Post 4: Travel Ban
There has been a lot of coverage of President Trump's executive order which tried to put in a travel ban on immigrants from 7 Muslim majority countries. Last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Trump administration and has issued a stay on his order. There is a lot of discussion of what this means for Trump's agenda and whether he will reissue the order with narrower wording to get around the courts.
Please pick one of the following prompts to answer:
-Assess the success of Trump's immigration policy so far.
-Write up your defense or attack of Trump's executive order. Use language that would be persuasive to the main stream media.
Use at least 3 sources in your post AND read the executive order itself.
Due Monday, February 20th.
Labels: first 100 days, foreign policy, immigration, Supreme Court
posted by Ms. Aby @ 12:40 PM
43 Comments:
The executive order that bans travel from countries that have terrorist ties was stayed by a federal court in New York. I agree with the stay. The executive order that bans travel from countries with terrorist ties. I agree that we need a better screening process from those countries but not banning everyone from those countries. The countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen. It bans people from those countries for 90 days. This ban separates families. A syrian refugee that lives in Wisconsin “lost his chance to rescue his wife and 3-year-old daughter from war-torn Aleppo due to President Trump’s executive order travel ban” (2). His rights continue to be violated, his derivative asylum petition remains indefinitely suspended, he continues to be separated from his family on the basis of the unlawful and unconstitutional executive order. Green card holders are being admitted after some delay and negotiation (3). Visa holders are being turned back at the port of entry before boarding. People who have dual citizenship are getting in with the countries that aren’t restricted. This ban has caused protests and legal action. Federal judges have blocked part of the executive order, which was started in Brooklyn, then continued in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington. This ban is unconstitutional and should not be allowed to continue. If I was a Supreme Court Justice I would rule that this ban violates the fourteenth amendment by not allowing people who have the right to enter the country into the US and that it is discriminatory towards a group of people based on nationality.
Executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/syrian-refugee-reunite-family-trump-travel-ban-suit-article-1.2972358
http://www.voanews.com/a/us-refugee-executive-order-faqs/3699126.html
This immigration ban has certainly gotten plenty of attention in the past few weeks. Many people are referring to it as the Muslim immigration ban, which because the countries included are predominantly Muslim, but nowhere in the actual order itself does it mention specifically barring Muslims or protecting Christians (1). I personally think that this immigration ban is unconstitutional. I saw in the order itself that Trump believes that it is important to keep people who are against our nation's Constitution out, as well as people who will persecute people on a religious basis when they are in our country (1). It also said that visas could be granted to citizens of the countries included in the ban on a case by case basis; one of those cases was if the citizens were being religiously persecuted (1). The blatant hypocrisy in this is unbelievable. When questioned about this, Trump could simply say that he was not religiously persecuting people because he didn't ban a religion from the United States. But honestly, I am astounded that this man was elected to office. He says he will not allow anyone into the country who will persecute others on a religious basis, yet he is obviously persecuting Muslim immigrants and refugees simply because the main terrorist group that has made itself our enemy is an extremist sect of Islam. Although most of these immigrants were only banned for 90 days, it also banned Syrian refugees indefinitely (2). I understand how President Trump wants to keep America safe and try and keep as many terrorists out as possible, but considering the civil state in Syria right now and how many of the refugees are not extremists but ordinary people trying not to get killed by extremists, it is saddening to see how many of them will not get a chance at freedom or a normal life away from hardships like the ones they are facing. Although the courts have temporarily suspended the executive order, they say that there is a possibility that it could be reimplemented (3). Also, if they went to the Supreme Court, who generally defers to the president on national security and immigration issues, there would still likely be a stalemate, since the lack of a 9th justice leaves the Court ideologically split at 4 to 4 (3). If the Court cannot decide, the decision simply stands from the lower federal courts. While I am glad that the ban is suspended at least temporarily, the Courts might reinstate the order, or Trump might reissue the order with different wording. I hope that people see this ban as unconstitutional or at least unfair to those who are simply looking for a better life.
(1): http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated
(2): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html?_r=0
(3): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-appeals-court-maintains-suspension-of-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/09/e8526e70-ed47-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.7d59a30fdef1
The executive order regarding immigration, passed by Trump on January 27, 2017, is a drastic step taken very quickly in the Trump presidency, and the 9th Circuit of Appeals recently ruled this ban unconstitutional. This executive order bans citizens of the countries of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia from entering the United States. Trump’s stated reasoning behind creating this executive order is to ensure the protection of the United States from “foreign terrorist entry”(1). However, Trump’s claim of the travel ban protecting the United States from terrorist attacks seems to be a stretch. Nationals of the countries singled out in the executive order had killed zero people in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015(3). Also, between 2001 and 2015 more Americans were killed by US right-wing extremists than by Islamic terrorists(4). Since the chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack by an immigrant in any given year is 1 in 3.6 million, and many terrorist are not even from these seven countries, Trump’s executive order seems to be excessive for the circumstances. This executive order brought backlash to the United States as a whole in the short time that it was enacted. This action caught the attention of other foreign leaders and many reacted with negative feedback. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded by tweeting that refugees are welcome in Canada, UK Prime Minister Theresa May claimed she does not agree with this type of approach, and London Mayor Sadiq Khan called the ban cruel and shameful (2). Another clue that this ban might not be in the best interest of the country can be seen in the many protests that had taken place after the executive order was signed. People gathered in airports across nation to welcome international arrivals and protest Trump. Thousands of protesters gathered at over 40 locations(5). By looking at the statistics on terrorist attacks, the comments from leaders of other nations, and the feedback from American citizens, it would be difficult to see this executive order by Trump in a positive light.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
(3)https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
(4)http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
(5)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/trump-travel-ban-protests-briefing.html?_r=0
Once again Trump has delivered on a promise he made on the campaign trail, to protect the country against terrorist attacks and to stop the people from committing those acts by not letting them into the country. And with no small amount of subtlety he passed the “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” executive order (1). The order is very straightforward, if poorly written, and it tries to stop people from countries that have terrorist organisations from entering the country without heavy investigation. While sounding like a decent plan rarely does the world work out this simply. Shortly after the ban was signed researchers found that absolutely no Americans have been killed in a terrorist attack done by anyone from the countries that are banned (3). Actually most of the deaths caused by terrorists were done by those from Saudi Arabia, that and Egypt both where many terrorist groups came from including Al Qaeda and both not part of the ban (2). In fact, most terrorists in recent years have been natural born citizens that are second generation immigrants and even then very few of them had ties to those countries in the ban (2,3). Clearly the administration went for message over data while writing this order, but then their message was also not clear. Since the order was passed many important question have risen mostly regarding green card holders. With a green card the person is considered a legal permanent resident but the order does not mention them so the administration has had to answer some tough questions (4). However, they remain stubbornly positive about the result of the order and instead blame the media and their coverage that is “false, misleading, inaccurate, [and] hyperventilating” (4). They assert that the people that will be effected is a “miniscule percentage” which does not sound that bad but when it is put into context as millions of people who travel into the US that actual number of people is not so “miniscule” (4). Even if few are actually turned back to their countries that still does not account for the disruption that “temporarily stopping people” can cause. The order had a clear purpose but in the end it targets people who have no need to be targeted and an administration that refuses to admit when they are wrong.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(2)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/a-sweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html?_r=0
(3)https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
(4)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/unnamed-white-house-official-on-implementing-travel-ban-it-really-is-a-massive-success-story/?utm_term=.1241bbd8219e
On January 27, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” (1). This executive order implemented a travel ban on people traveling from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This executive order also suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program, places an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, and decreases the number of refugees allowed in the country to 50,000 (2). Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against this order passed by Trump. I understand that President Donald Trump wants to protect our country from foreign threats and that national security is an important issue, but I agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in that the way he went about doing so was unconstitutional. The executive order conflicts with freedom of religion protections in the Constitution. Denying entry to Muslims with valid visas from these seven countries discriminates against those of Muslim faith. This discrimination based on religion and nationality additionally violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (3).
