This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please pick a classmate to respond to off the Post 4 thread. Be sure to include new sources in your response agreeing or disagreeing with your classmate. You should have at least 2 sources in your post. Be sure to be clear about who you are responding to and to what points in their post you are responding to.
Labels: first 100 days, president
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:53 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
41 Comments:
I will be responding to Nathan Nomas post about Trumps executive order.Like my peer; I do believe that Donald Trump executive order is unconstitutional, because it specifically target countries that have a majority- Muslim population. Furthermore Nathan states that" Trump could simply say that he was not religiously persecuting people, because he didn't ban a religion from the United states"(1). I disagree, with this assessment, because Trumps executive order does specifically target people who are Muslim; thus showing that Trump is persecuting the Muslim religion. To support this the New York Times states that" The document doesn't explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims"(2).This is just another example of how Trump is persecuting Muslims. To move on, my peer also said that"it is saddening to see how many of them will not get a chance at freedom or a normal life"(1). On this, my peer and I both agree that refugees who were waiting to get into America, will suffer(more than they already are) as a result of this ban. However, my peer does not touch on the fact that people who went through 2+ years of vetting to get into America, and now cannot: might turn to radical Islam. According to Vox.com Trumps executive order may convince larger numbers of Muslims to join the ranks of ISIS(the terrorist group), and as a result will hurt the national security goals of the United States(Vox.com)(3). In conclusion, I largely agree with my peer and his interpretation of Trumps Executive Order. However, it is important to note that turning away people who need the aid of the US(i.e, Muslim refugees) will alienate the US among world power; thus making protection of US interests harder. Anyway, that was just a thought; have a good rest of the Trimester.
Sources:
1.http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2017/02/post-4-travel-ban.html
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-is-cowardly-and-dangerous.html?_r=0
3. http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/14426892/trump-muslim-immigration-refugee-ban-isis-terrorism
I'll be responding to Seth Rosenberg's post. I did some further research, and it is true that nationals from the banned countries accounted for 0 deaths due to terrorism on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015 (1). While there were terrorist attacks that were unsuccessful in this time period, none actually resulted in death on U.S. soil (1). ISIS does control territory in most of these countries, but these countries had relatively low amounts of extremist activity compared to other countries who were not included, namely Saudi Arabia, which makes me wonder whether economic ties is a factor in President Trump's inclusions on the list. Therefore, I agree with Seth in that there are definitely more important things we could be putting resources towards. While I do agree that some of this prejudice is geographically oriented, I believe that religion is the main component in this, as well as a number of other factors. I also looked more into how Trump is going to revise this order, and apparently, he is going to omit his ban on Syrian refugees, as well as allow nationals from these countries with dual citizenship to enter the U.S (2). While I understand that a precedent was set in Korematsu v. US, I also find it important to note that the federal government offered an official apology to families affected by the executive order as well as monetary compensation. Even though there was no official judicial action to overturn their previous decision, the fact that the government acknowledged later that the relocation of Japanese Americans was unfair and unconstitutional shows that they should follow the same ideals for this situation. However, this is a complicated issue, and while it is important that the president retains the right to take drastic actions for the safety of the nation, there is also no outstanding war or other conflict happening besides the fight against ISIS. This poses dangers, but maybe banning immigrants should be reserved for an official full-out war between sovereign nations.
(1): https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
(2): http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-revised-immigration-order-expected-renew-ban-muslim/story?id=45615961
I am responding to Anussa’s post. I agree with all that she said but I will mostly be expanding on the last portion of her post talking about the refugee ban. The actions taken against immigrants and even just travelers in this ban are horrible but cutting of asylum from people running away from war is worse. Some Americans are just very scared of refugees and the reasons behind them are worth looking at. People have biases to evaluate risk, for example by most means driving is pretty a risky thing to do but because people feel that they have control over it and are used to the risks that driving comes with, they do not seem to care (2). While people fear things like nuclear reactor meltdowns, air plane crashes, and terrorism because they are larger, rarer events where people have no control, so they fear them more than your average car accident (2). So, when new people from a country where terrorists are from, even though they are fleeing from them, people react by fearing them and wanting them far away. However, they really should not be afraid. The US has the most intensive vetting process out of any country and it takes two years to complete (3,4). Before I get to explaining the process I want to make it abundantly clear that refugees do not get to pick where they are placed, if a terrorist wanted to sneak into the US there is absolutely no guarantee that they would even be placed here let alone make it through the rigorous vetting process (4). First they must interview with the UN then they are referred to countries, if they would be referred to the US then they interview with the state department. After that they are put through two different background checks, and three different fingerprint checks. Then US immigration reviews the case, an “extensive interview” with Homeland Security, medical screening, a multi-step security screening before they leave the country and another one when they finally get to arrive in the US (4). Even after all of that 60% of the people let in are children and 25% being people over 60 (3). The travel ban put an end to this, refusing to let in any refugees from Syria and the ban left the possibility of opening it again up in the air. They did not ask for this, they did not ask to be driven out of their country, they did not ask to come to the US, and as a rich developed country we are not doing enough to make sure that they have a safe place to stay until they can return back to their home.
(1)http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/how-the-refugee-vetting-process-works
(2)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/11/why_american_people_are_scared_of_syrian_refugees.html
(3)http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/
(4)https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to Bree's post about the travel ban.
