the temporary travel ban is null and void

[epistolario]

There is one country that has imposed a temporary travel ban on China because of the coronavirus, but one commenter online criticized the policy as null and void probably because he thinks that no one would want to go to China in this season anyway.

I think his comment is not only wrong, but he also used the wrong term because either of these is what he probably wanted to express:

The travel ban is futile.​

The travel ban is moot. (It should have been imposed earlier.)​

The comment is wrong because if the ban did not exist, a few people would still dare to travel to and from China.

Do you agree?

 

[Ponyprof]

We'd really need to see the actual text.

 

[epistolario]

It's just a shared post on social media, and it's a one-liner comment from someone who's more likely a non-native speaker.

 

[Ponyprof]

I agree it doesn't seem like the right word for the situation but I'm kind of used to that in random social media

 

[kentix]

Null and void is a legal-related term meaning something (for instance, a contract or agreement) has been canceled or ruled invalid due to some particular problem with an aspect that was fundamental to it.

If the law is still in place, it's not null and void.

null and void
having no force, binding power, or validity

 

[epistolario]

Thanks to both of you. But do you agree with my suggestions in the original post?

 

[Cagey]

I agree with your second suggestion: The travel ban is moot. Banning travel to China has no practical use because no one is going anyway.

'Futile' doesn't work here. If the travel ban is futile, then it is not effective because people will go anyway.

 

[elroy]

I agree with your second suggestion: The travel ban is moot. Banning travel to China has no practical use because no one is going anyway.

I agree with this.