Not only is the imposed travel ban unconstitutional but it I also believe it is not very effective. Most people from the seven countries effected want to enter the country to find peace and opportunities for themselves and their families, rather than commit acts of terror. Before Trump created this executive order, the United States conducted extensive security checks to make sure that those entering the country did not pose a threat to national security. This can be seen with the entry of Syrian refugees, who face anywhere from 18-24 months of security screenings and background checks before entering the country (2). I also think it is important for Trump to consider that several acts of terrorism have been conducted by people from places other than the seven countries listed in the travel ban. For example, the suspects behind the 9/11 attacks, Boston Marathon bombing, and the Orlando nightclub shooting were not from any of the seven countries listed in the travel ban executive order (2). With all of these issues considered, it will surely be interesting to see what President Donald Trump will do, as he plans to reword and pass a second executive order on this issue in the near future.
Sources:
1. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-president-trumps-executive-order-constitutional/2017/02/06/26ee9762-ecc1-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.8d757900485a
Executive Order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
In my post, I will be attacking President Trump's executive order, banning immigrants from the countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. Of all of Trump's actions during his presidency thus far, this one has disgusted me the most. His executive order states that "the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred, including... the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own, or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation". Personally, I find this hilariously ironic, because, just hours after Trump issued this executive order, a Texas mosque was set on fire - by a white man (1). It seems that the Trump administration has no problem with the oppression of religion, and long as this religion is not Christianity. It is clear that this ban is not anti-immigration, not pro America, but anti-Muslim, and pro-white America. Another reason Trump’s immigration ban is morally and legally wrong is that all seven of these countries have been involved in a war in the past decade, if they aren’t now. Let’s take Syria as an example. The Syrian war began in 2011. Since then, 450,000 Syrians have been killed, over one million have been injured, and over 12 million people, over half of the country, have been displaced from their homes (2). The subjects of this ban are not terrorists. They are not bad people. They are scared refugees, looking to find somewhere to rebuild their life. Finally, Trump’s ban is not only hypocritical and immoral, it is illogical. According to the Atlantic Post, the seven countries refugees have been banned from have killed a grand total of zero U.S. citizens in terrorist attacks (3). If the Trump administration wishes to stop the needless killings of American citizens, perhaps they should look to the population of white males shooting up schools, or the police officers killing unarmed African American men. This country was built by immigrants, and they deserve a part in it.
(1).https://thinkprogress.org/islamic-center-of-victoria-fire-8a683f632a7a#.6c2rjlyku
(2).http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html
(3).https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
In late January, President Trump issued an executive order that stopped refugees from 7 Muslim Majority Countries from entering the United States. According to Vox.com, people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Sudan and Syria are banned from entering the United States(1). Even through this executive order is in the interest of national security,people in these countries will not like us, because this order discrimnates against Muslims. This is shown when CNN.com states" This would make it easier for Christians and other religous minorities in Majority Muslim countries from entering the United States than for Muslims in general'(2). This shows that the executive order is being discrmantory, by putting people who are christian first. Furthermore, Vox.com states that"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt aren't on the list"(1). This shows that the"Muslim Ban" is essientally useless, because most terroists come from the 3 countries listed above, and these countries are not on the list; which shows that Trump cares more about getting rid of Islam then he does national security. Finally,Al Jazeera.com says that" The United Nations Refugee agency says that the order has put 20,000 people waiting for resettlement in the US in a precarious position"(3). This shows that the executive order will have damaging effects around the world.
Sources:
1.http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
2. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/
3.http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/iraq-trump-muslim-ban-matter-life-death-170216104927588.html
Executive Order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
The travel ban has left many people shocked, and more importantly, it has left many more without hope. Citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen have been barred from the US. Refugee entry has been suspended for 120 days, and Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely (1). I completely support the action by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals since I don’t believe Trump is justified in denying entry to those who are in need of a haven and I also can’t see this as not being a Muslim ban.
Although the order itself doesn’t mention Muslim, Christian, or any religion, Trump has made it easier for minorities of the area, specifically Christian minorities to enter the US. The order states, Homeland Security is “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality” (2). With the majority of the population of these countries being Muslim, it makes it significantly harder for them to enter the US (3).
Trump has defended his order by issuing a statement on Facebook saying, “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.” He defends himself further with his statement, "This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order." (4). Are we supposed to focus on the 33 or so other Muslim majority countries left unaffected or are we supposed to realize what those affected do have in common? Trump’s action is an obvious act of persecution of Muslims which is completely unfair and unconstitutional. Additionally, the idea that Trump is trying to keep the country safe is an unsupported claim. Ten attacks have taken place since 9/11 related to Islamist extremist ideology, however, none of the perpetrators are from the countries affected by the ban. If the ban’s goal really was to take care of the country, it should start by pertaining to countries that have actually been linked to attacks (5).
The other part of the order that I find absolutely horrible is the refugee ban. The order states “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States” (2). The Syrian war began in 2011, and since then 6.1 million have been displaced and 11 million are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. Millions are attempting escape, fleeing to countries like Jordan and Lebanon which are under strain trying to help them. Those fleeing to Turkey are creating cultural tensions, and finally those who try to make the trip to Europe across the Mediterranean risk their lives on the journey, not always making it there (6). America should feel an obligation to help these people in need, not make it harder for them to find safety.
(1.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/immigration-order-explainer/
(2.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(3.) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/
(4.) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
(5.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/30/the-trump-white-house-keeps-justifying-the-entry-ban-by-citing-attacks-it-couldnt-have-prevented/?utm_term=.85bc280012bb
(6.) https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria-turkey/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis
President Trump’s recent executive order has created an even further division of our nation, signifying that in my opinion, his presidency isn’t doesn’t stand so much for “national security”, as much as it stands for white supremacy. Aside from my opinion that the majority of America’s population is literally built on immigration ideals, his order was unconstitutional -- something that’s harder to argue on. (1) Trump’s executive order attempted to discriminate against refugees based on religion is unconstitutional, as well as his efforts to detain lawful immigrants already in America without due process. This violates the establishment clause, thus favoring one religion over another. Besides the court striking this order down, Trump refuses to acknowledge the decision and seems ready to fight back based on his recent tweets that attack the courts. It seems really odd actually considering the fact that our president is offended by the Supreme Court, when their only job is to directly interpret the constitution that our nation’s government represents. I think it’s even more interesting that people still support Trump, or the people who voted for him are somehow surprised by his immature and unconstitutional actions. Anyway, despite my humble opinion, hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against his executive order. Not just the general public, but even large companies and organizations are making a statement opposing Trump’s ban, and supporting immigrants. (2) Social media companies like twitter, Buzzfeed, Amazon, etc. are speaking out to not only America, but to every country worldwide in effort to demoralize Trump. I completely understand and agree with the fact that that terrorism is a real issue that should be fought and preventable, but why does Trump and so many of his supporters think that everything is caused by Islamic extremists? Or by illegal citizens? (3)Studies from Time show that the most dangerous group since 9/11 in America consists of right-wing extremists, and that white supremacists that are charged with murder upon their acts of terrorism are treated less harshly than Muslims. At this point I am just still really concerned with the fact that so many citizens are blind to the fact that Trump’s orders are both unconstitutional and racist.