Bree's first statement was that despite protests, the ban succeeded. This means that despite a clear display of dissatisfaction with the unconstitutional ban[1] Trump neglected the outcry of thousands of protesters[2] and still followed through with signing a bill that has prevented even highly skilled doctors from returning to the United States. Dr. Hooman Parsi, who is so talented he has a visa granted only to those with extraordinary achievement or ability, is stuck in Syria because of the ban.[3]
Bree later says 120 days is not forever, which is true. The problem with this statement is, no matter the amount of time the ban is enacted, 1 day or 120 days, it does not suddenly become constitutional or morally right. He has also indefinitely banned refugees from Syria.[4]
Bree notes in the post that the ban has made her feel safer, despite the fact that compared to the 33,599 deaths by firearms in America, there were 32 deaths from terrorism.[5] That means that compared to gun deaths, terrorism makes up less than 1% of the total deaths of guns and terrorism combined.
The countries in the ban may have been on Obama's countries of concern, but this does not change the fact that not one of the 9/11 terrorists came from any the countries in the ban and there has not been a terrorist attack from one of these countries since 1975. [6] Trump has given Americans a false since of security at the expense of the constitution and religious freedom.
Bree later describes herself as a devoted Christian. Well, a very famous person named Jesus once said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."[7] Is a ban of refugees fleeing the horrors of war ravaged countries really loving your neighbor?
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-unconstitutional-muslim-ban_us_589545c5e4b061551b3dfece
[2]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/protest-president-donald-trump-travel-ban-muslim-theresa-may-london-jakarta-philippines-a7562566.html
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/health/trump-travel-ban-doctors.html
[4]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/28/what-you-need-know-trumps-refugee-ban/97183112/
[5]http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us/terrorism-gun-violence/
[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-terror-attacks-muslim-ban-7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93
[7] Mark 12:31
I am responding to Ms. Mia Locquegnies’ post about the travel ban. I agree with her. The executive order targets people that don’t need to be targeted. According to new america the place where most terrorists come from is the US. They are natural born citizens of the United States. “None of the deadly attackers since 9/11 emigrated of came from a family that emigrated from one of those countries nor were any of the 9/11 attackers from the listed countries.” (2) As I said in my original post this ban seperated families and not one recent terrorist is from the countries that this ban is targteing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/
I am (joyfully) responding to Mandii Braun’s blog post. Like her, I disagree with the executive order, and believe it to be unconstitutional, and laced with Islamophobia and paranoia. Mandii specially pointed out that that the travel ban is “keeping the problem out and not fixing anything.” The American has responded to the travel ban in many ways, now Universities are responding as well. The Association of American Universities released a statement calling for the end of the travel to occur (1). Trump said in a speech that now “there is no room for prejudice (2).” If that is true then what can be said of his intentions of his “Muslim ban”? Immigrants have made strides in American history since the very beginning. Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of treasury, immigrated from the Caribbean and even to modern times, Sergey Brin, one of the Google co-founders.
http://college.usatoday.com/2017/01/29/how-universities-are-responding-to-trumps-travel-ban/
http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170120/in-speech-trump-says-united-america-totally-unstoppable
In this post I am responding to Matt Leitgen. On the whole, I agree with his analysis when it comes to why the ban is wrong. He agrees that the ban is against our principles as a nation, and that it even denies people a chance to have a higher education due to their national origins. Furthermore, it is also clear that this ban was poorly planned and poorly executed, which Matt acknowledged. However, I do not agree with Matt’s assessment of the constitutionality of the ban. For example, he cited that the internment of Japanese in World War II is comparable to the travel ban -- however, I think the two are not comparable. The internment of Japanese during World War II was upheld based on national security interests during war -- the Japanese were a “clear and present danger" (to be clear I do not agree with this assessment!). However, there doesn’t seem to be a clear and present danger in this case. Most recent terror attacks are instances of “homegrown” terror (1). Essentially, American citizens are becoming radicalized by outside terrorist sources, and then carry out attacks. Therefore, people are not coming into the United States and carrying out terrorist attacks; the terrorists are already here. A travel ban does not solve the problem of terrorism in America. Furthermore, Matt states that the perception of this ban as a “Muslim ban” is inappropriate. This is true -- the use of the term “travel ban” is more accurate. However, I feel that the reason the media calls it a “Muslim ban” is because Donald Trump made a campaign promise to block all Muslims from entering the United States (2). He believes that Islam is the root of terrorism, and he is taking actions to keep these “potential terrorists” from killing our people. I think it is important to refrain from normalizing what this “travel ban” does. The constitutionality of this executive order is questionable, and I feel that it is, on the whole, unethical.
(1) http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
(2) https://thinkprogress.org/trump-who-campaigned-on-a-muslim-ban-says-to-stop-calling-it-a-muslim-ban-630961d0fbcf#.v5mas7wai
I am responding to Seth Rosenberg. I disagree with much of his post. First, the words "refugee terrorism" make no sense. The legal definition of refugee is "an individual seeking refuge or asylum; especially an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution or fear of persecution (as because of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). Refugees are those who are fleeing from oppressive governments and terror groups such as ISIS. 99.99938% of refugees admitted in the past 30 years have not committed terroristic acts. In fact, the chances of a refugee killing an American is one in 3.64 billion, almost one thousand times smaller than the chances of being killed by a tourist on a B visa.
One thing that is often mentioned in the "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" executive order, is the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Zero refugees were involved in those attacks. It makes absolutely no sense to justify banning a group with something that they had no part in.
As for the part of Mr. Rosenberg's post that predicts how the Supreme Court will rule on the ban, it seems unlikely that the ruling in Korematsu v. US will be able to be applied. Korematsu v. US specifically applied to espionage and racial groups. Terrorism and religious groups, however, are a completely different can of worms. Religious groups, while bearing some resemblance to racial groups, are two separate things. For example, a high percentage of Danish people are Christian, but a very low overall percentage of Christians are Danish. A high percentage of people from Syria may be Muslim, but a low percentage of Muslims are from there. It is clearly fallacious to equate racial and religious groups.
