The Short List By Michael Scsherer Summary

“On January 27th, Trump signed an executive order temporarily banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States” (Wulfsohn). This ban did not just stop those from Islamic countries from coming to the United States for the first time in their life, it also revoked the visas from 60,000 people who had been US citizens. This is where most people see a major issue with the travel ban. While most will argue that the ban is in the interest of national security, the argument is that those 60,000 people that used to live in America, those who were born here, have families here, grew up here, are now not allowed back because they simply left the country.

In The New York Times’ article called “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal” published on January 27th, 2017, David J. Bier expresses his personal opinion about the execute order signed by Trump that supports to bar all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries. According to Bier, the order is illegal, since Congress outlawed all discrimination against immigrants and American citizens based on nationality, race, sex, place of birth, or place of residence by means of The Immigration and National Act of 1965. However, Bier explains that the 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion, which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal. The author uses examples to prove that presidents have used their powers many times to forbid

President Trump recently signed an executive order that restricts entry from seven Muslim majority countries into the United States. Trump’s immigration policy bans the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and heightens additional screening to make sure that they do not pose a threat to the security of the U.S. The order also indefinitely restricts the entrance of Syrian refugees and restricts travelers that come from seven predominantly Muslim countries including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen entry into the United States for 90 days (Shear, Michael). This order would affect over 20,000 refugees, thousands of students nationwide, and hundreds

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

President Trump says the goal of this Executive Order is to provide protection and security for our country. However, the nationalities that he selected on his ban list have not killed a single person in the U.S. According to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the nationalities that were involved with the attack of September 11, 2001 were Saudis, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon. Based on this evidence, the travel ban will not make America safer; therefore, the Executive Order doesn’t serve its true purpose.

Trump’s plan has drawn comparisons to Adolf Hitler. It drew reminders of the Jim Crow Laws for illegal immigrants. His remarks have been deemed anti-American. Trump’s declaration repeats the notion of segregation that we have faced in past decades.

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.

After federal judge Robart decision, another federal Gorton a judge appointed by president George W. Bush said.” Provide a reasonable conceivable states of fact” that could maintain a rational basis for it’s own clarification. However, the content of the order then negative targeted the seven countries Muslim’s majority to ban from coming to the Unites States for 120 days without strong possible proof that these countries intends are to harm the American

Asserting the measure was necessary to keep Americans safe, Trump proposed a moratorium on all Muslim immigration into the United States. In a written statement he

J.A. quotes President Trump in regards to Islamic terrorists with “We don’t want them here… We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” following this quote the writer says “But if that is his aim, his order is hogwash”.

I decided it would be best to wait for a while to write on what has become Donald Trump’s now infamous proposal that there should be “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” for a couple of reasons. First, the outrage, predictably, over Mr. Trump’s ban was fierce and fast and I wanted to allow some time for it to cool. Reacting to the hottest thing is not always the wisest thing. Second, I wanted to take some time to gather my thoughts on what has transpired. It is a tricky thing for a pastor to write about a politician and I never do so lightly. This is why I also feel compelled to state upfront, lest there be any confusion, that, though I do reference certain political realities, the primary purpose of this blog is not to analyze Mr. Trump’s politics or campaign. There are others who are far more adept at these types of analyses than I. I do believe, however, that Mr. Trump’s ban on Muslims has worldview and theological implications that are important for Christians to recognize and to address. Indeed, what fascinates me most about Mr. Trump’s ban is not so much what he proposed at first, but how he has continued to defend his proposal. In an interview on Live with Kelly and Michael, the presidential candidate argued, “It’s not about religion. This is about safety.”

By banning Muslims from the United States, it spreads the false stereotype of Muslims being terrorists. As a result of seeing this bill in effect people may begin to believe that all Muslims are guilty of terroristic actions they had no part in. People should continue to repealing of a ban which makes the views of a small group of people represent the beliefs of a much larger group. Additionally, preventing people from immigrating due to their culture and race was banned in the United States by the Immigration and Nationality Act (1965). It stated that: “No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigration visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place or birth, or place of residence.” The executive order violates this act by banning immigrants from specific countries and thus should not be a legal

One of the arguments that many people have against the ban is that President Trump is targeting Muslim countries because of his own distaste for them and not for United States protection. With that being said, I believe it is unlawful to try and pass a law because he does not favor Muslims. There is nothing in the

The universalizing and stereotype constructions of Islam contribute to the ongoing marginalization and vulnerability of Muslims in the United States by placing a travel ban on their families in other countries. The travel ban makes it impossible for their families to visit them especially if a loved one is sick like in the article. It’s not right that his aunt can’t come into the country to comfort her sister during her husbands cancer just because President Trump has implied that people from those countries may be terrorist out to do Americans harm. Even when people of other countries successfully pass the background check they are still denied their visas in order to enter our country. Where is the fairness in stereotyping those people and not allowing them to enter into our great country. I think that as long as they pass the background check they should be allowed to receive their visas to enter America. Making them pay for what others have previously done is unethical and wrong. People should not be permanently barred based on the negative actions of others. Protecting national security from terrorist is a top priority in this country but not at the expense of alienating innocent Muslims from coming here. Majority of Muslims are not terrorist extremist so to treat them as such is unjust.

Be it resolved that the United States fully repeals the travel ban due to the discriminatory effects it has on some people. The travel ban is a terrible executive order that was put into place by President Trump on january 27th of 2017. The travel ban was put into place to protect the United States by not allowing any citizen from seven muslim countries to enter. These seven countries are; Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These countries were targeted due to supposed risks of these countries harboring extremists groups such as Isis or Al-qaeda. According to the article “Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?,” by BBC News, “ The travel ban suspensions the US refugee program for 120 days, places and indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and suspends all visas of incoming immigrants of the seven banned countries” (BBC News). The seven countries are heavily muslim, however most of the people in these countries are no threat to the United States in any way. Why is the United States completely discriminating the islamic religion when we are founded on the basis of religious freedom. Not everyone who is muslim is a terrorists so why are we punishing a lot of good people for the actions of very few. Most of the terrorist attacks that have happened since 9/11 have been carried out by a U.S citizen, so are we going to start deporting all muslim U.S citizens? The islamic religion is not the problem it's the radicalistic idea that some people