International Travel Demand to the US Should Be an Enormous Concern

Government Regulation

With so much uncertainty surrounding travel and visa policies for people coming to the US, demand has unsurprisingly started to drop. If I’m a US-based airline, this is one of the most concerning potential issues out there today.

Since Trump’s election, business sentiment has been broadly positive with hopes and dreams of loosened regulation, lowered taxes, unicorns, and rainbows without any harm being done elsewhere. That’s nice, but it’s also ignoring the elephant in the room. Trump made a pledge to tighten up on immigration, and open borders are tightly tied with travel demand. His early attempts to fulfill that promise have been sloppy and problematic, causing a tremendous amount of fear and uncertainty around the globe. If it continues that way, this could quickly wipe out any potential gains from business-friendly tax and regulatory policies.

We all know that when the White House hastily announced a ban on travel to the US from 7 predominantly-Muslim countries, chaos followed. It was unclear whether existing green card/visa holders were allowed back and whether this was temporary or not. It wasn’t long before the judiciary stepped in to block some of the most visible policy changes, but damage had already been done.

According to a study of travel agent booking data from ForwardKeys, bookings for travel to the US dropped sharply in the 8 days following the signing of the executive order.

Naturally, travel from those 7 countries tanked with new bookings down 80 percent. But more concerning is the impact that this has had on travelers from countries where there weren’t any changes to policy.

Globally (excluding China due to year-over-year issues with holiday timings) in the 8 days since the ban first went into place, inbound bookings to the US dropped 6.5 percent compared to the same period a year prior. Outside of the Middle East, hardest hit were bookings from Asia/Pacific ex-China (down 14 percent), Western Europe (down 13.6 percent), and Northern Europe (down 6.6 percent.) Here’s a graphic from the report that shows the various regions.

Another way to look at this is based on forward bookings. Right before the ban went into effect, global bookings to the US were up 3.4 percent for the following three months compared to the year before. Just 8 days later, bookings were up only 2.3 percent for the following three months.

Some of this slowdown could, of course, be attributed to the initial shock of the order. Maybe things will rebound, but it’s clear the Trump administration isn’t done tinkering here. There will be more restrictions coming on travel to the US, and that means the perception that the US is closed for business will spread. This could have a far-reaching and long-lasting impact on demand.

Won’t this hurt foreign carriers more than US carriers since US carriers are more likely to carry US passengers who aren’t impacted? First, I suppose it’s important to point out that US travelers may very well be impacted in the future. Some countries retaliate when this kind of thing happens. (Remember Argentina’s “reciprocity” fee?) But even forgetting about that, the US carriers will still feel the pain.

Remember, the US airlines have spent a great deal of time forging joint ventures with foreign airlines. If Air France/KLM/Alitalia/Virgin Australia/Aeromexico/Virgin Atlantic suffer, so does Delta. If British Airways/Iberia/Finnair/JAL/maybe LATAM/maybe Qantas suffer, so does American. And if Lufthansa Group/Air Canada/ANA/Air New Zealand suffer, so does United. Beyond that, Alaska/Virgin America and JetBlue are heavily dependent upon foreign airlines feeding people on to domestic flights. If those dry up, those airlines will certainly see demand drop.

Fortunately for airlines, their assets are airplanes, and airplanes can move. But there is already overcapacity in the Atlantic today. If demand starts to shrivel further globally, then there won’t be a lot of places to move those airplanes. Sure they could shift some flying back into the domestic market, but there’s only so much capacity domestic markets can absorb. And that means even Southwest, which has the least global exposure in the US, would start to hurt from excess capacity moving back home. In a worst case scenario, airlines could simply decided to start retiring older widebodies instead of flying them at a loss, if things get bad enough.

It is early to start predicting doomsday scenarios like that one, but there is just no clarity on what the administration is going to do next. What is clear is that Trump isn’t done trying to slow immigration, and that will hurt broader travel demand. If the orders continue to implemented like the last one, the pain will be even more pronounced.

Get Posts via Email When They Go Live or in a Weekly Digest

70 comments on “International Travel Demand to the US Should Be an Enormous Concern

  1. This would be a great article to pair with your earlier series on US airlines’ fleets. If this does represent more than a blip in demand trends, then the carriers with the largest order books and the most aircraft-related debt will be in the least advantageous position.

