Trump could bar US citizens from re-entering country if they have been exposed to coronavirus

Donald Trump is reportedly considering an immigration measure that would ban US citizens from returning home if they have been exposed to coronavirus.

A senior US official has confirmed to Reuters that the draft regulation would allow the government – specifically the Centres for Disease Control – to block entry to all citizens “who could reasonably be believed to have contracted Covid-19 or other diseases”.

If enacted, the policy will make a dramatic addition to the administration’s list of stringent immigration regulations imposed during the pandemic, which go well beyond quarantine rules applied to arrivals from certain countries.

From a ban on some arrivals from China (which Mr Trump has repeatedly touted as a crucial decision early in the outbreak) to a more recent move freezing the issuance of many categories of work visa, the White House has sought to limit the inflow of people to the US in various ways since the very start of the pandemic.

Especially harsh measures include banning migrants from seeking asylum if the authorities deem them likely to have been infected with the virus. The administration has also used the pandemic as a pretext to deport as many as 2,000 unaccompanied migrant children, many of whom fled countries where their lives were at risk.

Many of these policies have met not just with protests, but also with legal action. In June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the border restrictions put in place in the spring; in July, an alliance of business groups sued over the ban on entry under certain work visas, saying it would shut out critical workers.

The White House was also sued by 17 states when it announced it would ban international students from re-entering the country if their fall classes will be taught entirely online. The policy was ultimately scrapped.

The legality of the new rule targeting US citizens would also be open to challenge, . The ACLU’s Omar Jadwat told the New York Times that the order would be “unconstitutional”, saying it would be “another grave error in a year that has already seen far too many.”