Travel ban dispute a waste of effort

There’s been so much unpredictability surrounding the candidacy and fledgling presidency of Donald Trump that forecasting the final standing of his controversial travel ban — and its legal challenge from the state of Hawaii — seems a fool’s errand.

But this much can be said: The president’s pursuit of this policy ultimately amounts to a loss of valuable time, resources and energy. All of these have been diverted from where they belong — strengthening the vetting of those who want entry into the U.S.

Doug Chin, Hawaii’s attorney general, on Wednesday successfully argued before U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson to block this latest attempt. An earlier executive order, similarly stymied by a federal court, had been revised and redeployed.

Hours before it was to have taken effect, Watson decided the administration’s fixes were insufficient, citing Trump’s campaign-trail statements about a “Muslim ban” and other remarks as evidence of discriminatory intent.

He applied a new temporary restraining order on the amended executive order, which had sought a 90-day halt to admitting nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, and a 120-day stop on all refugees brought into the U.S.

Shortly thereafter, a Maryland judge did essentially the same thing on a separate challenge mounted from that state. The decision by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang was narrower in that the stay was only on the travel ban for the foreign nationals; Watson’s ruling up-ended the entire executive order.

The administration has said it will appeal; it’s still unclear where that path may lead. But it does go uphill, from a political standpoint. Trump may still face a 4-4 split on the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not bode well for his chances of overturning the lower courts.

On the one hand, an appeal would bring the benefit of clarity in a murky question. There are federal statutes defining the executive prerogative on immigration policy that are in apparent conflict. A ruling spelling out more precisely any limitations on executive power would be valuable.

But in the meantime, even those who share Trump’s basic outlook on homeland security should be concerned that all the judicial battling is siphoning away the potential for advance of that agenda. The administration should cut its losses.

Step 1 would be to answer the question: How well would a travel ban work in improving security? The history of random, one-off acts of terrorism suggests limits on its effectiveness, at best. Some of the more recent criminals either emigrated from countries other than the restricted six or are U.S. citizens or legal residents who became radicalized here.

Given the lack of direct connections, the effort and resources would be better invested in a plan to improve the examination of immigration and tourist-visa applications from these countries. Vetting is already stringent, but if the administration is devising ways of tightening it, officials should bring forth details and reassure the public.

Critics of Wednesday’s ruling complain that the revised executive order explicitly eliminated references to religion as a criterion in considering immigration decisions or refugee status. It narrowed its focus and no longer targeted those with green cards, for example.

The courts may untangle the legal knots but that in itself won’t make Americans safer. The mere existence of the order further inflames those who dream of attacking the U.S., all for a ban that may have no practical use.

And in this context, Hawaii has made a bold strike against discrimination. This state, above all, built and bolstered by immigrants, has a unique call to stand up for equal treatment — and against its doors being pointlessly shut.