  2. Problem is that these surveys don’t normalize for other factors including the stronger dollar.

    On a year over year basis, the dollar is stronger than it was a year ago for many currencies… with notable exceptions such as from some countries of S. America…. not surprisingly, travel from the Americas is stronger.

    Yes, there was a shock factor and some people did sit out the booking process waiting to see what would happen.

    But most Europeans don’t need visas to enter the US and there was nothing in what the White House did that affected European tourism to the US.

    OTOH, it is clear that the Middle East countries were hit hard and that is exactly where the impact of the visa/entry restrictions would be most seen.

    As for Argentina and their reciprocity fee, they and other countries realized that it was only hurting tourism to the US so they suspended it. Other countries relaxed their visa restrictions for Americans hoping the US would do the same.

    There are plenty of reasons to debate the political aspects of Trump policies but if economic reasons are used, they have to accurately look at the issue and recognize that there are lots of moving parts including currency fluctuations and other travel documentation changes that have been going on long before Trump’s policies were announced.

    1. Europeans may not need visas to enter the US, but when former Prime Minister of Norway is held and interrogated by CBP, it sends a strong message to all Europeans.

          1. Not only was Turkey not part of the short-lived 7 country travel ban, it is as much European as part of the Middle East and many Turks do not see Turkey as part of the Middle East.

            Ugur Mumcu, investigative journalist and sometime philosopher, famously quoted a magazine that described Turks as, (my translation) “A person who is married according to Swiss civil law, punished according to Italian criminal law, tried in accordance with German statutes, administered according to French administrative law, and buried in accordance with Islamic law.”  I don’t speak for most Turks, but I have come to believe they see themselves as the red-headed step children of Europe.

      1. Exactly this.

        Moreover, Trump insists that more countries will come under the ban, and further insists on creating a new Executive Order to replace his illegal one. No one wants to buy tickets for months from now while they’re seeing countries seemingly irrationally being banned from travel to the US.

        If you were planning on visiting the UK and they suddenly banned Mexico from travel out of nowhere and with no clear event to cause such a ban, you’d probably hold off blowing a few grand on hotels and airplane tickets and may just choose to go to someplace else instead.

        1. Drumpf, it’s clear you have a limited and incorrect understanding about the Presidents temporary travel restriction from certain countries. Countries are not being banned. Neither are the people in them, so stop making up rubbish.

    2. Tim, another problem is that these surveys don’t account for the fact that many, many people in Europe (and around the world) look at that man in the WH & the gang of thugs he has surrounded himself with & have decided that they would rather visit pretty much anyplace else rather than be subject to whatever sort of shakedown the US govt. decides to impose. Of course, there is an untapped skinhead market in many of these countries, so perhaps a “Strength through Joy” promotion would help the travel industry…

  3. Correlation does not imply causation. I know that it seems everyone wants to pile on Trump and blame him for everything but I hardly think a temporary travel ban (which has been blocked) is the reason bookings from western europe are down. Of the 7 countries that Trump put travel bans on I hardly think that US tourist destinations like Orlando and Las Vegas were concerned nor were Fortune 500 US businesses. This is sensationalism at its best. Yesterday I read that a Canadian school was putting any school trips to the US on hold due to “political instability.” Oh please.

    1. You’re definitely right.

      Clearly the actions of the President of the United States of America have zero impact on people’s desire to go to the United States or their view of the United States as a place to spend their money.

      Clearly.

      Just like Putin’s actions i presume have zero impact on your desire to travel to Russia anytime soon, or to invest money in russian business.

      1. Actually, tourism to Russia is up considerably, particularly among Asian visitors, who view it as a safer, more secure place to travel than the rest of Europe.

        A tourist bus full of South Koreans was robbed this week in Paris; it’s front-page news in South Korean media. Last year tourists from Hong Kong were attacked with an axe on a German train. Western Europe is increasingly perceived by Asians – who, by the way, are some of the world’s most prolific and free-spending travelers – as unsafe. Incidents like that hurt much more than what any one politician is or isn’t doing, and things are only going to get worse in Europe in the coming years as the native population ages and the “guests” they invited to replace them flex their muscles.

        As for western Europeans, they routinely holiday in places like Tunisia, Egypt, Kenya, the Maldives, and the Gambia, all of which have experienced considerable unrest in the last several years. The drop in bookings from them is likely a reactionary dip, but they’ve proven again and again that they’ll be back once they perceive things have stabilized.