I do agree with some parts of Mr. Rosenberg's post. I certainly agree with his analysis of President Trump's campaign- spreading fear and hate to win votes. I also agree that President Trump will attempt to re-word and re-pass his executive order, as it is one of Trump's "flagship" issues. Now, it is just up to the Supreme Court.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refugee#legalDictionary
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
http://denmark.dk/en/society/religion/
I will be responding to Hailey Martinez’s post regarding the travel ban. I definitely agree with her comments about how the executive order has not been successful due to the public outlash and on the account that it has already been suspended. I also agree with her prediction that Trump will likely try to release a new immigration plan, but want to add more recent information. Trump requested the Department of Homeland Security to create a report in order to justify his reasoning behind the travel ban. However, the findings in this report concluded that citizenship was an “unlikely indicator” to whether a person poses a terrorist threat or not(1). Trump’s administration is claiming the information in the report is not complete and it is “not the intelligence assessment the president asked for” according to a senior administration officer(1). Although it may not be a complete assessment of the situation, this report by the Department of Homeland Security proves that even people within Trump’s administration do not agree with his extreme ideas for the immigration laws. This is not a public protest as Hailey talked about in her first post, but it shows again how many people are opposed to Trump’s ideas. An administration officer also stated that there was a new immigration executive order already in the works that would target the same seven countries that the first one included(2). The administration also claims that they decided to focus on these countries because they were already pointed out by Obama’s administration as potential threats(3). Overall I agree with Hailey's original post, and new information since then has also solidified many of her points.
(1)https://qz.com/919257/department-of-homeland-security-report-rejects-donald-trumps-travel-ban-claims/
(2) https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/white-house-effort-to-justify-travel-ban-causes-growing-concern-for-some-intel-officials/index.html
I will be responding to Bree’s blog post on the travel ban. First of all, Bree said that “The ban did technically work spite all the protests”. In reality, after a federal judge suspended key parts of the order, 1,800 refugees have entered the United States, despite parts of the order remaining in place (1). Second of all, in her post, Bree said that the travel ban will “only last 120 days, it is not as if it is forever”. However, according to the New York Times, the executive order actually “put an indefinite pause on Syrian refugee admissions” (1). While this may be only one of the seven countries from which travelers are banned, it still disagrees with Bree’s statement. Finally, Bree’s more emotional standpoint on the ban was her fear that, as a Christian, the people from these countries would persecute her if admitted into the United States. While there is, admittedly, an anti-Christian sentiment in some of those countries, this is due to the rule of ISIS, not Muslims themselves. Zero American citizens have been killed in the U.S. by people from the 7 countries banned (3). The immigration (Muslim) ban will not make the United States safer, it will encourage discrimination and hate. Thus, I disagree with Bree on her points of the effectiveness of the ban, the timeline of the ban, and how she feels the ban will affect her.
(1).http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/24/since-travel-order-lifted-more-than-1800-refugees-from-affected-countries-have-entered-u-s/
(2).https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/fact-checking-claims-about-trumps-travel-ban.html?_r=0
(3).https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
I agree with Jared Peterson’s views on the travel ban. His strong opposal of it is very in line with my views of the ban. To start, Mr. Peterson states the fact, “[The ban] does essentially nothing to stop or prevent terrorism” and this is supported by the internal report written by intelligence analysts in John F. Kelly’s, the Homeland Security secretary, department. The report not only upheld the facts and statistics defending the lack of terrorism in the 7 banned countries as of recent, but also states that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity” (1).
The report maintains Jared’s point of the lack of prevention by noting the small number of visas granted to the banned countries by the State Department before the ban (1). Few individuals were allowed entry in the first place, so the ban restricts an already restricted population despite evidence against the country’s involvement in terrorist attacks in the US. In addition, more than half of the 82 people killed in the US while engaging in terrorist activity were born here (2). This elaborates on the fact that the ban will not be beneficial since it does not, in any way, protect America from threats already within it.
The report written by the intelligence of the Department of Homeland Security has struck down motivation for the White House to continue with the ban, but Trump continues to do so anyway. I agree with Jared’s statement, “I am very pleased that the order was struck down in court, but extremely afraid for what the future will hold”, especially since it seems that Trump is neglecting the advice in the report and is continuing his attempts to ensure a Muslim ban.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/politics/travel-ban-nations-terror-risk.html
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-travel-ban-intelligence-homeland-security-terrorism-threat-us-iran-somalia-a7599126.html
I will be responding to Charlie Weisman’s post. I agree with all of the points that he made but I would like to expand on a couple of them. First, he mentioned that the ban excludes countries that the people responsible for 9/11 were from. Not only this, but the the people from the countries who are included in the ban have accounted for 0 terrorist deaths since 1975, 42 years ago [1]. I also agree with Charlie’s analysis of how the ban will end up. He said that there will be a battle between the courts and President Trump, with Trump continuing to issue the order and the Supreme Court continuing to find it unconstitutional. This would leave the ban completely unsuccessful, as it would never even fulfill its intended purpose, as terrible and unethical as that purpose was. Finally, I agree with the detrimental effects this ban is having and could have. It is hurting refugees who just want to escape their unsafe conditions and having a big impact on political asylum. Something that I feel showcases the dangers of this is the amount of doctors being affected by this. There are somewhere around 280,000 international medical graduates in the United States right now [2], and many of them will be/have been affected by this ban. The U.S. has a large dependence on foreign-born doctors, and therefore the medical profession will be affected greatly by this ban. Also, there is a lot of stories of people with legal visas not being let in [3]. This shows the chaos the ban is causing, and how it is aimed at more that just stopping mass-immigration.