(1)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/trump_s_executive_order_is_an_unconstitutional_attack_on_muslims.html
(2)http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2017/01/31/media-companies-attack-trumps-executive-order-immigration
(3)http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
On January 27th 2017, President Trump passed an executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorists Entry into the United States.” The order banned entrance into the U.S. for citizens of seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (1). The ban stirred both a national and international outcry. Protest, against the travel ban, have occurred in Brussels, Toronto, and most recently there was an “I am Muslim too” rally in New York City (2). A total of 17 elite schools are suing President over the ban, these schools include Harvard, Stanford and Yale. Stating that the “leaders of tomorrow” are being barred (3). These challenges against the executive order show how much to heart Americans and people around the world have taken the order, even calling it the “Muslim ban.” I agree with the decision made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
I personally do not agree with the “Muslim ban. Though as the grandchild of immigrants and the daughter of one, I believe that America is a place for new starts and where immigrants and their language and culture should be welcomed and embraced, not ignored.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/19/516137660/in-times-square-protesters-take-to-the-streets-to-say-i-am-muslim-too
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harvard-yale-stanford-suing-donald-trump-muslim-ban-lawsuit-us-immigration-restriction-a7579886.html
At the end of January, President Donald Trump issued his first majorly divisive executive order. This order called for increased border security and stricter immigration policies. The most controversial aspect of this order, however, is the 90 ban on immigration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, seven majority-Muslim nations (1). As this is Trump’s first implementation of his immigration policy as president, I think it is safe to say that Trump’s immigration policy thus far has been far from successful both domestically and abroad. First off, just within the United States, Trump’s immigration policy has provoked massive dissent. Since the order was issued, there have been opposing protests in New York City, Oregon, and Dallas, just to name a few locations of opposition (2).
Abroad, the order has also found its share of disapproval. British government has voiced its dissent, stating that the policy is strictly a U.S. controversy and that Britain would not be taking such actions (3). In addition, German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also outwardly condemned the policies. Just a few days after the order’s issuance, the majority of the seven affected countries also reacted with strong criticism, with a few alluding to taking reacting measures of their own (4). Regarding Trump’s call for stricter border control and the construction of a wall around the Mexican-American border, the Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto condemned the order, stating that “Mexico does not believe in walls” (5). Overall, Trump’s immigration policies so far appear to be a train wreck, calling down opposition and extreme criticism both domestically and abroad.
(1)http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Summary-of-President-Trump-s-executive-order-on-10895389.php
(2)http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/times-square-rally-protests-trump-immigration-policies-45601795
(3)http://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512400218/foreign-reaction-over-trumps-immigration-order
(4)http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/30/512438879/7-targeted-countries-react-to-trumps-ban-on-immigration
(5)http://thehill.com/latino/316224-mexican-president-rebuffs-trump-on-wall-executive-order
Clearly, Trump has the right to make such an executive order. We can look to examples such as the internment of citizens of Japanese descent in WWII as an example. As president, Trump does have the power to create executive order which seek to restrict travel into the country. However beyond that, I do not really agree with both what the travel ban does and what the media has decided to label it. For example, it has been claimed that travel searches related to flights into the US fell by 17% within the first weeks of January (1). I would argue that the data is being skewed based upon travel during December as well as overblown to make the travel ban seem worse. The article notes very specific dates where the searches were "lower than average" this implies that in reality there was a dip on those days and only a small overall decrease on average. However, it is important to note that this is not a Muslim ban. While it does affect people who are in Muslim-majority nations, it isn't a ban that only targets Muslims. This means that the people who are protesting the "Muslim ban" are ill informed (2). However, while I do say these things to rebut the farther-left opinions of the executive order, I must note that the effect it has on university students is rather obnoxious to consider (3). It is rather unfitting of the U.S. to bar prospective students from an educational opportunity they wouldn't have elsewhere simply due to their national origins. Honestly, people should be able to get to the U.S. if they want to get an education or even live here permanently. I understand the validity of Trump's executive order but based upon the things that it seems to represent and quite simply the fact that it could be executed better, I cannot but not support it.
(1)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/travel/after-travel-ban-declining-interest-trips-to-united-states.html?_r=0
(2)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/20/universities-overwhelmingly-objected-to-the-trump-travel-ban-here-are-the-values-they-emphasized/?utm_term=.2939511eba0e
(3)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/19/nyc-muslim-rally-protests-travel-ban/98136468/
The purpose of Donald Trump’s travel ban was to “protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes” (1). The policy banned seven majority muslim countries and created extreme vetting for entering the US. This executive order has not been successful on the account that it has created public outlash, and also it has already been suspended. After going through the Western District of Washington Court, the US Court of Appeals had a stay of the district court’s ruling which suspended Trump’s ban (2). This came after nationwide disapproval of the ban and chaos at many major airports. There were family’s separated and it caused problems for travelling students of several university students. Since his first try did not work out, it is said that Donald Trump is going to come out with a new immigration ban plan. It is supposed to still ban immigration from the same seven countries, but allow Syrian refugees to enter the country as well as exempt green card holders and dual-citizens (3).
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(2)http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
(3)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-revised-immigration-order-expected-renew-ban-muslim/story?id=45615961
On January 27, 2017, Donald Trump signed into effect an Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”[1]. The order has been met with backlash, support, demonstrations, blockage, and terminations. I will evaluate, as of today, the success of Trump’s ban.
First, I’ll clarify what “success” means. The goal of the executive order was to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the United States. In the order, it is said that “The United States must be vigilant during the visa- issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism[1].” I’ll be evaluating how well the Order has done this so far.
After the ban was signed on the 27th, uproar was immediate. Protests begun on a national scale the following day, with demonstators marching on airports all around the country. That same day, Federal Judge Ann M. Donelly blocked a part of the order, declaring it unconstitutional. The bill was further blocked on the next day, the 29th, in a case protecting two college professors who legally resided in the US from being detained. The next day, Attorney General Sally Yates was fired for refusing to enforce the bill, and Republican Senators denied motion to began discussion on rescinding the executive order. Finally, on February 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the blocking of Trump’s executive order, which has essentially ended its legacy[2].
