Is Donald Trump's Politics Or Campaign?

The Travel Ban marks a major turning point in the policies on immigration in the United States. Due to increased terrorist attacks and illegal immigrant numbers rising, it is believed that temporarily banning immigrants from particular countries is key to ensuring safety within the United States. Though many have expressed their concern towards the ban because of its similarity to previous discriminatory and unconstitutional acts. The ban has even been referred to as the “Muslim Ban”.

Bush (2008), Supreme Court decision decided that foreigners, even those suspected of terrorist acts, are entitled to the same Constitutional rights as United States citizens are ("BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH."). So, if religious tests were included in the Constitution for the Founding Fathers fear of potentially establishing a church of state, we must discern whether a religious test on refugees would violate the establishment. The Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), established a three test precedent for evaluating what infringes upon the rights granted in the Establishment clause. “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” ("Lemon v. Kurtzman."). A religious test determining the admittance procedure on immigrants and refugees, would not pass the Lemmon test, and would thus be in violation of the Constitution. For example, President Trump’s Travel Ban states that it will, “prioritize refugees’ claims made by individuals on the basis of religious persecution, provided that the religion of that individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality” (Exec.). Considering that none of the countries listed in Trump’s “Muslim Ban”, have not orchestrated any pernicious terroristic attacks, since 1975, the Executive Order has scant evidence to support these

Regarding Erwin Chemerinsky’s article from January 29, 2017, “Op-Ed Trump's cruel, illegal refugee executive order,” I am happy to see this issue raised publicly. I believe Trump’s banned order is unacceptable because it is discriminate, unconstitutional, and inhumane. Firstly, it is discriminate because no one should be banned from entering the Unit States of America base on the nationality. This means any banned nationals with immigrants are not allowed and discriminated with voided visa. Secondly, it is unconstitutional because this order is breaking the first amendment which allows an individual’s region should not favor over another. In the article, Trump also told Christian news that will give Christians a greater help. Thirdly, it is

Donald Trump is running for president. He is laying down a lot of proposals. One of the biggest proposal is trying to ban Muslims from entering the United States, when he becomes president. Donald Trump addressed these issues saying that he is trying to protect the US and the people away from danger. This is important issue because it is unconstitutional.

America was founded on upon the ideals of being a melting pot of various races, religions, and ethnic origins. Hundreds of years ago, this county provided hope and opportunity to the rest of the world’s poor and oppressed. And each of those factions has contributed to the United States’ welfare in some way, shape, or form since the beginning. But today Americans face new fears that have stirred up old ways of thinking which may disrupt the pursuit of life and liberty for all in the land of the free. Republican front runner, Donald Trump, has hatched an inflammatory plan to ban an entire group of people from entry into this county basically throwing out the whole cart as a result of a few very bad apples. But this plan to ban all Muslims is an overreaction without regard to the minority extremists found throughout the populace. Muslims should not be banned from the United States because America has always been a

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (“Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech”)

During his campaign for presidency days after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” Additionally, in November of 2015, on ABC News’ This Week, Trump stated that he wants a database for the refugees that (if allowed) come into the country. Stating, “we have no idea who these people are. We don’t know if they are ISIS, or if it’s a Trojan horse. I definitely want a database with watch lists.” He also states that he wants to have surveillance of certain mosques. After the attack in Paris on November 13, 2015, Trump suggested that the United States should strongly consider shutting down mosques in wake of the Paris attacks. A mosque is a place of worship for followers of Islam. One day after the shooting in Orlando on June 2, 2016, Trump re-upped his call for banning Muslim immigration to the United States. Trump explains, “the bottom line is that the only reason the killer (Omar Mateen, a Muslim) was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.” Michael Flynn, who served as Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor for a little