        1. I have to agree with Paul. Early last week I was robbed for the first time in my life in Copenhagen in broad daylight by a gang of east Europeans. They told me the city was one of the safest in Europe before I went. Guess where i am not going in the future any time soon?

          As a statistician i can tell you that all the other points raised here are valid. When we have more data–say 4-6 weeks from now we’ll be able to figure out if it’s mostly those other factors or stuff that the WH is doing.

    2. I totally agree with you. People have totally over-reacted it’s called being guided by fear. In a week’s time the ban was (temporarily) lifted…..and, sorry, I don’t take it as a “Muslim” ban but just as President Trump calls it, for National Security. Who else but Muslims live in these 7 countries in the first place, with few exceptions, but Muslims ! ?….so right away people want to call it a Muslim or religious ban instead of what it actually is. I’ll say it out loud,…the majority of terrorists are in and have come out of Middle Eastern countries – the fact that their major religion is Muslim or Islam is factual, not something people should have to ignore in the name of being “politically correct” and then riot and hold banners to protest while continuing to hold the door open in the name of humanity.

      1. If it were really about security, he’d have banned people from Saudi Arabia. More terrorists have come from there than any other country as I recall.

        1. Not true. We have amazing cooperation with the policing bodies in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia so we can get a better picture of someones history when entering the US.

          I guess Rachel Maddow forgot to include Comey’s statements to Congress that we have a hard time vetting people from Syria, for example, and that the process is not as well oiled and proper as other countries.

    3. There’s a number of issues such as high healthcare and accident insurance costs as well as a high dollar. However, the suddenness of Trump’s ban, plus the arbitrariness (the countries banned weren’t the ones where most terrorists came from), would make most people think twice about coming to the US till things come a bit clearer. The reasoning being that it’s easy to put off a trip to the US for now, go somewhere else cheaper and more welcoming this year, and then see how things pan out after a year of Trump’s Presidency. Thus, if it looks like the first few weeks of the new administration were just some newbie missteps, and it all calms down, and Trump can get the US dollar down to stimulate exports, and people aren’t worried about last minute visa changes, travel to the US could surge next year.

    4. I’m late getting into this discussion, but it’s been a long week…

      A – So if you see a dramatic drop in bookings in the week after the travel ban has been announced, what would you say caused it if not the ban? This sliced and diced the info in several ways and it’s clear there’s a short term hit. What the long term impact will be is unclear since nobody knows what’s coming next, but there is certainly an impact with these kinds of actions and uncertainty.

    5. Now it is hindsight but the “edict” was startling in it’s immediacy – for a country which has
      had a reputation for hospitality. Just slam the doors shut without warning. The message is “what door next.”

  4. Is cutting capacity and parking less efficient airplanes really a problem in the medium to long term? DL, AA, and UA have all been doing that domestically for years and they are arguably as strong as ever. Schedules can easily be changed for flights that are over 4 months or so from now, and fares will just change to match capacity.
    Also, while the -37% from the middle east is significant (although maybe not in absolute passenger numbers, just %), the other numbers could be caused by other things such as other economic issues, currency values, changing airlines/routes/capacity, Brexit for north Europe, and many other factors. Not to say that the travel ban doesn’t play into this, but just that it is very hard to attribute changes in booking numbers only on it without looking at many other factors.

    1. The article already focuses on the bookings shortly prior to the ban as well as after the ban, in addition to the year-over-year numbers.

      Maybe I’m not aware of any other sudden economic events during that same time frame that are affecting those global travel numbers. Silly lib media must be sittin’ on that.

      1. Even if the ban was not blocked by the courts, it was originally only a 90 day ban and it also happened in the dead of winter. Inbound travel to the US in the winter is heavily foreign point of sale while the opposite is true in the summer.

        There are 5.4% more seats between the US and Europe in the 3rd quarter of 2017 compared to 2016 but there 3.5% more seats this winter compared to winter 2016. Notably, though, the US airlines are leading the reductions this winter because low European fares due to a weak Euro mean US carriers can’t be near as profitable. In contrast, the biggest growth in seats offered is by the low cost carriers – Norwegian, Air Berlin, Wow etc…. and there is no way at this point of knowing that they will successfully fill all of the seats they are offering or at what price it will take to do that.