While the order was obviously unsuccessful in its goal, as refugees are now subject to the same vetting process they were before the order was signed, how unsuccessful was it? Certainly it did damage beyond its failure to remain in effect. Trump was criticized and condemned by Former President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Theresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Candian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Trump’s approval rating is at a record low, and a petition to ban Donald Trump from visiting Britain has amassed 1 million signatures. [3]
In addition, the ban would not have been fully successful in its goal of preventing the immigration of Foreign Terrorists. Since 2000, there have been 6 major terrorist attacks on US Soil: The bombings of New Jersey and New York’s Chelsea Neighborhood, the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, the San Bernandino attacks, the Boston Marathon bombings, and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. None of the perpetrators of any of these events would be affected by the order. [4]
Finally, although this particular ban did not achieve what Trump hoped it would achieve(despite Trump claiming the ban rolled out “smoothly”), that does not mean that Trump’s attempts against foreign terrorism are finished. Already, Trump is nearing completion on a second version of the executive order, one that would not affect current green card holders. [5]
[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
[2]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/
[3]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
[4]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/
[5]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/trump-new-executive-order-immigration/index.html
The success of the Trump administration's immigration policies have been extremely limited due to a few factors. First off is through the court system. The U.S Appellate court ruled the executive order unconstitutional, making it so that Trump's campaign promises will not go through, at least for now. The Appellate court decided unanimously that this ban on 7 majority Muslim countries to be unconstitutional, and that the courts will have the power to check the president (1). This ruling that Trump will not appeal to the Supreme Court is keeping him from implementing his policy. Another reason he is having such a hard time is general public outraged. Major protests (especially in the international airports) occurred in Washington DC, Boston, San Francisco, Dallas, Phoenix, and Detroit (2). These protests are just a small example of the barriers Trump will face regarding criticism of his foreign policy. Even with this adversity, it could be still possible he is able to implement this policy even though the courts have denied the most recent attempt. The reason for this, is because Trump has a new executive order in the making, basically just restating his old one. It has minor differences including protecting those who have green cards and those who have always traveled to the US. While this is moving in the right direction in some people's eyes, it still bans the same 7 countries, and it seems to be aimed toward Muslim majority countries (3). So, in review of Trump's immigration policy, he has been stifled so far, but we will have to wait to see if he keeps trying, or if he has to begin to compromise.
1)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html
2)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/nyregion/trump-travel-ban-protests-briefing.html?_r=0
3)http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/320385-trumps-revised-travel-ban-will-target-same-seven-countries-report
I strongly oppose Trump's "Muslim Ban", as people have taken to calling it. It specifically targets countries that have predominately Muslim, giving credence to the order's nickname. It also does essentially nothing to stop or prevent terrorism [1], due to the fact that literally no successful terrorists (in the past 40 years) have come from any of the 7 countries affected by the order. Suspiciously, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,and Egypt, 3 countries that Trump has close business ties to, were unaffected by the ban, despite that fact that known terrorists have come from those countries, including those who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001.[2] Much like EO9066, the executive order that created the policy of Japanese Internment in 1942, Trump's executive order is based on bigotry and blind hatred, and will ultimately do much more harm than good.[3]
I am very pleased that the order was struck down in court, but extremely afraid for what the future will hold. All of this has happened in the first month of Trump's presidency. If this is what he's like right out of the gate, I'm terrified to see what he becomes after holding a political office for an extended period of time.
[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration
[2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-traphagan/immigration-racism-and-th_b_9285930.html
On January 27, 2017, Donald Trump issued his executive order to "protect the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States." [1] The plan is to block immigration from seven Muslim majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Many people have rightfully named this a systematic "ban on Muslims," something that Trump has vehemently denied. He objects to the use of the word ban, despite the fact that he himself has referred to it as a ban in no less than four tweets. [2] [3] [4] [5] The "not" ban is rooted in his belief that "The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation." [1] Perhaps our new president would like some more information on the discrimination he is so strongly opposed to. His opposition to those who do not support the Constitution seems just a little hypocritical when the acting attorney general at the time of the ban's announcement, Sally Yates refused to enforce the executive order on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. [6] Or, when he denounced violence against women, despite the audio tapes of him bragging (or in his words "joking") about sexual assault. [7] His statement about protecting Americans from religious persecution is rendered almost laughable by the onslaught of faith-based discrimination that rose following his election. [8] [9] [10] His declarations on racial equality are cheapened by his attack on civil rights hero John Lewis [11] and his nomination (and subsequent appointment) of Jeff Sessions, a man who has been repeatedly accused of racism and civil rights violations. [12]
(Continued...)
(Part 2)
At this point, it goes without saying that Trump has said and done very sexist things, such as saying that Hillary Clinton "couldn't satisfy her husband, how could she satisfy America" or that sexual assault in the military was "expected" because men and women were put together. [13] His defense of Americans based on sexual orientation is cheapened by his VP, Mike Pence, and his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who have both shown support for LGBT conversion therapy. [14] [15]
In short, the immigration ban, or extreme vetting, or whatever name is convenient to use, is a thinly veiled attempt by Trump to scapegoat a group of people on the grounds that they hold beliefs that oppose American values. However, if you compare Trump and his supporters' actions and beliefs, it becomes quite clear how hypocritical this is. The ban has nothing to do with our "American values," it is pure xenophobia.
Sources:
1.https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
2. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051
3. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827981079042805761
4. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827996357252243456
5. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829414457126313986
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0
7.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.614399f1292e
8. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html
9. http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/
10. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
11.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/15/in-feud-with-john-lewis-donald-trump-attacked-one-of-the-most-respected-people-in-america/?utm_term=.4d4027399473
12. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/jeff-sessions-racism-allegations/
13. http://theweek.com/articles/655770/51-things-donald-trump-said-about-women
14.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html
15. https://thehumanist.com/commentary/betsy-devos-friend-family-faith-based-education
This comment has been removed by the author.
On the 27th of January, President Trump issued an executive order barring the entry to the United States for citizen from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and all Syrians indefinitely (1). This executive order was described as a "travel ban," however, it is most certainly a Muslim ban, not a travel ban. Even though, as president, Trump has the power to use an executive order as a loophole to get around Congress, this executive order is extremely inhumane and in fact, a ban on religion, not travel. Trump claims that this ban is a step towards greater national security, by blocking out terrorism. However, the middle eastern countries that are excluded from his ban are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey (and all countries linked with Trump's business) (2). Interestingly enough, Osama bin Laden was one of the perpetrators behind 9/11, and he was from Saudi Arabia, one of the countries not included in Trump's ban. In the executive order itself, Trump defends his ban by writing "the visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States [...] Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when [foreign terrorists] went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans" (4). Trump brings great attention to the events of 9/11 and the detrimental outcomes of it, and although I do not condone any ban on any country, if this executive order was really an issue over terrorism, wouldn't Saudi Arabia be included? Of course, in Trump's case, his bigoted mindset issued this travel ban to blatantly block out Muslims from entering or re-entering the US. Additionally, Trump hastily announced this executive order, and almost none of the White House staff actually knew the details of this order, further providing evidence that Trump intended this as a Muslim ban (3). CNN writes that "administration officials weren't immediately sure which countries' citizens would be barred from entering the United States," and that "the Department of Homeland Security was left making a legal analysis on the order after Trump signed it." This shows a large amount of confusion over the executive order, and if Trump wrote this executive order as a travel ban for the sake of national security, he would more than likely actually inform his staff with details about the order.
In short, Trump's "travel ban" is extremely unconstitutional, discriminatory, and disgusting, and really encapsulates Trump's hateful mindset.
(1) - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/20/donald-trump-set-to-issue-new-revised-travel-ban-against-majority-muslim-countries/98167072/
(2) - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
(3) - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/
(4) - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
I am going to be joyfully attacking Trump's executive order.