1)https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
2)http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/02/11/514399475/trump-travel-ban-spotlights-u-s-dependence-on-foreign-born-doctors
3)http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/24/517023337/deported-with-a-valid-u-s-visa-jordanian-says-message-is-youre-not-welcome
I am replying to Pierce on behalf of his post about Trump’s executive order, I am agreeing with everything he said that correlates to my post, that the executive isn’t as much about national security as it is about discrimination and paranoia. I am also stating and agreeing with things I did not include in my post as far as how easy it is for Christians to enter the US in direct comparison to Muslims. An article I found (1) also stated how easy Trump has made it to target Muslims abroad, which is something he promised before he won the position of his presidency. The article also contains facts about the order, that indeed state that Christian refugees are preferred. Another article (2) pertaining to the effects that this ban will have around the world explains the suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program (oversees transfer of refugees to US), and the expectations of a blowback from multiple countries that will view the US in a negative light.
(1)http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/donald_trump_s_executive_orders_on_immigration_are_a_bad_sign_for_muslims.html
(2)http://www.salon.com/2017/01/30/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-is-already-backfiring-and-its-consequences-will-only-get-worse/
In response to Cheri Wang, I wholeheartedly agree that Trump's travel ban was intended to target Muslims. This is wrong. If you want to help decrease terrorism in the United States (in the name of national security), you must be more specific and not discriminate against a whole religion. Trump's own Department of Homeland Security found in a report that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity" (1). I also agree with Cheri's point that this executive order was written with haste and was not run through the proper vetting channels before it was given. If Trump wanted this travel ban to be upheld in the courts, he should have had some lawyers look at it beforehand. I do fear for when Trump reintroduces the travel ban with some fancy new legal way to circumvent the courts. Cheri makes a good point when she questions why Saudi Arabia was not on the list of countries included in the travel ban -- Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy, meaning that religion minorities are not free to practice in Saudi Arabia (2) This means that the vast majority of their citizens, probably at least 90% are Muslim. Not putting this country on the list seems suspicious. Lastly I agree with Cheri that this travel ban truly is the ultimate representation of Trump's Islamophobia. Having a President who discriminates against Muslims, or any religion in our country, where almost all of us are immigrants, makes me slightly ashamed to call this my home.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/politics/travel-ban-nations-terror-risk.html
(2)http://traveltips.usatoday.com/culture-religion-saudi-arabia-15694.html
I would like to comment on Mr. Seth Rosenberg's post about the travel ban. First off, I would like to point out that I disagree with the ideology and premise of this ban, but I don't fully agree with the backlash to it either. I would like to say I agree with most of his points, especially about the fact that Trump's executive order was directly religion based. I find this true because of the fact that not all Muslim-majority countries are put on the banned list. The countries listed were from a list in a law passed by Barack Obama. The law increased the screening from these countries, identifying them as places of interest (1). While this law wasn't nearly as restrictive as the Trump executive order, but that is where the list is from, hinting that the list isn't nearly as racist as some would suggest. Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of the Muslim-majority countries that weren't included on this ban are actually mostly friendly to America, or has business agreements with the COUNTRY, NOT just Trump himself (2). Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, and Indonesia are all left off the ban, but it is due to all the business ties and relations that America has with these countries. This is why I believe that Seth is right, and that Trump's Travel Ban (while not being a good idea) is not entirely based on religion.
1)http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/
2)http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-muslim-ban-why-werent-these-countries-included/news-story/2f328c29cceebb6a3d3d1e6d86623269
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will be responding to Bree S' post on Trump's executive order. Although it is true that Trump reportedly based his ban on the countries that were labelled as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration, the difference here is that Trump places great emphasis on the connection of his executive order to the 9/11 attacks. Immediately in the first section he essentially says that his executive order is in response to 9/11 in order to ensure more national security (1). I brought this up in my original post, but if Trump was modeling his executive order off of the Obama admin, he would either a) not discuss the 9/11 attacks and the terrorism surrounding it or b) discuss the 9/11 attacks and also add countries like, Saudi Arabia, for example, where the 9/11 terrorists were from, onto the list of "countries of concern." However, Trump did not do either, so it begs the question of whether he was actually "following the Obama admin" or not. Second of all, Bree writes that "[this ban] will only last 120 days it is not as if it is forever." Multiple sources, including CNN, the New York Times, and Washington Post all reported that this executive order put an "indefinite pause" on Syrian refugee admission. Furthermore, what Trump did was in fact not legal, as it was struck down immediately by the courts. Within the first five days, district Judge James Robart suspended the order due to issues surrounding its legality (2). So even though Trump, as president, is allowed to issue executive orders, this particular executive order really was unconstitutional and the judicial branch does have the power to strike it down. Lastly, Bree brings up concerns for Muslim attacks against Christians. However, the CATO Institute states that "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" (3). To put this into perspective, you are literally more likely to die from a coconut falling out of a tree than by an attack from someone included in Trump's ban. Therefore, I disagree with Bree's comments in her last post, and that the ban has been successful.
