Mr. Obama made the following statements that don't stand up to critical analysis:
I don't have a philosophical objection necessarily to a travel ban, if that is the thing that is going to keep the American people safe. But the problem is is that in all of the discussions I've had thus far with experts in the field, experts in infectious disease, is that say travel ban is less effective than the measures that we are currently instituting--that involve screening passengers coming from West Africa...The President, an individual with two Ivy-league degrees and skilled in the art of rhetoric, should know well that those statements open him up to being accused of having it both ways. With his statement he concedes that infected (and possibly infectious) individuals "may engage in something called broken travel, essentially breaking up their trip so that they can hide the fact that they have been to one of these countries where there is a disease in place."
...If we institute a travel ban instead of the protocols that we put in place now, history shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance. People do not readily disclose their information. They may engage in something called broken travel, essentially breaking up their trip so that they can hide the fact that they have been to one of these countries where there is a disease in place. And as a result, we may end up getting less information about who has the disease, they are less likely to get treated properly, screened properly, quarantined properly, and as a consequence we could end up having more cases rather than less...
Mr. Obama would have us believe that once a travel ban is instituted, an infected individual will use 'human cunning' to evade the travel ban and get to a treatment facility in the United States. As if the act of a travel ban brings out the creative-evasive thinking in infected individuals. His critical-deficient thinking makes no provisions for realizing that the 'human cunning' exists even without the travel ban. Infected individuals have every incentive now to creatively circumvent the screening process in a country like Liberia. Using cunning like:
- Getting "through airport screenings and onto a plane with a lie and a lot of ibuprofen, according to healthcare experts".
- Presumably, it takes substantial finances to engage "broken travel" from West Africa; thousands of dollars. Is it to far fetch to think for a moment that the same Liberian looking at the substantial cost of paying for an expensive "broken travel" journey to the United States would not think of a less expensive alternative? Like bribing an airport screener to let them on a flight in the world's #1 corrupt country?