Well you guys, Trump has done it again. Better start packing your bags and stocking your bunkers because this nuke is gonna hit and it's gonna hit hard. Yes, I am talking about the one and only travel ban Trump has imposed on seven predominately Muslim countries. These include Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. This travel ban is rooted in Islamophobia and racism and I'm here to pick it apart.
What this travel ban aims to do is still relatively unclear to the average intelligent human being. Other than furthering the divide in this nation, the travel ban does not hold any official credibility because it is not justified. The travel ban may be part of some deeper plan to better the United States, or to keep terror linked countries from infiltrating, but at the end of the day it is only keeping the "problem" out and not fixing anything [1]. The ironic part of this ban is that it is being imposed to keep America safe. Fun fact, under the Obama administration five out of seven of these countries were bombed [2]. The hypocrisy of our government is allowing these people to stay trapped in countries where their human rights are abused and inequality is the norm. The UN has denounced the ban and has deemed it illegal under human rights law, so Trump is currently in the process of rewriting so it can fit under these laws [3]. I don't think Trump is going to be too successful however, because there is no way you can argue that this executive order is inherently racist or rooted in nationalism.
[1] http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/30/what-trumps-muslim-travel-ban-truly-means-for-the-collective-consciousness/
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-countries/
[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-travel-ban-illegal-un-rights-chief-a7552991.html
President Trump has issued a highly controversial executive order which limits travel from seven middle eastern countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia (Source 1). Refugee terrorism is a major issue almost purely for the fact that it is covered so much by the media. One has a .00003% chance of being killed in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist (source 2). There are many other problems which should take prevalence over this issue. However, things like this make people feel unsafe and Trump essentially ran his campaign on this concept. People voted for him because of this issue and people are now freaking out because he actually stuck to his campaign promises. Hey, it might not stop terrorism at all, literally zero refugees from the seven countries have killed people in terrorist attacks on American soil in the last 40 years, but at least it makes people feel safe from this virtually nonexistent threat (source 2). Now, do I think it is purely religious based discrimination of these people which causes us to feel more safe? No, I believe the more prevalent cause is geographic prejudice. A major controversy regarding this executive order is whether the president can legally do this, and the answer is yes, at least until it's brought to court. Trump has both historic and legal precedent for this from FDR's internment of the Japanese and the related supreme court case, Korematsu v. US. However, a few states have already challenged the President on this issue and the President is at the very least considering a rewrite to the executive order (Source 3). I expect that the right for a president to limit immigration from a certain country will be restricted, but it is still an important tool in case of war or other crisis, so I don't believe it will be taken away entirely.
(Source 1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/airports-us-immigration-ban-muslim-countries-trump
(Source 2)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/
(Source 3)https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-considers-rewriting-trumps-immigration-order/2017/02/10/ddcf5a6a-efb5-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.ea83a502c61c
(Text of exec. order)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump passed the Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States executive order, more commonly referred to as the “travel ban”. Ever since its release, it has faced much controversy, not just over the ideals it portrays, but over its constitutionality. The US Courts have halted the suspended the implementation of this ban for the time being [2]. The main issue of constitutionality is regarding discrimination based upon religion, which is forbid by the first amendment. The travel ban applies to seven Muslim majority countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria [4]. It is quite clear that the ban targets those who practice Islam, which goes against what our Constitution stands for. Trump also instructed the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize refugee claims of people who were a religious minority in one of those seven countries, which basically made it easier for Christians and a few other religions to enter into the United States than those who are Muslim, again, another blatant violation of the first amendment [3]. On top of all of this, there seems to be a lack of evidence supporting Trump’s logic that this will protect our country from terrorists entering. The director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Lena F. Masri, said, “There is no evidence that refugees -- the most thoroughly vetted of all people entering our nation -- are a threat to national security. This is an order that is based on bigotry, not reality” [3]. In conclusion, I believe the travel ban is unconstitutional on account of the first amendment, and the lack of factual evidence supporting the order only makes it clearer that the reasoning behind it is not in accordance with the free exercise clause.
1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
2)http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403
3)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/
4)https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-set-to-issue-streamlined-immigrant-travel-ban/ar-AAn97oa
Trump issuing the travel ban caused a lot of havoc around the world. Trump’s goal was to give the United States time to perfect our vetting of people when they come into our country. President Trump’s executive order regarding the travel ban was seen as a racial issue because of the Muslim countries it pertains to and Trump’s previous campaign speeches that mentioned muslims when talking about radical terrorism. Overall, I would argue against Trump’s travel ban. The U.S. was built on immigration and welcoming everyone. It is not right to change our values and what the country was built on. However, I can see some of Trump’s reasons for this ban. For one, terrorism is real and the U.S. can be attacked. Another reason is that Trump thinks our vetting system for refugees should be improved. The courts overruled Trump’s executive order. Trump’s previous order was halted by a federal court judge in Washington State who issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on February 3, 2017. The Trump administration quickly appealed the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. However, that court's three-judge panel handed down a unanimous decision that left the restraining order in place.(1) Trump is going to use another executive order but be more specific to bypass the court's ruling. Trump said, "The new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision"(2). The goal of the new order is to bolster a signature initiative against ongoing legal and constitutional scrutiny, rather than revise it in a substantive fashion or relax its restrictions.(3) In my opinion this is a little childish because Trump never admits that he lost. Trump always has to win which is not necessarily a good thing.
(1)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-replace-halted-travel-ban-executive-order/story?id=45545474
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-executive-order/
(3)https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/trump-updated-travel-ban-minimal-input-national-security
This ban was a success logically speaking, morally I understand why people are opposed to it. 1) The seven countries that President Trump chose was on President Obama's “countries of concern.” Which are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The ban did technically work spite all the protests. 2) It will only last 120 days it is not as if it is forever. President Trump is doing what President Obama did but just more extreme. The Executive ban is doing exactly what is was written for. 3) What he is doing is legal according to federal law. Some may dislike it and that is their opinion. I do not agree with forcing them to stay out of the country, but on the other hand, being a devoted christian, it make me feel safer because if anyone has seen what people in those countries do to christians it is not something I would want to happen to me.
1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/
2) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
3)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/28/what-you-need-know-trumps-refugee-ban/97183112/
Trump is a man known for making big claims that don't hold much water. Unfortunately for America and the world, his promise on cracking down on immigration was all too real. In his executive order (66), he banned the entrance of immigrants from 9 Muslim majority countries. This flies in the face of what America stands for. We are a country of immigrant and banning the entry of any type is against the values we were built on. Also, our country has had such a long and painful history with different forms of discrimination, it's a huge step back to do something like this. Lastly, there's the fact that it could be unconstitutional. People who have green cards are having them revoked just because of where there from. It's a fascinating case to watch climb the court system and I can't wait for future developments.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(2)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/a-sweeping-order-unlikely-to-reduce-terrorist-threat.html?_r=0
(3)https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
Trump has passed an executive order that is meant to protect US citizens “from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States”[1]. This ban on the issuance of visas and suspension of other immigration benefits to those in the countries of: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia [3]. All Syrian refugees have been banned of entrance to the United States because their entrance was considered to be not in the interest of the United States [2]. Also, special consideration for entrance into the US was to be given to those of minority religions [4]. This travel ban is not constitutional. It actively discriminates against those who practice Islam in those countries. Trump is using his personal, uneducated bias that all Muslims are terrorists to prevent people from coming to America that just want better lives, opportunity, and a chance to escape the poor conditions of their own countries. Immigration can be limited. It is part of maintaining a population, but when religious discrimination becomes a part of the process, it becomes a hateful vetting process. The first amendment of the constitution gives us the freedom of religion, both of free exercise and a lack of state-established religion. The way that this executive order is worded, it gives priority to those who are not Muslims through favoring the minority religion in that area, therefore creating a government bias towards religion. This goes against the values of equality that our country now stands on. People want to come into America because of the freedoms we have and the opportunities available. This ban shows a deterioration of these values and an unreceptive attitude towards diversity.