        There are massive changes taking place in the marketplace that were having a larger impact on changes in capacity and demand long before Trump announced his order.

        Again, the Americas saw an increase in bookings which makes no sense if the sole factor is immigration.

        It is far too early to jump to conclusions about what drove a drop in bookings – even for a short period of time and not even from every global region.

        1. Not everyone buys their tickets within 90 days. Family / leisure travel in particular is booked 90+ days out. A short term travel ban came with no warning, which is what concerns reasonable-minded people. Travelers who booked travel 6 months ago, who had everything ready and followed the rules suddenly found themselves having spent their hard earned cash on flights and hotels, but were suddenly and without prior notice banned from travel due to no action of their own and no specific event to identify as a cause, beyond the assumption of office of a new Dear Leader.

          I do appreciate your continued focus on the YoY numbers while entirely disregarding (now twice) the forward-looking numbers referenced in the article shortly before and after the ban.

          I’ll leave with this. While you may refuse to acknowledge reality, the airlines most certainly are. If they did not believe there would be a negative impact on travel to the United States, they would have supported the ban. Regardless of who is *directly* impacted, the lack of notice and inability to point to any specific event or particular reason for the immediacy of the ban, it indicates instability. And that’s before a reasonable person would even factor in the way it was rolled out.

          If I were a European and looking at summer travel, why waste your time dealing with moving goalposts in the US? I’d just go to Canada, Mexico, Cuba, or the various EU overseas territories instead, and just come to the US when there’s some stability.

          1. I’m not doubting that there are people who have concerns about the current resident of the WH and they are trying to figure out what that means to their futures…. that is true on Wall Street, Mexico City, and in plants across China.

            But simply citing a year over year statistic that isn’t adjusted for the change in bookings that was already taking place doesn’t tell the whole story and without the whole story and all of the facts, there is no way of being able to know the full extent of what the travel ban has done.

            And even if the travel ban had a short-term effect on bookings, there is no way of knowing what the longer term effect might be because the courts ended the ban. Further, the airlines didn’t carry a certain number of people because of the ban but then it is certain that there are people who did fly once the ban was lifted by the courts. It is poor work to pick out the one data point that validates the conclusion you want to see without looking at the whole picture. There is a more permanent reworking of the admissions processes for US visitors – but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that it hasn’t happened before including under other administrations.

            Airlines don’t want ANYTHING that has the potential to depress demand and so are going to voice concern… but the flip side is that capacity was ALREADY increased for the summer travel season before the travel ban went into effect. The currency changes have made Europe and many other foreign destinations cheaper for Americans but they don’t travel internationally in the winter so US airlines have shifted a great deal of capacity – which not only effects the number of bookings but also means that they didn’t expect to get some of this demand now from foreigners but are planning to get it later this year from Americans.

            The hysteria is vastly overblown. There is no instability that affects anyone entering the US outside of people who are from or have been to the countries that were identified or who were, as noted, thinking they might come work in the US – although there has been NO CHANGE in policies regarding US work permits – which are already very hard to get.

            In case you missed it, there are lots of Brits in Europe whose work future is unclear while there are many EU citizens in the UK whose work situation is also unclear.

            We all can find anecdotal evidence to support our position. There simply is way too much hysteria, not enough real data, and a lack of a long-term policy to know if this is more than just a blip on a radar.

            1. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/three-bills-and-a-trump-executive-order-train-their-gun-sights-on-the-h1b-visa/

              Quote…”While the wording on the draft doesn’t reveal too many details about possible changes in the H1B, it does apparently propose numerous changes to many of the other visas that are important to the tech community such as J1 (summer work travel), the Optional Practical Training (OPT, which allows international students to stay in the US after graduating), and the E2 program (an investor visa).

              Also going under the presidential knife is the L1 visa, which allows a foreign worker to transfer from an office abroad to the same company’s US branch. Now, an applicant will be subjected to site visits within six months by Homeland Security. Within two years, there will be mandatory on-site checking for all employment-related visa programs.” … unquote.

  5. Anecdotally, I have friends in Europe rethinking plans for travel to the US. Some were interested in combining vacationing with scoping out opportunities for post-graduate employment, but with chatter of “America first” work visa policies, they are saying “Why bother”?

    Anyone observing the numbers involved in marches counter to Trump and Trump-like policies outside of the US should at least raise the question if Trumps policies or even perceptions of those policies could negatively impact the US travel industry. Am looking forward to further analysis.

