The so-called disease control "experts" (the World Health Organization's "experts" have already botched the containment of west African Ebola) are against travel bans to or from affected countries.
President Obama is also against any flight bans. He's a fine one to talk since he isn't enforcing existing immigration laws or securing the borders, thereby allowing people with diseases to enter.
One argument is that such a ban will prevent needed medical supplies and physicians from getting to affected areas. Another is that it will cause people to flee affected areas in other ways.
Those are ridiculous arguments.
It is doubtful that a flight ban to or from Ebola-affected countries would also include special humanitarian flights with medical supplies, etc. An exception would or should be made there.
Also, it is bogus to say that banning flights will cause people to "flee" in other ways.
In order for someone to enter another country, they would have to produce a valid passport. The border guards will check passports of people to see where they've been by the stamps. If someone tries to hide where they've been by tearing out any stamped pages, they then can be refused entry. They can also be screened for Ebola at the border crossings just like at the airports.
If someone is hell-bent on entering this country, nothing we can do will prevent them from doing so. But why make it easier to allow someone with Ebola to come in and infect the American people?
No comments:
Post a Comment