Now, why ever would we do that?:
For now, the administration is rejecting calls for a visa ban for West Africans. “I don’t believe that’s something we’re considering,” a State Department spokeswoman told reporters. Health officials have described the Texas case, in which Mr. Duncan exhibited symptoms but was released from a hospital for two days, as a fluke misstep.
Calls for a travel ban extend back to the summer, when the disease first started to spread in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Rep. Alan Grayson, Florida Democrat, was one of the earliest to propose restrictions, calling for a 90-day ban on travel from Ebola-touched countries to the U.S.
“If they’d instituted the travel ban when Alan Grayson, of all people, demanded it, [Duncan] wouldn’t be here,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies…
Ace points out more:
I can’t help noticing that when the president doesn’t want to take an action, like banning travel from infected countries, the media is eager to report his claim that ebola’s spread in the US is “unlikely;” but then, after ebola does spread in the US, the same media rushes in to absolve him of blame, claiming ebola’s spread to be “inevitable.”
“Unlikely,” “inevitable.” Rather different words, aren’t they?
Obama (and the political class) do not want to shut down travel from West Africa for the same reason abortion extremists insist that it’s okay to perform post-birth abortions.
Because giving an inch on the extreme case — even giving an inch on the most indefensible part of your agenda — is thought to create some momentum against the more defensible parts of your agenda.
They don’t want to give an inch on partial-birth abortions because they don’t want to give an inch on non-partial-birth abortions.
In the case of a West Africa travel ban, this could create some small amount of political momentum, as Krikorian suggests, towards controlling our borders in other cases — for example, controlling illegal immigration at our southern border.
I had noticed that, too. Ever since the Duncan story broke, on various news shows the liberal talking heads have been shrugging and saying that Ebola’s spread to this country couldn’t have been stopped. Absurd. It’s true that we can’t be certain it would have been 100% stopped, but its arrival here certainly could have been made less “inevitable” (or greatly delayed) by a travel ban. Instead, it was made inevitable by the lack of one.
I agree with Ace that Obama and his supporters don’t want to limit people coming to this country, for political reasons. The arrivals are their tickets to permanent Democratic power, which is more important than anything else, including the health of the nation.
Their lack of an effective reaction to the threat is a combination of strategic political calculation (although it could backfire on them) and simple incompetence.
In other words, as is often the case, knaves and fools.
[ADDENDUM: Speaking of “lack of an effective reaction,” you’d think the CDC might have a protocol in place for dealing with the apartment in which the Ebola patient got sick. A plan, a recommendation, a team approach? Surely this might have been foreseen, and contingency plans developed?
Apparently not; the director of the CDC says they’re still sorting out the approach to dealing with the toxic waste that’s been hanging around the apartment—with the people confined inside—for several days now:
“It’s the first time we’re having Ebola in this country and the challenges are real in terms of what do you do with the waste, how do you move it, how do you dispose of it and we want to make sure that everything is done correctly,” Frieden said. “I’m confident that will get sorted out today.”
I’m glad he’s confident. The rest of us can be forgiven for having our doubts.]