[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
[2]http://www.voanews.com/a/us-refugee-executive-order-faqs/3699126.html
[3]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/
[4]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-replace-halted-travel-ban-executive-order/story?id=45545474
Trump's immigration ban has been completely unsuccessful. It has already been blocked by a court and does not ban people from the countries who were responsible for 9/11. The countries Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen were all banned, but Saudi Arabia, where many of the hijackers were from, was not banned. I believe that the ban will be struck down by the supreme court, even if it is majority conservative. The Supreme Court will apply Stare Decisis to the ruling, and the ban will disappear. This is one of President Trump's flagship issues, however, and he will continue to issue the executive order. It will be difficult for either side to make any headway in the struggle, leaving a completely unsuccessful ban. Another reason it may be struck down is because it suspends the USRAP. The United States Refugee Admissions Program is a critical factor in political asylum, and suspending it could mean hundreds, if not thousands of refugees being stuck in airports, other countries, and unsafe conditions.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/
I think that Trump’s travel ban is a little ridiculous and not a good idea. I think that first of all it is going to mess up stuff that he doesn’t even realize. For example, my mom works with this kid whose mother is a single mom and her sister will come from Mexico. Every other month she comes over and helps with raising the kid. If she couldn’t do this it would be devastating to the child and his mom. I think that there are people like this who are in those countries. The idea also that this will help stop terrorism is not smart. I think that it will help lead to more terrorism. Imagine if you will a young muslim boy who is contemplating the idea of joining this radical muslim group. If you find out this new president is presented as a racist man who is attacking and hurting muslim people. You’re going to be pushed to join this group of radical muslims. This executive order is going to create and cause more terrorism that stunt it. One of the arguments that I have heard for this was that Obama did a similar thing to Iran. But this is just straight up inaccurate. What he did was slow down it a lot and looked more at their background. I would be more okay with what he did if he said let’s just look at these guys background more and slow this down. And not completely be blocking these guys out.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban-stakes/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/06/us-court-to-hear-arguments-on-trumps-travel-ban.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
On January 27, 2017, Donald Trump issued a ban to 7 countries, which, by no coincidence, were predominantly Muslim.[1] I stand with the Supreme Court's decision to issue a stay on the executive order.[2] I believe this ban, although not specifically banning Muslims, is still obvious in its intent. Throughout his campaign, Trump called for a "ban on Muslims."[3] making it clear his ultimate and unconstitutional motive behind this ban. Overall I believe Trump's travel ban is immoral and unconstitutional.
Firstly I believe the ban is immoral. We are a nation of immigrants, everybody you see around you has either descended from Native Americans or from an immigrant. Preventing immigrants from entering our nation now goes against what our very country stands for. Preventing people from coming into our country may also deprive them of needed medical help, or the ability to reunite with friends or family.
Secondly, the ban is unconstitutional. The fifth amendment declares on can not be deprived of their rights without due process of law, which is clearly violated by banning those who have a right to be in the US. Another part of the constitution, the first amendment, states congress cannot make a law regarding the establishment of religion. This is also clearly violated by the ban, which blocked many people from majority Muslim countries from immigrating. Even Mike Pence, as Governor, once tweeted: "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."[4] Overall Donald Trumps Travel ban is immoral and unconstitutional, and should be stopped at all costs.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html
[3]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/opinions/muslim-ban-unconstitutional-opinion-pate/
[4]https://twitter.com/govpencein/status/674249808610066433?lang=en
So far Trump’s immigration policy has been pretty unsuccessful, and I am not surprised that the courts have ruled against his executive order. After reading over the executive order it’s very clear that he has the intentions of keeping terrorists out of the United States, but he is going about it in a very discriminatory manner. According to factcheck.org Trump’s policy advisor stated that 72 people from the 7 countries in the executive order have been implicated for terrorist activity, but fact check says that 44 of them haven’t been convicted under terrorism charges, along with that 28 of them pleaded guilty. Meaning that only four of these 72 people were actually convicted for terrorist activities. Personally I think Trump has made too many unfair assumptions by banning 7 entire countries when in reality so few people are actually involved in terrorist activity, and a majority come to the United States for innocent purposes. The 9th circuit court who blocked Trump’s executive order also has a lower reversal rating from the Supreme court than other circuit courts, according to New York times. This demonstrates the low level of success that Trump’s executive order has, because a court that the supreme court upholds more often than others struck it down. I do not think Trump will be successful in revising his executive order either if he were to try because the main purpose of his order restricts the establishment clause and is incredibly discriminatory against muslims. According to Newsweek Trump’s administration is starting to give up on defending his executive order because they’re starting to realize that something this discriminatory is very likely to be struck down by the courts. Overall I do not think that there was a lot of success with executive order 13769 because of how discriminatory it is to a specific group of people. I hope that with this Trump will realize that if he wants to solve our problems with national security he should not discriminate against groups of people, and it will be more likely to have success.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/terrorism-and-trumps-travel-ban/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/fact-checking-claims-about-trumps-travel-ban.html
http://www.newsweek.com/michael-dorf-will-trump-new-travel-ban-succeed-559620
In my opinion, Trump's immigration policy has been very unsuccessful so far. His big ideas, such as the wall on the United State's southern border that "Mexico will pay for" has not yet begun construction, and is being funded through higher tariffs on Mexican imports, not Mexico itself (1). The wall itself would cost upwards of 21 billion dollars, which is a huge (or "yuge") strain on American taxpayers and doesn't help our rapidly increasing national debt (2). In addition, Trump's attempt at reducing immigration from countries he deems as dangerous has failed. The executive order to ban immigrants from majority Muslim countries has already been struck down by a lower federal court and has provoked many protests across the country, showing that the public is also in opposition (3,4). Trump has had little success in implementing any of his immigration policy in the past month and has already failed on some of his promises, such as that Mexico will pay for the border wall. This is not the most convincing start for his immigration policy and the Trump team already has much to fix.
(1) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37243269
(2) http://www.investopedia.com/news/how-much-will-trumps-wall-really-cost/
(3) http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/why-trumps-immigration-rules-are-unconstitutional-214722
(4) http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317932-thousands-protest-trumps-immigration-ban-for-second-week-in-a
Trump’s immigration ban was created from Islamophobia and hatred, but hides itself under the guise of a supposed “Greater America.” Throughout his campaign he called for a ban on Muslims (1), blatantly discriminating against an entire group of people. He did this despite the fact that the vast majority of that group disapproves of the terrorist attacks made (2). Further on the topic of terrorism, there have been more terrorist attacks made by white extremist groups in the US than by radical Islamists (3). Trump chose to enact this ban to create a scapegoat that blames an entire religion when only a small portion of those who practice it are to blame. This ban is more a ban on religion than on travel, shown by how he banned countries populated by mostly Muslim individuals (4). However, it is interesting how he failed to place the ban on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,and Egypt, three countries his businesses have close ties with (5). These three countries are also the home to known terrorists. I do not condone the banning of immigration from these countries, as Trump’s order was obviously affected by his own capitalistic ideas and bigotry. I stand by the court’s decision to strike down the ban, but I am fearful for those directly affected by it. They are forced to live in a dangerous environment where they are surrounded by bigotry and hatred.
