President Trump’s draft travel ban list includes Bhutan as a ‘red’ country, raising concerns despite the nation’s focus on happiness and sustainability. While other nations on the list have long-standing diplomatic tensions with the U.S., Bhutan’s inclusion appears linked to a high overstay rate among its nationals. The label invites scrutiny of U.S. immigration policies and highlights Bhutan’s historical challenges regarding citizenship and cultural identity.
President Trump’s draft travel ban list has generated considerable intrigue, particularly with the inclusion of Bhutan, a nation renowned for its emphasis on happiness. The list categorizes countries based on their access status to the United States: the ‘red’ countries face an outright ban, while ‘orange’ and ‘yellow’ countries face varying degrees of restrictions and review. Bhutan’s categorization as ‘red’ amidst countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria raises questions given its peaceful reputation and commitment to Gross National Happiness.
Bhutan, located in the Himalayas, prioritizes the well-being of its 800,000 residents over traditional economic metrics. The country is the only one to maintain a carbon-negative status, thanks to its substantial forest coverage and endorsement of sustainable practices. Tourism is regulated through a sustainable development fee to mitigate any adverse impacts on its environment and culture, reflecting Bhutan’s dedication to preserving its unique heritage.
However, Bhutan has also faced criticism for its ‘One Nation, One People’ policy, which has led to the marginalization of non-Buddhist groups and significant displacement of its citizens. The U.S. has accepted a large proportion of Bhutanese refugees, particularly Nepali speakers, who fled the nation amid citizenship disputes.
The rationale behind Bhutan’s inclusion on the ‘red list’ is largely speculative. It may stem from an unusually high overstay rate of 12.71% among Bhutanese nationals on visas, raising concerns over irregular migration. While this rate reflects only 23 individuals, the perception of Bhutan as a source of migration issues has been cultivated, particularly when contrasted with much larger countries.
Despite a stable Bhutanese population in the U.S., the potential implications of this categorization are vast. The former Bhutanese politician Karma Loday voiced his concerns regarding the unfair implications of placing Bhutan alongside nations associated with terrorism. This is not the first time Bhutan has confronted adverse immigration policies under the Trump administration, as it had been implicated in previous measures targeting countries with significant visa overstays.
In summary, Bhutan’s unexpected categorization as a ‘red’ country by the Trump administration introduces significant confusion, given its peaceful stance and unique policies promoting happiness. The inclusion seems rooted in overstay statistics and emergent national security concerns rather than any direct threats. Bhutan’s distinct way of life and governance emphasize sustainability, yet its historical issues surrounding citizenship complicate its international standing. The implications of this classification warrant careful consideration from U.S. authorities and policymakers.
Original Source: www.independent.co.uk