  6. I think the more heavily traveled summer season will give a better picture of how things will really be effected.

  7. We should never place economics before security.

    While the roll out of restrictions was certainly clumsy, ultimately if placing additional levels of immigration controls has a national security benefit so be it.

    Liberal border controls for sake of profits is simply wrong, and not something that should ever be part of the government’s equation.

    1. If security was the reason behind the Muslim ban, Saudi Arabia would have been #1 on the list followed by the entire Bin Ladin family.

        1. How about Tunesia. Xmas truck attacker in Berlin was Tunesian. How about Afghanistan? How good are their information systems?

    2. How many Americans were killed in the US last year by citizens of the seven countries?

      How many Americans were killed in the US last year by US citizens?

      Maybe an export rather than import ban might be appropriate?

      1. Or rather, the rest of the world should introduce background checks. Want to drive to Canada and own a gun (not have a gun with you)? Sorry, too dangerous. The FBI will certainly assist with gun registration records, right?

    3. I see you have been drinking the “anything for national security” Kool Aid.

      Arbitrarily denying entry to people who already obtained visas, some of which have been living in the US for years, does nothing for natural security. It’s just fear-mongering.

  8. Wait till the next shoe drops.

    The Visa Waiver/ESTA programs are a big weakness.

    During Obama administration, there was growing concern about these programs and fact that many folks holding ‘friendly’ passports yet radicalized can enter the US without much scrutiny creating a very dangerous loophole.

  9. I think travel is going to take a “huge” hit in the next few years. Not just international travel, ever our own, domestic. It seems just about everyone is spooked about something, whether the foreigners we know, the ones we aren’t sure of, and those crazy (they didn’t my way) fellow passengers…and our beloved flight crews!

  10. I would expect here in Australia we’ll see an uptick in visitors from China and other Asia-Pacific countries, who may have been looking to travel to the US and have changed plans for whatever reason.

    I’ll avoid all the rhetoric flying around the current administration but the underlying conversation here has been, “let’s take advantage of the US becoming more insular.” There’s serious economic benefits to doing so in a range of industries, not least travel.

  11. Lets not lose sight of fact that entry to any nation is not a right, but a privilege.

    The US along with any nation is fully within their rights to place any immigration restrictions or border controls they deem appropriate regardless of popular opinion.

    I would very much rather err on the side of caution and have the government clamp down on entry requirements than look the other way due fear of upsetting the economics of the travel industry.

    1. There was no “caution” involved here. If Trump had been at all concerned with national security, he would have placed restrictions on the countries that actually have a history of producing terrorists.

      This was nothing more than an attempt to pander to Christian evangelicals by making it look like the government is getting tough on Muslims.

  12. I agree that things like ESTA and Visa Waiver Program are huge loopholes just waiting to be exploited.

    Obama admin was too afraid to upset the status quo, but I can very much see these programs either get tossed out entirely or reworked significantly.

    1. Problem is that would make it harder for those who legitimately want to go to the US for legitimate purposes. My country has a lot of immigrants living in the US and many are fearing for their lives because of increasing immigration restrictions (ironically, apparently a large percentage of them supported Trump).

  13. Enormous concern?

    What should be of enormous concern is US national security first and foremost, not worrying about the plight of foreign parties, or specific industries.

    I have no issues barring visitors from failed states, or nations hostile to the US that cannot or will not share intelligence with the US regarding their citizens.

    1. While security does come first it is clear to the rest of the world and anyone with common sense that this ban was intended to single out a group of people for their religion.
      If you don’t see it that way you are naive or have short-term memory loss and missed everything Trump and his ilk said on the campaign trail.
      I am a physician and there are THOUSANDS of doctors from overseas training and working in our country (including people from those 7 countries). This has directly impacted people in the healthcare system for no good reason.
      I am not trying to change your mind or anyone else’s but this ban was clearly unconstitutional in its intent (as supported by the courts).

    2. Ironically, this executive order is only going to hurt national security, by giving the terrorists a great recruiting tool.

      Zero actual terrorists were impacted by the order, but it sent a message throughout the world that America is an irrational, racist country. ISIS will definitely be using that to their advantage.