Within the first paragraph it says, “He had even vowed not only to “bomb the sh-t” of the Islamic State fighters in Syria but also to “Take out their families” – another likely war crime.” This would not sit well with some people, some people’s morale conscious would not want this to happen. Just after that it say, “he made his next move, an extraordinary call to bar all Muslims from entering the U.S, including tourists and business travelers, a direct challenge to the nation’s constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.” Banning a certain group from the United States because of their religion I like saying someone cannot come into your house because they are a different skin color, it is just

Pilkington reported that Trump in a statement released by is campaign office proposed to ban entry of Muslims to US as they pose a threat to country and people living in United States. Pilkington stated that to justify his claims to banning Muslims Trump presented polling which showed hatred of Muslims towards Americans (Pilkington 2015). Pilkington reports Trump saying “Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers

The Establishment Clause’s main focal point is “that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” (Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) The executive order enforces an immigration ban from seven Muslim-majority countries. In addition to creating privileged treatment towards refugees, who categorize with ‘minority religions’ within their own country, pursuing asylum. Therefore, this means that the executive order’s objective is to concentrate on Christians in search of asylum rather than Muslims. Although the executive order does not deliberately disregard Muslims, it does prohibit entry to people living in Muslim-majority countries.

According to Rod Dreher, the author of, “True Things About the Trump Immigration Ban,” it stated that Trump only wanted to reduce the future harm that might occur in the U.S. Also making the immigrant's policy more rigorous so it can vet out terrorism (Dreher). The justification for the order is well thought out and important to ensure the safety of a nation, but the president can not degrade or persecute an entire religion that is falsely associated with terrorism. If there were data on the seven Muslim-majority countries that corresponded with them being related to terrorism than it would have been justified. This executive order established by Trump would have made the nation more secure if it was not directly discriminating and disfavoring an entire

When interviewed, Rudy Giuliani explained how the administration’s immigration policy morphed from one that was obviously unconstitutional to one that is more subtly so. Host Jeanine Pirro asked, “Does the ban have anything to do with religion?” In response, Giuliani said, “When [Trump] first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’” “It,” in this case, of course, is a ban on Muslims.

America, a country considered a melting pot, requires a president capable of accepting those of different races and religions. Donald Trump’s openly racist remarks disqualify him from holding presidency. In a speech, Trump made the “assertion that all Muslim people should be barred from entering the U.S.” (Pulliman-Moore). In response, “White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest” stated ““What Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president”” (Pulliman-Moore). In addition, “House Speaker Paul Ryan insisted that religious freedom was a “fundamental Constitutional principle”” (Pulliman-Moore). Trump clearly crossed the line with his comment. Displaying islamophobia violates the right of religious freedom, as granted by the First Amendment. Presidential obligations include respecting and upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Trump proves incapable of carrying out that responsibility.

I believe the complete ban on refugee admissions is a failure to meet America’s humanitarian obligations. The policy violates the moral principle that it is wrong to discriminate based on religion. The seven countries whose citizens are not permitted entry are all overwhelmingly Muslim and that is no coincidence. Trump himself has implicitly acknowledged that it is wrong to discriminate based on religion by denying that he is doing so. However, this recalls the old saying that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In this case, the hypocrisy is so blatant, given Trump’s past and present statements about Islam. This policy is clearly and deliberately aimed at restricting the entry of Muslims and that under no circumstances can be dismissed as a moral act.

Jihad is a term associated with terrorists who believe in war against nonbelievers. However, the misinterpretation of this concept has created a prejudice toward the Muslim people. A majority of the American population, like Donald Trump, are fearful of this approach against believers of other faiths. In result, he proposes the U.S should ban all Muslims from entering the country. Over two million Muslim families live in the United States currently. Many have been here for years, and came to seek a better life. Unfortunately, Muslims are getting a bad reputation because of ongoing terrorism. Furthermore, the U. S. should not take these steps towards disallowing Muslims to enter the states. Not only would it create a hostile relationship with other Islamic countries, but it would be considered discrimination against the faith and go against basic human principles.