 |
| Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images |
I find this travel ban unreasonable. The Trump administration is clearly discriminating against individuals based on their nationality. Furthermore, Trump's main reason for this ruling is that these countries are threats to our national security, which I believe is a superficial rationale because the ban primarily targets Muslim-majority countries, and according to Hart, Trump's "anti-Islamic prejudice [is] often expressed on Twitter and at rallies...[which] has been used against him in court repeatedly to prove the ultimate purpose of the travel ban." The legality of this case is questionable, as the lower courts are still hearing out this travel ban.
Discussion Questions:
Discussion Questions:
What do you think about this travel ban?
Is this ban lawful?
Do you think this is a "Muslim Ban"? And if that's the case, do you think freedom of religion under the First Amendment is violated?
Is this ban lawful?
Do you think this is a "Muslim Ban"? And if that's the case, do you think freedom of religion under the First Amendment is violated?
16 comments:
I can see why the travel ban was enacted, but it only looks good and reasonable on paper-for example, why should people from Libya, Chad, and Somalia be barred from immigration, but people from Saudi Arabia (an oppressive wahhabic police state where the lion's share of radical islamic terrorists originate from) are freely allowed to enter? The travel ban comes from the right place (the need to protect our communities from existential ideological threats)
However, first of all we must note that the President also clearly does have a lawful right to enact the travel ban-just ask the highest court in the nation, who ruled that today. (Wait, isn't that what the entire article was about?)
In terms of the president "clearly discriminating against individuals based on their nationality," the President unfortunately has that right according to the Supreme Court decision handed down in Korematsu v. United States, where the court ruled 6-3 with Justice Hugo Black opinion, which stated that Executive Order 9066 leading to the internment of Japanese Americans was not only constitutional but needed in the interests of national security. The writer, to her credit, cites the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, but she fails to remember that this is a TRAVEL ban, not an IMMIGRATION ban. Permanent residents and green card holders who originate from the countries who come here can still finish their immigration processes-they won't be sent back to their home countries. This leads us to the second point the writer makes: that the rationale of national security is a "superficial and weak rationale" merely because of the fact that "the ban primarily targets Muslim-majority countries," seeming to ignore that many of the recent terror attacks since 9/11 in the United States were committed by radical conservative Islamic fundamentalists-which I would call a national security threat.
Nobody likes this travel ban, it's certainly ill thought out, and it goes against multiple of the values on which this country was founded upon. But you have to realize that Trump has every right to enact this travel ban-and even better, that it might bring results in keeping this country safe.
I do not agree at all with the travel ban, and in my opinion it is just a poorly disguised form of islamophobia. I believe Granger has a good point in his concluding argument: this is indeed "ill thought out, and it goes against multiple of the values on which this country was founded upon." Our nation was founded on immigrants coming to this land for freedom and it seems ironic that we would ban groups of people for wanting the same thing. Now we are picking and choosing which groups of people can come here.
It is disgusting that we would deny the same rights we fought for to other people who are looking to start a new, free life in America. Some common arguments I've noticed in this debate is that this ban was created to diminish terrorism in America. Still, many acts of terror on US soil, like school shootings, have been committed by white Americans, so if that is the reasoning, why are Muslim countries making up the majority of the countries on the ban list? Assuming every or most immigrants from middle eastern countries is a terrorist is a gross generalization, and many of these people, refugees, are just trying to escape their countries with their lives. We are condemning these innocent people by refusing to give them refuge in a safe, free country.
Anyway, in summary, I agree with the poster and find this ban to be severely anti-Muslim and xenophobic.
I don't agree with the travel ban. Why should innocent people be banned from entering the United States. This can hurt the US economy, because tourism can go down, and also many students from these countries pay big $$ to study at these US colleges, and I bet that the Universities will also be loosing money. I do believe that this is a muslim ban and freedom of religion under the First Amendment is violated. Before you know it, he will will ban all muslim countries.
This is a blatant violation of the first amendment's freedom of religion. While Korematsu v. United States did allow for the United States government to perform such acts, we are able to look back and see that it was a move that is and should be remembered with great regret. The decision by the Supreme Court stated it was justified due to the circumstances of "emergency and peril." The United States is not in a state of emergency or peril, and as such can not use the same justification from this previous case. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.
I'm somewhat hurt by the comment above that claims this ban may "bring results in keeping this country safe." I have friends in European countries who can't come visit because they have been a to a banned country and hold a visa there. There are all these tiny details within the ban that affect way more than just the people in those countries. In fact, I come from one of those countries. What's even better (in the most sarcastic way that can be meant), countries that are known terrorist threats, like Saudi Arabia. It's painful to live in a country that has reached the pint, as others like Bridget and Allison mentioned, that bans innocent people due to nationality, and won't take care of the domestic terrorists within it.
As Vincent mentioned, Korematsu v. United States was justified because of "emergency and peril," which was WWII in that case. Korematsu v. US does not apply here. The United States is not in a state of crisis or "emergency and peril" at the moment. In response to this travel ban will "bring results in keeping this country safe,” there have been cases of terrorism committed by white Americans before and after 9/11, and possibly more to come. According to a database from The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, throughout 2008 to 2016, there have been almost twice as many terrorist attacks from right-wing extremists (almost all white) than from Islamist extremists. Thus, maybe we’re not so safe through this travel ban, as there still may be terrorism from within the U.S.
