-ban/

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/ … e-further/

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 … hts-china/

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      How many of those coming in AFTER the ban were American citizens, diplomats, scientists working on the virus, etc.?

      Beyond that, how can you tell that dropping the incoming travel from perhaps hundreds of thousands (fleeing China, perhaps) to a fraction of the number did no good?  Isn't it like claiming that the stay at home and social distancing did no good because some people went to spring break, church and other events?

      1. crankalicious profile image93
        crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I'm sure it had some positive effect, like preventing the virus from spreading as quickly. The point is, it wasn't really a ban. I kind of click-baited that forum title. I could have made it more specific. Travel went from about 400,000 in the month of January to 40,000 in the month of February, so it must have done something.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          A "clickbait" title? You? No, say it ain't so.

          GA

          1. crankalicious profile image93
            crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Gets people to read. Isn’t the more important point how many people came into the country from China during the so-called ban?

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, but didn't you already answer that—400,000 to 40,000? One-tenth of the usual number?.

              And didn't Wilderness already point out who was the majority of that 40,000—returning U.S. citizens?

              So, just what was it that you wanted people to read?

              GA

              1. crankalicious profile image93
                crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I'm always amazed by how everything Trump does and says seems to be excused by his supporters. He's touted his ban as some great move, but it really wasn't a ban and quite a number of people from China were still allowed in. Now he's also blamed China, even after he praised President Xi for being so transparent and doing such a good job.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Stick with the point of your "clickbait" title crankalicious.

                  So far, in this thread I haven't seen comments defending Trump, only comments disputing your title's assertion.

                  Even your own comments belie the title. (400,000 down to 40.000, a 90% reduction). Are you defending Trump?

                  Do you believe a 90%, (using your numbers), reduction is "nothing"? And do you think those U.S. citizens in your "quite a number of people" should not have been allowed to return home?

                  GA

                  1. crankalicious profile image93
                    crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    The point is really that Trump has been playing this up as a "ban". It wasn't really a ban. He's been emphasizing how many lives it saved. It's possible it saved some, but what is certain is that had the people entering the U.S. been tested, it could have worked quite well. But because those support service and the logistics of them had been overlooked and ignored, the ban had little effectiveness other than to let infected people from the epicenter of the virus into the U.S without tracking them or quarantining them or limiting their movements in any way.

                  2. crankalicious profile image93
                    crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    60% of those on the flights were not American citizens.

                    The "ban" did not apply to flights from Hong Kong or Macau.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Are you really saying that we should have denied entry to returning Americans?

          Easy to claim that 40,000 Chinese entered the country after the ban - quite another to prove it.

          1. crankalicious profile image93
            crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Had they been tested upon re-entry, things might have been very different. Trump has been touting his "ban" and it was such a great move. In fact, it probably did very little without the support services required to make such a thing effective.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Truly, it seems like you're just wanting to bash Trump (again), and (again) without any reasonable cause.

              The ban (and yes, it was a ban - I asked before how many were American citizens, but you never answered) resulted in a 90% drop in visitors.  A drop that you are assuming, without any evidence whatsoever, did nothing to slow the spread of the virus; in reality it would seem more appropriate to assume that a 90% drop in infected travelers did slow the spread.

              So...just another "Bash Trump" thread, with the same complete lack of reason.

              1. crankalicious profile image93
                crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                How is there a lack of reason? There was no testing of those individuals who entered the U.S. from China? Please read the links.

                60% of the 40,000 were not American citizens.

                Trump has touted the "ban" as being this huge, important decision. In reality, it was, like most of his decisions, made without any consideration of how to actually insure that it would be effective because there was no logistical support or consideration and nobody was tested so that they could be quarantined. From one article:

                “I was surprised at how lax the whole process was,” said Andrew Wu, 31, who landed at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Beijing on March 10. “The guy I spoke to read down a list of questions, and he didn’t seem interested in checking out anything.”

                The idea was a good one. The execution negated any effectiveness. Completely logical.

                Mr. Trump issued his first travel restrictions related to the virus on Jan. 31, one day after the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a global health emergency. In a presidential proclamation, he barred foreign nationals from entering the country if they had been in China during the prior two weeks. The order exempted American citizens, green-card holders and their noncitizen relatives — exceptions roundly recognized as necessary to allow residents to return home and prevent families from being separated. It did not apply to flights from Hong Kong and Macau.

                Notice that last sentence.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Your entire post is dedicated to the idea that a 90% reduction in travel accomplished nothing.  I have to call that a "lack of reason". 

                  You also claim it did nothing because there was no test available to test the incoming people.  Again, a lack of reason, as you cannot back that statement up (that it accomplished nothing).

                  I note that you are now down to 24,000 non-US citizens coming in - that makes it a 94% reduction, still accomplishing nothing.  You haven't said who those people were - scientists working on the virus, WHO or UN members, politicians working with us, people passing through, etc. - just assume that they were none of the above and that the ban applied to them.  Again, a lack of reason.

                  You're also completely ignoring the fact that he was condemned world wide for the action...which was then repeated by other countries as the seriousness became apparent.  Countries that also accomplished "nothing" by doing the same thing?

    2. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      That isn't what I've heard Dr. Fauci say on interviews.

  2. emge profile image78
    emgeposted 14 months ago

    I completely agree with the statement that President Trump's travel ban didn't serve the purpose at all. Thousand of Chinese flew in bringing the virus with them. It was a criminal act by China and sadly 25000 Americans have died. The problem lies not entirely with Trump but with  the previous  presidents who established close social relation with Chinese in the hope of bolstering the economy. You can't build an economy on quick sand . Once this virus is over it will be nteresting to see how Trump will collar the Chinese

    1. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I do agree with the sentiment here. China is a bad actor in the world. However, Trump was pretty quick to praise President Xi and how he was dealing with the virus. Now he's blaming China. Which one is it?

      The reasons for our relationship with China are complicated and partially rely on one big thing: Americans love cheap goods. That said, pretty much all politicians, Dems and Republicans, have had a hand in how we approached China. There are very few differences between them over the years. This is one area I have praised President Trump, for trying to recognize China as a bad actor. However, he seems to go back and forth on that, like in his praise for the Chinese response to the virus.

  3. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 14 months ago

    Apparently Ivanka and Jerrod don't follow their own advice as they traveled by car to New Jersey to celebrate Passover. Of course, the Secret Service had to travel with them and their 3 children which puts them at risk as well.

    "Don't do like I do, just do what I say to do." Reminds me of Ivanka's using an unsecured phone for govt business. Didn't Hillary get lambasted for the same thing?  DOH! yikes

    1. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      When they behave like that, it's no wonder people hate them so much. There's nothing worse than rich people talking up rules for others and not thinking it applies to them.

  4. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 14 months ago

    "Anyone who wants a test can get one." Not true when he said it, and not true now. Spin that for me, Trump enablers!

  5. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 13 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14990425.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)