1 - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
2 - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/polls-show-most-muslims-reject-both-extremism-and-islamic-reform
3 - http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
4 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html
5 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.0cb6e1f3f576
The travel ban was a bold decision for the Trump administration, and has stirred up lots of controversy as a result. The ban was created for reasons of national security, but are the countries in question really dangerous? According to CNN, “not one person from the seven countries included in the ban has killed anyone in a terror attack on US soil in the last 40 years” (1). This refutes Trump’s argument that the ban is for national security, as clearly refugees and other people coming from these countries are of no harm to Americans. Additionally, Trump does not have any business negotiations with the 7 Muslim majority countries on the list. However, some Muslim majority countries that Trump does have a business relationship with are not included in the ban, such as Saudi Arabia. This also makes me question Trump’s reasoning for the ban, as most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. According to an article from the NY Daily News, Trump has expressed his love for Saudi Arabians through the words ““They buy apartment from me...they spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much” (2). Could this travel ban really be apart of the war on terrorism then? Additionally, as the ban targets Muslims, it violates the First Amendment. I personally think that all people should be able to practice whatever they believe in the United States, as it is truly a melting pot of all cultures and beliefs. The Washington Post states “Even when Trump first shifted his proposal away from a facial ban on Muslims entering the US, he called it “an expansion” of his earlier explicit Muslim ban proposal rather than a repudiation of it” (3). This ban against one group of people for their religion I personally think is unconstitutional. This past summer I attended Norwegian camp, where the theme of the summer was refugees. One of the main arguments in Norway right now against refugees is that people want the uphold the Norwegian traditions and culture, and feel like they can’t do that with so many refugees. While I don’t agree with this reasoning, with such a tiny Norwegian population I understand why people might think that. However, I don’t believe that this same logic can be applied to the United States, where it’s diverse history and culture is made up of many different traditions and cultures. America is a safe haven for so many different people, and it should remain that way despite religious differences.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/
(2) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/05/why-trumps-refugee-order-is-unconstitutional-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.beb82f3f1dd5
I’ll be responding to Emily Steward’s post about the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s travel ban. I certainly agree that the ban is unconstitutional, although not by definition. Theoretically, a ban on citizens of foreign nations could be upheld through the infamous Korematsu v. United States, particularly for the governments that are sponsors of terrorism, such as Iraq, Sudan, and Syria [1]. However, some subtle differences between the two cases could easily flip the verdict. First, Korematsu ruled that Congress- the military leaders- had the authority to segregate the Japanese from the West Coast. No where in the case did the authority of the commander-in-chief come in to question. Additionally, the case ruled on the constitutionality of “compulsory exclusion,” the exclusion of Japanese from certain areas of national defense. The case did not deal with the potential deportation or banning of Japanese from the country. Finally, the case justified the method given a time of “emergency and peril [2].” Trump may have a hard time replicating those decisions to a court. So while I agree with Emily that the bam is unconstitutional, I think that it is unnecessary to speculate on Trump’s intentions or targets (e.g. Muslims) while drafting the executive order.
[1]http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/not-so-urgent-anymore-trumps-new-travel-ban-delayed.html
[2]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/case.html
Trump's immigration stance has been controversial since before his presidency. The need to build a wall separating the US and Mexico and the promise to protect the US from Muslims comes across both as racist and as a half baked plan. In other interpretations, Trump's policies are unconstitutional. (1) The travel ban, specifically, which banned people from 7 different Muslim majority countries from entering the US, is unconstitutional on the basis of discriminating based on religion. On this ideal alone I would measure Trump's immigration policy as unsuccessful. Another measure of Trump's immigration failure is that he is not fulfilling his duty as the chief representative of the people of the United States. (2) This is evident through the numerous protests that have taken place since the implementation of the travel ban, this upheaval shows that Trump's policies and point of view do not match the majority of people whom he represents. The final problem facing Trump's immigration stances is the flaw in his logic. (3) Trump banned immigrants from 7 Muslim majority countries, yet none of them are tied to the 9/11 attacks, yet the ban is made to "protect US citizens". My recommendation is to leave the immigration policy to a more moderate and more qualified politician, and focus his policies on thing that the majority want.
(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/05/why-trumps-refugee-order-is-unconstitutional-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-religion/?utm_term=.32c41c1bbe81
(2)http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317932-thousands-protest-trumps-immigration-ban-for-second-week-in-a
(3)https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0
Trump’s immigration policy does not seem to be going very well. The two main parts of his immigration policy, especially on the campaign trail, included the Wall between Mexico and the US and changing the entrance process of Muslim immigrants and refugees into the US. He has tried to continue with both of these promises, but has experienced backlash from many places.
Regarding Muslim immigrants, Trump signed an executive order banning the entrance into the US of anyone from 7 muslim-majority nations: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. [1] That alone has received a lot of backlash, including being declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump has also made some iffy statements regarding the reasons behind the ban. He claimed that the US has already been exceptionally generous to refugees. However, when factoring in population, we are only ranked 75th in the world for harboring refugees. [2] Also, other world leaders have not been supportive of Trump’s policy. [3] The Foreign Affairs Ministry in Iran, one of the countries on the list, said that the ban was “insulting” and a “gift to extremists”. The Sudan Foreign Affairs Ministry also chimed in, saying, “The Sudanese citizens living in the United States are known for their good reputation, respect for American laws, and their lack of involvement in radical and criminal acts.” Trump has also received backlash from many American citizens in the form of protests across the country. [4] For multiple days, people gathered many different places, including House and Senate Democrats protesting outside of the Supreme Court. There were even protests in London, with signs including illustrations of British Prime Minister Theresa May being controlled like a puppet by Trump. These protests have marked a significant downfall in approval of Trumps immigration policy.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/
[2]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-four-wrong-numbers-behind-trumps-immigration-ban/515025/
[3]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-world-reaction/
[4]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/travel-ban-protests-immigration/
Trump’s “travel ban”, more commonly known as the Muslim ban, is an executive order that suspended the overall refugee system for 120 days, the refugee system in Syria indefinitely, and banned immigration from seven primarily Muslim countries (1). This order, in my opinion and that of the courts, is extremely unconstitutional and morally wrong. According to The Atlantic, the order fails every test the courts use to determine “intentional discrimination” (2). Trump has repeatedly said during his campaign that he plans to ban Muslims and his argument that the ban is not discriminatory towards Muslims cannot be taken seriously due to these comments (3). People with valid visas are being deported and not allowed back in the country (1). These are the people that legally went through all the screenings and paperwork necessary to get a legal visa and even they are being banned from the country simply due to their religion (1).
The choice in countries is also questionable at best. All of these countries have Muslim-majorities, but there are many other Muslim-majority countries that Trump has not included in the ban (4). Coincidentally, many of these Muslim-majority countries not included are countries that Trump’s businesses have trade deals with (4). This is a huge conflict of interest. Even if Trump has given control of his businesses to his children, he will likely regain control after his political career and is doing everything in his power to ensure the success of these businesses while he is “away” so to speak.