I agree that this travel ban is unlawful and that it infringes upon the First Amendment's freedom of religion. Although there were recent terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, most Muslims aren't terrorists, and this travel ban will prevent many of those innocent people from traveling here. This clearly seems to stem from Trump's racism and personal view on Muslims, rather than clear evidence that most members coming from these countries are dangerous. Furthermore, Trump refuses to acknowledge the terrorism stemming from many other ethnic groups which occurred in the US itself, and is only targeting a specific group of people who aren't proven to be a threat to national security.
I actually disagree with the comment that states the travel ban "might bring results in keeping this country safe." We are dealing with a terrorist group that has roots and supporters in hundreds of countries around the world, not just in a select few regions from the Middle East. A reason that ISIS has been so incredibly difficult to take down is because of their use of social media and the fact that they have supporters from so many countries. With Trump's logic, we would have to ban every person outside of the US from visiting. On top of that, how many people from these predominantly Muslim countries are actually terrorists? Very few, most are innocent people. Thus, I find Trump's travel ban a bit illogical.
Woah, woah, woah. We got to back up about a few things in this here thread.
First of all, yeah, I can concede that Trump is remarkably tone-deaf to other brands of terrorism in this country-specifically, homegrown white-nationalist terrorism. I can also acknowledge that a very small amount of the people who live in these countries are radical Islamic terrorists who follow the tennents and beliefs of the Islamic State to the letter.
From that point, I'd like to ask a question: how is the travel ban "[infringing] upon the First Amendment's freedom of religion," exactly? I'd like to dispute the thought that the travel ban is a "Muslim ban." If the travel ban is a Muslim ban, which the left is often wont to say, then why didn't Trump extend the ban to Saudi Arabia (which spawns the lions share of terrorists and promotes the most oppressive brand of Islam) or Indonesia (the worlds largest Islamic country in terms of both size and population)? Furthermore, there are two banned countries which have no connection to radical Islamic terror: Venezuela (which is majority catholic) and North Korea (which is...whatever North Korea is.) In addition, previous commenters have said themselves that only a small percentage of Muslims are radically conservative, so how can a travel ban meant to keep out only the worst radicals be a blanket ban on all of islam?
Furthermore, how are countries where the Islamic State has influence "[not] proven to be a threat to national security"? I'm not saying that all Muslim countries are threats to national security, but as we see in Europe countless times, opening your borders to countries which have copious amounts of radicalized youth might be a little naive.
As I said before, I'm opposed to the travel ban. Nobody especially likes this travel ban, it's certainly ill thought out, and it goes against multiple of the values on which this country was founded upon. But when you have an ideology that is diametrically opposed to our western liberal way of life, and have a dangerous group which has its central tenants based off of that ideology that is willing to use whatever means necessary to spread that ideology, then I could say that yes, opening our borders to such people might have an impact on our national security.
Just because Trump has the power or "right" to do something, does not mean that it is the correct/fair thing to do. Picking out only certain countries to ban can be considered racism. I also agree with previous comments that with Korematsu V. US America should have learned their lesson by now after having to pay a great price for the injustice they brought to our Japanese American citizens.
According to NYMAG, many people "saw the inclusion of North Korea and Venezuela as fig leaves to obscure the real intent behind the restrictions," demonstrating that these countries were simply cover-ups over a true purpose. Additionally, Hart explains that "the ultimate purpose of the travel ban, even if not stated outright, is still clear as day," which are the intentions of prohibiting travel specifically from most Muslim-majority nations.
The lower courts are still deciding the legality of this ban. But, according to the Washington Post and regarding freedom of religion, the Federal court ruled that the ban "discriminates against Muslims, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." Going off of these court conclusions, I believe that freedom of religion is violated because the ban targets countries which follow a specific religious belief or follow a monotheistic Abrahamic religion in this case. Without Muslim individuals, who would most likely practice their religion in the U.S., there is a lack of free exercise of their religion.
As someone who has family that was personally effected back when the travel ban first came out in January, and went through the panic of not knowing where they were for a few days amidst all the confusion when flights to the US were cancelled, I can't find a way to justify this travel ban. I know it was sold to people as a way to "keep people safe" and "keep bad people out of the country" but, simply by looking at the list of countries on the list (and off the list) and researching how those countries have contributed to terrorism in the US will reveal that this is not even designed in a though out matter (though I think if we thought out the matter we wouldn't have it in the first place). This is hurting innocent people and families more than it will ever potentially keep us safe.
I feel like the travel ban is unjust and will not solve the issues of national security. I do not think its fair to label entire countries as potential threats because of a few terrorists actions. Even with the travel ban, I think that national security is not going to improve because all you need is one person to be radicalized and conduct a deadly attack. It's sad to see the many families that are impacted by a travel ban across the world.
I can understand what President Trump is trying to accomplish with this ban trying to stop terrorism in the U.S. but I think he's going about it the wrong way. This ban is discriminating a whole culture based on the actions of a few. I don't think this ban will have a big effect on stopping terrorism in the U.S. but rather impact many families negatively.
While I believe that the travel ban is unfair and unjust, I don't think its necessarily just a "Muslim ban". I think Trump enacted this ban because he believes it actually is whats best for the security of our Nation, but as we can all see, it's really doing more harm than good. I think that if anything this band just fuels the fire of disdain that many have for the United States and that if anything this might put us at more risk in the long run. I hope those affected by this ban get the help they deserve and that eventually, Trump can figure out a way of keeping US ALL safe and protected.
Post a Comment