Article
During much of Trump's campaign, he has continuously called the immigration crisis a "trojan horse," citing many of its dangers to the US and its economy. Recently, the UN convened to discuss new policy on how to deal with the immigration crisis, in which the US has historically supported under the Obama administration. However, as we all probably expected, Trump's administration has walked away from discussion, promoting more isolationist views. He claims that the US should have the autonomy to regulate their own borders, which is essentially true, but it poses many challenges to the refugee crisis.
Proposed policies surrounding the refugee crisis (in US): Trump has stated that there should be a cap of 45,000 refugees admitted per year and that borders should be more highly regulated. There are currently millions of refugees dying on trips to bordering countries and to the US as well as multiple millions of displaced individuals and families. The US, as one of the global powers, has always been a crucial supporter of taking in refugees, yet it is generally agreed that they could not possibly take on this burden alone. Although there is current policy that will continue support, in 2018, support from the US will likely end (as stated by Trump).
1. What do you think of these new semi-isolationist actions by the Trump administration.
2. Do you support protecting sovereignty of the US versus taking in as many refugees/giving as much support as possible?
3. As this is also a reflection on Trump's stance on tighter borders, how do you think these stricter borders would influence the country (more division, possible positive effects)?
5 comments:
To answer the first question that you asked. I believe that the semi-isolationist government that Trump is trying to impose on the United States can have its pros and cons. I believe that it might be beneficial towards the United States so that more of the funding can go to other more "important" issues, however, we won't be offering as much aid to the refugees that may need assistance and can't fit anywhere else. I believe that we would rather stick to the ways that refugees and immigrants were handled during the Obama era. I believe that we should give as much support to refugees that we can in order to provide them aid and help them through the time that they are going through as they are trying to escape from their old home. However, I do believe that there need to be some restrictions as solely focusing on immigration and protecting immigrants can harm the US while it's trying to do good for the other countries. I believe that this is a close to what Trump is doing with the trigger borders with Mexico in which they would be both positive and negative effects on the United States and it's neighboring countries. They can both positively improve the amount of protection that there is when coming up with ways to stop people from crossing illegally into the united states, however, the tougher rules that Trump is trying to promote with his wall on the southern border has weakened the relationship between the United States and Mexico.
I believe that isolationism can be implemented for the benefit of the people, but Trump is not necessarily thinking for the better of the people in this case. He is notorious already for remarking many racist insults and is very money-minded in many aspects. Even though I have obvious bias towards Trump, I would say that the main reason I am against Trump's calling for isolationism is because he wants the US to stay isolated for the wrong reasons. But on top of this, I don't see any reason personally why we shouldn't accept refugees, especially if they are willing to stay loyal to the US. And since we are a powerhouse in the world now, I feel like we have some responsibility in supporting people in need of security and money. Strict borders around our country would probably only sour our relationships with the rest of the world, which could be extremely detrimental for us as well. So in the end, I believe that although there are good reasons to stay isolated, we should not do so, especially under Trump's presidency.
President Trump may be extreme, but I believe that he is on the right track. I disagree with Sahith that he is motivated for the wrong reasons, and I do think that he is working for the good of the American people. Isolationism is a positive thing for our country, as it will prevent us from being burdened or taken advantage of by other countries. Refugees are important and essential to our country and our economy, but I do believe that there should be a limit. When other countries are not helping with the issue, it is unfair that the USA should be the only country to hold the burden of refugees. We need to start being the powerful country we are, without allowing other countries just to step all over us.
Like Chris and Sahith mentioned, there can be beneficial outcomes from semi-isolationist actions if they are implemented in a delicate manner. However, I don't think that protecting the sovereignty of the US is more beneficial than taking in more refugees. Instead of capping the number of refugees allowed to enter the United States, I think that refugees should be evaluated on an individual basis altogether. If the US is ultimately not the best place to support a numerous amount of refugees, perhaps, there can be other programs implemented that can help refugees travel to an area that has more hope than the one they escaped from. I know this idea is not necessarily feasible not pragmatic, but I mean to illustrate that I think there is a better solution than turning a cheek away from the issue that people are dying from dangerous conditions in their own countries because the United States has the power to change that.
I think just because Trump and his administration don't want to take in refugees and immigrants, that doesn't mean they should walk away from large international discussions. They can still participate in meetings and discussions while holding on to their low immigration values and US border autonomy. I believe it is vitally important for the US to at least be present at these meetings and discussions as we have already begun to lose some of our international influence.
Post a Comment