The ban is unconstitutional, unethical, and highlights Trumps conflict of interest in dealing with foreign companies and his ties to foreign investors in his companies. All of this together shows the glaring problems with the administration. The courts were right to place a stay on this order, and hopefully the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional if it comes to that point.
1-https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/trump-immigration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits
2-https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/is-president-trumps-immigration-order-a-muslim-ban/514989/
3-http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-travel-lawsuit/
4-https://www.forbes.com/sites/datadesign/2017/02/01/mapping-president-trumps-travel-ban-vs-his-business-interests-in-muslim-countries/#1f80e3de4694
Quite candidly, Trump’s travel ban has done a lot more harm than it has good. Trump began his presidency with a nation so clearly divided. Through this executive order, people have been kept from reentering the country to do critical actions in their daily lives such as return to college, return to work, and most importantly, return to their families (1). “Extreme vetting” is a vague term, and of the seven countries listed, none of them have been behind major U.S. terrorism attacks (1). Although this order hasn’t been successful in regrouping the country, as seen through protests and several major airports across the country, Trump’s executive order was successful in a more abstract way. The executive order forced the question to be raised to the courts as to the actual legality and constitutionality of issuing an executive order of this magnitude. Executive orders have been scrutinized due to their ability to allow the president to bypass Congress, however the issue was never fully resolved or defined. Through the court cases surrounding this order, the country could see a clearer picture of how far an executive order can truly go (2).
Trump’s executive order must be stopped. As the daughter of a refugee, I can only begin to imagine the pain these families feel as their loved ones continue to be held for indeterminate amounts of time, not knowing when or if they will be reunited. Furthermore, Trump did not just temporarily ban travel, but reduced the number of refugees allowed into the United States in 2017 by more than half of limit the refugees Obama previously allowed (3). The United States was founded as a place of refuge, a place to escape persecution, and a place where everyone had equal opportunity. President Trump seeks to limit and contain that opportunity to a select few, and for that reason, the ban must end.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-q-and-a/
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15L0GC
(3) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
The travel ban that President Trump had issued back in January earlier this year has proven to be controversial among all citizens. I am against everything that this order stands for both politically and morally, and this xenophobic order goes against what America was founded on: immigration. One of the most important aspects of this ban that many are ignoring is the discontinuation of the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.(1) This program provides vital relief for those in need of aid and housing during times of crisis in violent countries. It is widely known that the USRAP uses multiple agencies to screen refugees to check for criminal background and this screening has proven successful in preventing dangerous people from entering the country. (2) Trump's targeting of predominately Muslim countries that are conveniently not tied to any of his businesses is also a very shady aspect of the ban, and even people with dual-citizenship who do not have a visa aren't allowed to come back into the country for 90 days.(3) There is no plausible reason for barring American citizens based on nationality alone; this order was constructed on the grounds of Islamophobia and ignorance.
(1) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
(2) https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2017/266447.htm
(3) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/changes-trumps-executive-order-immigration-explained/
The executive order in question is not only unfounded, but rooted in bigotry. The wording of the order itself raises questions, as it states the number of people killed on 9/11, but continuing to say "Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001" (1). There is no evidence within the executive order to support this, and the wording seems intentionally vague on how many foreign-born individuals actually were involved in terrorist acts. From September 12, 2001, until December 31, 2015, 70 foreign-born individuals attempted or committed terrorist acts, with only 5 of those 70 making up the entirety of deaths resulting from such acts, totaling 24 deaths. In the same time span, 80 people were killed by American natives or individuals of unknown nationality. In addition, from 1975 to 2015, only 20 of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted were terrorists, and only 3 of these 20 succeeded in their attacks, resulting in a total of 3 deaths. The 3 who committed the act were all Cuban refugees (2). Not only does this show the incredibly low rate of terrorist refugees, but also displays no connection from refugees from the countries banned to terrorist acts. Most notably, the 7 countries included in the ban were not the homes of any of the terrorists involved in 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack in American history. Since 9/11, every deadly jihadist attack in the US was carried out by a citizen or legal resident of the United States (3). All of this information points to a terrorist issue at home, rather than overseas. This suggests that the executive order was issued on the basis of misinformation, misunderstanding, and pure Islamophobia.
1: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
2: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
3: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/06/trumps-new-travel-ban-still-wont-keep-out-anyone-from-countries-responsible-for-deadly-terror-attacks-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.fa043a69d5a6
Trump's travel ban is pointless, it would do very little to stop any attacks and it will only hurt America's image. If anything the travel ban will only help organizations like ISIS. The travel ban can be used by ISIS to show people that the west hate them and will make it easier to recruit them. ISIS even reportedly called it "the blessed ban" [1]. Also, the ban faces many questions as to its constitutionality. The ban violates the equal protection clause by taking away protection of the law from Muslims [2]. Additionally, the ban also violates the establishment clause. The bans clear intent is to ban Muslims from entering the country and the ban also says that Christian refugees will be given priority [2]. Lastly, the ban would not have prevented any of the major terrorist attacks that have happened in the US. Most terrorist attacks are carried out by US citizens and a travel ban would not stop that [3]. Additionally, San Bernardino was carried out by a US citizen and a permanent resident from Pakistan, the Orlando shooting was an American born man of afghan descent, the Boston marathon bombers were Chechen, and the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia [3]. So, Trumps travel ban only creates problems and will probably not prevent any attacks.
1 http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-trump-blessed-ban-2017-2
2 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/why-trumps-immigration-rules-are-unconstitutional-214722
3 http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
I will be doing a strong attack against Trump's travel ban. I believe that it is not a good policy at all because it discriminates against Muslims and it goes against the country's ideology of being a nation of immigrants. The facts are against Trump. So this ban is a 90 day ban on the seven countries that are "terrorist" threats. They say that this is not discrimination. But the one country that he wanted to ban indefinitely(Saudi Arabia) is a prime example of this discrimination. People who are with mainly smaller religions in this country(not muslim) will be permitted to enter the country if they are not muslim(1). That is discrimination 100 percent. Another hard fact is that the Trump administration has said that only 109 out of 350,000 people are affected by this ban but that is a false number. This number does not account for the people trying to board planes, people detained once their flight landed and visa holders. When this fraction of people is added into the mix it is roughly around 90,000 people are affected out of 350,000 which is way larger than 109(1). Another fact is that the Constitution says that everyone is supposed to be seen as equal. This ban puts the word "terrorist" on Muslims and points them. The definition of terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims This is a wide range. Facts show that more than 90% of terrorist attacks were carried about by non-muslim countries(2). Another fact is that no actual terrorist has came from any of the seven countries that are banned. There are cases of people from these countries plotting, but not doing. And that number is also small(3). The main countries that have produced terrorists are not even on the list. That is proven and shows our true intentions. These countries that produce the most are not on the list because they help us out economically. We have businesses there and a high stream of money coming from there and this is why they are not on the list(3). The fact is that the ban is a bunch of crap. It is completely unnecessary and racist. Trump is just dumb and I hate him.
1. http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-travel-ban-fact-checked-how-the-claims-measure-up-10749909
2. http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
3. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/flynn-scandal-intensifies-amid-documented-payments-from-russia-900041795924
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home