(1) - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/text
(2) - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/justice-department-asks-seattle-judge-to-defer-action-on-trump-order.html
(3) - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/
I am reviewing the post by Bree. I personally think that she is being a little arrogant in what she is saying with all due respect. I first want to say I do agree that it did technically work and that's a fact. It did make it so people couldn’t travel in and out of the country like he wanted. I can’t really argue that. I will say that this isn’t really that similar to what Obama did. First he only did it to one country. And he didn’t completely cut off the country. But what he did was slow it down a lot and started to really look into the background checks a lot more. I think that your whole point of being a christian makes you feel safer is arrogant and self centered. First this travel ban was based off of protecting christians which is great in all, but it seems like this government does a great job of taking care of christians and not so well on anyone else. The way we are treating and how our president is advertising muslims is not okay. I think we are treating them horribly and driving them more towards terrorism. Terrorism is based off of the separation of Muslim and Christian communities, this is only driving this cause. One of the goals of the terror attacks on 9/11 was to cause an internal war between christian and muslim communities. This was far more successful than Osama Bin Laden could have imagined. This has lead to the rise in terrorism and Isis.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/09/being-a-muslim-in-trumps-america-is-frightening-heres-how-we-can-survive/?utm_term=.4ce84857b122
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/
I am responding to Cheri’s post on President Donald Trump’s travel ban. I agree with her opinion that the travel ban is ineffective and unfairly targets people of Muslim faith. According to the Atlantic, people from the seven nations affected by the travel ban have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015 (1). Meanwhile, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates have been excluded from this ban due to business ties to the president’s companies (2). With that being said, I completely agree with Cheri and her argument that the exclusion of these countries from the travel ban threatens national security and demonstrates the hateful intentions behind the executive order. People who have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks are taking punishment from actions previously carried out by people from different Muslim majority states. This can be seen through the details and response to the 9/11 attacks. Out of the 20 people who carried out the 9/11 attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was from Egypt, and 1 was from Lebanon (1). Nobody from the countries affected by the travel ban are involved with the 9/11 attacks, or any other acts of terror that have killed Americans since then. This evidence displays the discriminatory nature of the travel ban executive order. Hopefully, these arguments will be enough to stop Trump from successfully implementing a second “revised” version of this executive order following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
2. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am responding to Bree’s post about President Trump’s travel ban executive order. I strongly disagree with these opinions. In stating that “the Executive ban is doing exactly what is was written for” implies that it is achieving the goal of increasing protection of our country and eliminating terrorism. This however, is not true. Only 34 individuals have been convicted in terrorism cases for terror related crimes in the United states from the 7 countries involved in the ban[1]. Bree implied that by allowing immigrants from these countries to enter the United States, people would persecute her as a Christian. Also, all jihadist terrorist attacks that have resulted in deaths in the United States since September 11, 2001, have been committed by people who were American citizens or permanent residents and were not from the 7 countries in question [1]. This shows that stopping refugees and immigrants from these countries is not really making our country any safer, no matter what religion they practice. It is preventing people from coming to America for a better life, so that we can have a superficial feeling of safety as a result of the prejudice against specific people and their countries of origin.
Bree mentioned that the ban “will only last 120 days it is not as if it is forever”. BBC News clarifies that the suspension of acceptance of refugees from Syria is indefinite [2]. Continuing in this faulty reasoning of support of the ban was mistaking that the ban is just like what Obama did during his administration. Obama’s short, less than a month, pause in immigration during 2011 Iraqi immigrants that allowed the immigrants into the U.S. within the month, responded to a specific episode in which money was sent to Al-Qaeda from two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky for supplies [1]. It was not fully enforced either. Bree also says that this ban is legal with no arguments to support this claim. The immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 says that no person can be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence" [2]. Just by excluding all Syrians is enough to challenge Trump in court. Lastly, Bree refers to herself as a devoted Christian. The Bible teaches of loving one another, reaching out to those in need and the persecuted, and loving any enemies. They are called to not judge others for their unbelief, and to never withdraw love or aid. From this standpoint, the ban as a order that opposes these values and practices of love and helping by preventing refugees from war-torn countries and and other immigrants from entering our country.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/politics/fact-checking-claims-about-trumps-travel-ban.html
[2]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38781302
I will be responding to Alyson’s post about Trump’s executive order regarding immigration. I agree with Alyson and I think that Trump’s executive order’s claims are exaggerated too, and he is not helping national security in the United States very much with it. I also agree with Alyson that there is really not a way to see this executive order in a positive way. An article on “The Hill” 1) talks about a student named Hameed Darweesh who is a student from Iraq. He was detained at the New York airport, and then deported back to Iraq despite his valid student visa. This is just one of the numerous examples of people whose lives were affected by the travel ban. It’s hard to see a policy in a positive way when it greatly affects people’s well being, when it is supposed, and claims to be helping the nation. The travel ban has also cost the country a lot of money which surprises me, considering Trump’s big goal on the campaign trail was to help the national debt. According to an article on the Huffington Post the travel ban has cost the country more than 185 million dollars 2). The travel ban impacted business travel and is the reason that the travel ban has cost the country so much money. This is another reason that the Trump’s travel ban was a failed act, because it ended up costing the country more money, and hurt the economy. I agree with Alyson that Trump’s executive order was much too excessive, and it was rooted in a lot of hate for a certain group of people. I do not think that Trump’s executive order was successful, and I think it created more problems than there were before it was issued.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/321391-aclu-clients-hit-by-travel-ban-to-attend-trump-address
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-travel_us_58a7979ce4b045cd34c1dd05
I am responding to Mark’s views on the travel ban. I agree with Mark both in opposing the travel ban and in calling for thorough vetting. I completely agree that the ban goes against what we stand for as a nation but that national security must be considered in the vetting process. Of course this does not mean that I believe that only immigrants from Muslim nations should be highly scrutinized, but immigrants from all around the world. I believe that there is a way to efficiently vet immigrants yet to still admit large amounts of immigrants and refugees while seeding out the few dangerous ones. However, the travel ban is not that way.