  14. I’m amazed that Americans only think this “might” be an issue. It’s already an issue, things are already getting cancelled. I offer up “Agile Testing Days” which a friend of mine was set to attend (and speak at). Cancelled, due to political uncertainty in the US. https://agiletestingdays.us/

    One of our heads of software development was to travel to the US for a corporate meeting, however, he holds dual Iranian/Canadian citizenship, and had been advised to not even attempt it.

      1. Your comment is far from the truth unfortunately. The US CBP have been refusing people WITH the correct paperwork, if they also have dual citizenship to a banned country. Heck, the US has even denied overflight on Canada-Europe flights to citizens of one the 7 banned countries.

        From a global perspective, the US is a complete crapshoot right now, and that’s why business is very very cautious.

  15. Perhaps one of the most definitive responses to the question about travel comes from United Airlines in their investor presentation filed with the SEC just yesterday

    “Monitoring impact of travel ban but no material impact to date”
    “Strong US point of sale demand helping offset international point of sale declines”
    page 6 under Atlantic here
    http://ir.united.com/~/media/Files/U/United-Continental-IR/events-and-presentations/presentations/2017/stifel-presentation-2017.pdf

    1. I think that’s fair enough. Also, where the US is now is a redult of the Democratic process. Most electors in the US should have been aware of what Trump was going to do. So, sure, there’s going to be some changes. Voter turnout was pretty low, so those who didn’t like what Trump was going to do should have gone out to vote, and/or campaigned against him. I didn’t see travel agents and airlines expressing any concerns during the campaign, so presumably they thought it would not matter that much.

      No point complaining after the election, and as your link says, maybe it’s no big deal.

    2. Tim – But what United is saying is that there absolutely is an impact. There is a decrease in international point-of-sale traffic. It’s just that for now there’s enough US point-of-sale traffic to backfill. Whether that continues or for how long is certainly not clear, but there is a real impact on international demand.

  16. ?Oliver –Is that the only link you have –from 2015? This is not what is happening today. Try looking at 2017 news.

  17. Another anecdotal data point – we live in a part of the US with a significant number of expats. During the summer, their families and friends from overseas often come to visit. Over the last few weeks, there’s been quite a bit of discussion amongst our friends that many of those trips won’t happen this year because of the uncertainty surrounding visa/entry policies and regulations, not to mention the current political climate.

  18. An American living in France, I was planning a fall trip to New England with a French friend. The day after the election she called up and said “how about we do Quebec instead?” Since I had never been to Quebec either, that’s what we’ll do. Multiply that and you get a 13% decline in reservations from Western Europe by people who are not (yet) affected by Trump’s ban. This has come during the prime period for getting transatlantic tickets for the summer.

  19. For those of you saying the ESTA/Visa Waiver Provisions should be changed, why would you block perfectly innocent, friendly tourists from holidaying and spending money in the US? There are many of us in countries approved for ESTA/Visa Waiver Provisions who are zero threat to the United States. We have no Islamic ties at all. Why make it harder for us? Getting a regular US visa is a pain in the rear end. The ESTA is one step towards making it slightly more amenable. The US already has one of the tightest immigration regimes in the world. I know of no other country where I have to be fingerprinted to enter a nation, but that is required when I enter the US, even on ESTA. It’s actually quite scary to those of outside the US that the US government feels they have the right to keep so many details about us.

    Anecdotally, I have noticed that airfares to the US from New Zealand are super cheap at the moment. Perhaps the airlines have to fill aircraft as people aren’t travelling to the US so much?

    1. There are many countries that fingerprint foreigners.. In some cases it is directed at Americans based on reciprocity but that isn’t always the case.

      I agree that ESTA works and shouldn’t be changed – and there is no reason for it to be changed.

      In all of this discussion, lots of people forget that every country has the sovereign right to control what and who flows in and out of its borders.
      Trump is making a lot of noise but there have been tightening border controls in many parts of the world for years. France is at a far higher state of emergency controls than the US and they have been operating that way for far longer and with impact on more countries of the world.

      Rightful, legitimate tourism is foundational to modern democratic economies and it will continue. There are quickly shifting worldviews in play right now and it will take time not just for the US but also the rest of the world to come to grips with those changes. I suspect that there will be more countries that will follow the UK and the US with more restrictive views of their connections to the world because there will be ample evidence that the hype regarding actions on both sides of the Atlantic won’t turn into much for the right people over the long term even while achieving the goals of better controls of what and who is moving in and out of those countries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!