To bar entrance to people of these countries is not only morally flawed but logically flawed. For one thing, most of the immigrants that have been behind recent terrorist attacks have not even been from any of the seven affected countries (1). Even domestically, this ban is having unpredicted results on the economy. Just one week after the ban went into effect, the U.S.’s business travel bookings had declined by $185 million dollars (2). If this kind of decline continues, it could have considerable repercussions in the U.S. economy. Overall, I agree with Mark that while this ban had some sense of intention to it, it goes against the values of the nation and has some major moral and logistical flaws.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/
(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-travel_us_58a7979ce4b045cd34c1dd05
I will be responding to Mandii's post. I completely agree with Mandii's stance that the travel ban is "inherently racist and rooted in nationalism."
Her argument that the ban is dividing the nation is supported by the uptick in anti-Muslim hate crimes following Trump's inauguration. Rather than denounce the attacks, Trump's ban seems to have given people the illusion that this kind of discriminatory behavior is somehow acceptable. [1] The mentality of us versus them has intensified since the election and Trump's subsequent fear mongering actions, and it, as Mandii said, is most certainly dividing us.
I also agree with her assertion that the ban is unjustified. The Department of Homeland Security recently found that the people of the countries blocked by the ban pose "no increased terror risk." Additionally, the report notes that few individuals of the countries even had access to the US, due to the small amount of visas granted by the State Department to those areas.
All these factors damage the credibility of the ban's "security" motives, and instead bring us back to Mandii's argument that the ban is rooted in racism and nationalism.
Sources:
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-islamophobia-anti-semitism_us_58b08debe4b0780bac2938b4
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/politics/travel-ban-nations-terror-risk.html
I will respond to Rebekah's post. Her opinion seemed to be in agreement with the ban at least in its idea of screening people entering the U.S. rather than its blanket ban. I must admit that I do agree with this evaluation although I'm kinda on the fence about whether a blanket ban vs just tightening screening is the better option. On one hand, there is the moral prerogative of helping refugees and on the other is the protection of the taxpaying citizenry (1). However, Rebekah referred to the executive order as unconstitutional which I will note is under the sort of grey area of the matter. Trump does have the power to make such a ban, however the way that his plan was originally set was very shaky in a legal view. Similarly, as much harm that the ban may cause, Rebekah said that it was the right of these people to get into the country to which I must note that while many of these people should be able to get into the country, they do not hold a right so much as a privilege to do so and thus aren't necessarily protected in that regard (2). Overall, I agree that the way the ban has thus far been slated is vastly incorrect, although not for the same reasons as Rebekah cited.
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-about-to-make-a-comeback-heres-whats-really-driving-it/?utm_term=.f62ccaeeb549
(2) http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2074713/trumps-muslim-ban-may-have-already-served-its-hate-mongering
I am responding to Bree’s post about the success of Trump’s immigration band. Bree says his ban was a logical success and she says it is doing what it was written for. I disagree with the claims Bree has made because the goal of the ban was to protect the US “from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States”(1). First off the countries included in the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. There have been no fatal acts of terror on the United States from any of these countries, so technically the only effect it really has had is creating division in our country and chaos at many major airports (2). Also, the fact that it has already been blocked by the federal court shows it is unsuccessful.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
(2)http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/
I will be responding to Seth Rosenberg. Many can agree that the Travel Ban is just a plain wrong thing to do, these are human beings that President Trump has forcibly kicked out the United states. The facts that Mr. Rosenberg has presented, further prove this point. (1) The ban was on only muslim countries. (2) Trump “unintendedly” left out muslim populated countries from this ban. These countries being Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are business interest for him. Thus that I am a agreeing with, that the 7 countries, President Trump has chosen were all in interest of his business and political ideologies. Not in the general well being of the people who truly wish to come to America for safety.
1. http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/facts-on-trumps-immigration-order/
2. http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-ban-conflict/
I'll be responding to Nathan Noma's post in which he voiced a few opinions. First he said that the ban was unconstitutional. Second that Trump IS doing this on religious grounds and that he's covering this up with the idea that the countries are just unstable. Third that the lack of a ninth judge of the SCOTUS will lead to the lower courts decision staying because they are now ideologically divided evenly 4 to 4. In response to the first point, the argument I believe Noma uses is the idea that it violates the 1st amendment by preferring on religion to another. Well I agree that this is wrong and totally Trumps intent, it's not what he is doing. He's banning entry from the countries, not the religions in the countries. This lies more on the power of the president to be able to ban entry of a group of people if we are at war with them (1). However, we are not, nor do I hope we ever are, at war with these seven nations. Thus in my eyes, and the current courts, this ban is unconstitutional because it over extends the presidents power. The second argument Noma makes is that Trump is doing this solely from a religious bias or Islamophobia. I totally agree with this, seeing that he was even quoted on saying, "I think Muslims hate us" (2). However, some legitimate arguments for the ban are that it is a really messed up area these people are from, every time we get involved in the middle East it ends poorly, and if we decide to stay out of all of it, it may end better for us. The last point Noma brings up is that if the case went to the SCOTUS, there would be an even tie in votes or maybe even go Trumps way. I disagree with his reasoning behind this. First of all, the court should and does operate on a constitutionality perspective, not a political one. So even though the ideologies are evenly split (3), what they believe lines up politically might not be constitutional and they would have to vote against it. The other major flaw with this is the rule of 4. The democrats on the court would want the case ASAP so Trump couldn't appoint a 5th republican judge. The rule of 4 lets them bring up the case with all democrat votes alone. They could then stay firm in their decision and this would prevent a majority from ever forming in favor of the ban. Simply put, if the case went to the court, it would be very unlikely to go in trumps favor.
(1)http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/03/is-trumps-travel-ban-constitutional-immigration-law-experts-from-both-sides-weigh-in/
(2)http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debates-and-campaign-quotes-1.11206532
(3)http://supreme-court-justices.insidegov.com/
I agree with Alyson Plyman’s blog post attacking Trumps immigration policy, specifically his travel ban. Allyson brought up some very good points in her blog post. She talked about how many world leaders responded negatively to the ban. Now, even more have responded, including some of the countries on the banned list. [1] For example, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Sudan said, "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." They also asked to be taken off the list of countries that support terrorism. Also, Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault of France said that welcoming refugees was "a duty of solidarity." "Terrorism doesn't have a nationality; discrimination is not an answer," he said on Twitter. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek, Turkey being a Muslim majority country not on the blacklist, tweeted that, “#RefugeesWelcome in #Turkey, the world's largest refugee hosting country. We'd happily welcome global talent not allowed back into #USA.” Trump has received even more backlash from foreign leaders now than he did earlier.
Alyson also talked about how the threat of terrorism that Trump was trying to prevent didn’t even really exist. She talked about how people from the 7 banned countries hadn’t killed anyone in the US between 1975 and 2015. Also, no one was killed by Muslim Americans with family backgrounds from those 7 countries, further highlighting the absurdity of the executive order. Twenty-three percent of the Muslim Americans involved with violent extremist plots since Sept. 11, 2001, had family backgrounds in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen And yet, none of these plots ended with American deaths. Alyson had very good arguments explaining why Trump’s executive order was not positive.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/trump-travel-ban-world-reaction/
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-terror-attacks-muslim-ban-7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93
I will be responding to Willa’s post. I completely agree with all the points made, and will be furthering a few of them. This public display of bigotry is just another continuation of the widespread discrimination of Muslim individuals that has been plaguing the US for years (1). As Willa said, the 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.” While the ban claims to protect US citizens from discrimination based on religion, it directly discriminates against those who follow Islam, considering the fact that all of the countries banned are mostly populated by Muslims (2). I agree with Willa in that those who are directly affected by the ban are not terrorists, that they are just seeking refuge from a war-torn country. Actually, none of the immigrants from the 7 banned countries since 9/11 have been proven to be terrorists (3). Furthering Willa’s point that the ban is illogical, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,and Egypt are three countries that are not touched by the ban, yet all three are the homes of known terrorists (4). Perhaps this can be explained by Trump’s business ties with all three of the aforementioned countries. This ban is clearly not for the protection of the United States, but rather created with racist and harmful intentions, leading to the suffering of many innocent individuals.
1 - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/islamerica-excerpt-hate-crimes/
2 - http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/761087/Donald-Trump-immigration-ban-what-seven-countries-reasons-US-banning-Muslim-travellers
3 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-terror-attacks-muslim-ban-7-countries-trump_us_588b5a1fe4b0230ce61b4b93
I am responding to Mandii’s post. I found it refreshing to see her humor alongside her strong disapproval of Trump’s ban. Mandii talked about how she feels that the reasoning for the ban is unclear. I totally agree, and I actually found that the more I researched the topic the more confused I became. Mandii mentioned that the UN claimed that the ban was “illegal under human rights law” which I was actually unaware of. I researched this some more and found that the general secretary for the UN also believes that the ban would do little to fight the war on terrorism (1). I completely agree with Mandii that it is hard to justify the ban without being racist. This ban has made many Muslims question whether the line between an average Muslim and a small group of extremists is even existent. Time states this as “the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims uncertain about the global superpower’s fundamental orientation toward them and their faith” (2). The ban has made people question whether they have the freedom of religion as given by the First Amendment, and has caused much more turmoil and controversy than good in the fight against terrorism.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/trump-immigration-ban-un.html
(2) http://time.com/4658366/donald-trump-terrorism-racism/
I am responding to Ian’s post about Trump and the travel ban executive order. In his post he said, “Trump’s disappointment should be greater when it comes to the lack of success in the rollout of Donald Trump’s immigration policy proposals on the whole.” I agree with this statement because Donald Trump’s immigration policy did not go well, and he should be disappointed. However, in my opinion, Donald Trump is an arrogant person and does not take losses seriously. He gives excuses and believes that he did not lose. For example, Trump kept on fighting for the policy in the courts but failed. He again does not stop and is going to issue another executive order that is more specific but will still ban most if not all of the same countries. Ian also talked about how Trump’s policies does not have a lot of support from congressman and the public. However, according to 538.com, a large number of Americans are ok with immigration bans, in the context of terrorism, but not ok religion based immigration ban(1). At the end of his post, Ian says that in the past month Trump and his administration has shown inexperience at governing. I slightly disagree with this statement. I think some of the things that Trump and his administration have done are absurd, such as the travel ban, but Trump is just doing what he thinks is right. There are always contradicting opinions and bias towards your political party. For example, many Republicans are ok with Trump in some ways, while almost all Democrats, absolutely, hate everything about Trump. Republicans are much more likely to approve of Trumps policies because they are in the same party and agree on certain issues(2). Overall, I agree with Ian’s opinions and think that Trump is a unique president that is doing what he wants in order to make America great and act on his campaign agenda.
(1)https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trumps-refugee-ban-have-public-support/
(2)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/07/republicans-l-o-v-e-trumps-policies-so-far/?utm_term=.da0e320c9be0
I'm responding to Mandii's post about her thoughts and opinions on Trump's immigration ban. I agree with her opinion and her points that the ban is rooted in Islamophobia and is unjustified. Trump claims the ban is in response to the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates (1). None of these countries are part of the travel ban (2). I agree with Mandii in her point that it's hypocritical of the US government to claim to ban people from these countries for "public safety," as we've done much more damage to the Middle East than it has done to us. I also agree that the ban has not been successful due to both the large public outcry and the fact that it's already been deemed unconstitutional. In addition, as Mandii says, the UN also denounced the ban. By continuing on this route for discrimination and hate, Trump is only hurting the United States and creating more enemies.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-hijackers-fast-facts/
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
I'm responding to Hayley's post on the Muslim ban and Trump's disguised xenophobia. I completely agree with Hayley's stance on the subject due to a number of signs Trump shows with his policies that indicate an undeserved discrimination of other races. If anything, Trump's racism began to show when he campaigned on the promise of building a wall. (1) Now in power and recognizing the impossible nature of the wall, Trump simply turned to the easiest form of legislation he could, the executive order, and this turned into the immigration ban. This point closely aligns with Hayley's belief that this policy was a scapegoat for terrorism, and I'd like to further that point by saying this ban was a scapegoat for the broken promise of the wall. (2) Trump's hypocrisy, as Hayley stated, is also apparent through the exclusion of countries with which Trump has business ties with in the middle east. This is hypocritical and arguably illegal due to the constitutions statements about the President's ethics. I, like Hayley, am fearful of Trump's actions, and sincerely hope that major consequences result from them, so that we as a country do not repeat these policies.
(1)http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/facts-on-trumps-immigration-order/
(2)https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-groups.html
I am going to be responding to Krissy's blog post. Like her, I strongly find Trump's immigration policy dumb and worthless. Divisive, logistically impossible, and outright xenophobic, Trump's plan to ban these Muslims from the country simply isn't feasible. Not only is Krissy right about the fact that a large majority of the world is upset about this attempted ban, but the United Nations denounced this executive order and called it illegal on the basis that it is discriminating against these countries due to their state religions [1]. Trump's plan is also not very logical. His attempts to protect our citizens has been overshadowed by his fear of other cultures, and while he believes he is protecting us as a nation, he is only hurting us, our cultures, and our relationships with other countries more [2].
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-refugee-ban-executive-order-muslim-majority-countries-syrians-un-united-nations-a7550576.html
[2] http://time.com/4658366/donald-trump-terrorism-racism/
I am responding to Hayley Dickinson's post. I wholeheartedly agree with Hayley's assessment of the ban. She refers to the ban as a piece of discriminatory legislation under the guise of trying to keep America safe. She brought up the fact that Trump failed to ban countries he has business ties with. To take that one step further, although Trump said this was aimed at stopping terrorism, he failed to ban the country the majority of the 9/11 terrorist attackers were from: Saudi Arabia (1). Many world leaders have also called the ban xenophobic, which is in line with both Hayley and my opinions (2). Trump's outright discrimination against Muslims is unlawful, which Hayley pointed out and I fully agree with.
1-http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-muslim-ban-saudi-arabia-911-2017-1
2-http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/world-leaders-condemn-donald-trump-muslim-ban-170128134635041.html
I completely agree with Ingrid's view on the travel ban. In a map presented by Forbes, it seems as if Trump's ban has just managed to fill in the gaps between where he has business connections (1). This also is not the first time in which there has been controversy over Trump's business ties affecting his politics. During the election, Trump came under fire for the potential of him knowing insider information as president that would affect his private business. Later, speculation arose that intelligence agencies were withholding information from Trump due to his potential ties with Russia (2). This ban only seems to follow a series of private business-politic reports, and I highly doubt that it will be the last.
(1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/datadesign/2017/02/01/mapping-president-trumps-travel-ban-vs-his-business-interests-in-muslim-countries/#1087dc274694
(2) http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leaks-us-intelligence-agencies-sensitive-information-2017-2
I agree wholeheartedly with Emily's opinion on the travel ban. Her points about how Trump's order favors "persecuted religious minorities" and blatantly undermines the suffering Muslim population sheds light on Trump's Islamaphobic agenda. It's important to note that this order also affects Americans as well (although not nearly as much). One hundred diplomats were fired for having dissenting opinions which completely suppresses the American value of free thought and foreshadows how he'll run his administration in the future (1). Another aspect that affects Americans is the ban on those with dual-citizenship that do not have visas, even though they are fully American citizens currently. (2) It is clear that Trump has no issue with targeting an entire religion on the basis of fear-mongering and hatred, and it does not look good the future of immigration in the US.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html
(2) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-citizens-with-dual-nationality-state-department-2017-01-28
I agree wholeheartedly with Lauren's points on the travel ban. The idea that the travel ban focuses more on white supremacy than national security seems very accurate, as well as disconcerting. Trump's plan to focus the Countering Violent Extremism program on only Islamic terrorism (2) supports this belief, as it excludes white supremacist and other right-wing extremist terrorist acts. I also agree that terrorism is a massive issue, but needs to be fought in different ways. 84% of terrorists since 9/11 have been citizens or permanent residents (1), indicating the problem must be fought at home.
1: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/
2: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO
I agree with Ian's post about the travel ban. However, I would say that Trump has found some success with his immigration policy. The immigration policies are not good but he has had some success. Trump has recently been working to deport the "bad hombres" out of the country. He has had U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement conduct a series of enforcement operations in five major cities working to deport the "bad dudes" [1]. But when considering that undocumented immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than citizens it seems like a waste of time and money. There are stories about "homeless men emerging from a shelter and being arrested. About a domestic violence survivor going to court for her own protection and being nabbed by immigration agents." [2]. Trumps deportations may mean success for him but they certainly do not do any good for America.
1 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/03/president-donald-trumps-deportation-bad-dudes/
2 https://theintercept.com/2017/03/01/trump-wants-you-to-think-all-the-immigrants-hell-deport-are-criminals-theyre-not/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home