Trump Pros And Cons

“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.

President Trump’s travel ban is a very strategic move by his administration towards taking larger steps in the prevention of terrorism in the United States. Although, I have some doubts about the rationale behind the ban. While the travel ban is said to not target Muslims, the

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”.

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

On January 27 Donald Trump signed an executive order on immigration. This order blocked many refugees from coming into the United States. The order also blocks citizens from Muslim countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Donald Trump goal is to protect the U.S through the immigration ban. He saids that with the immigration ban ,the government will be able to review the refugee approval process and add more security measures.

It is unconstitutional. Donald Trump is attacking the Muslims. There are many Muslims in the US and they have done no harm. He is blaming them and trying to make them leave. This like how Hitler and the Jews. Where Hitler discriminated and blamed the jews and try to get rid of them. This is somewhat similar because Donald Trump is picking on one race and discriminating them and blaming them. Trump is saying that every Muslim is bad.

It is no secret that the thoughts and viewpoints expressed by government officials, especially the President, plant seeds in the minds of the public which eventually proliferate to influence popular opinion. Before President Trump was in office, he discussed implementing a “ban on Muslims” (Kaleem 1). Unfortunately, these statements contained and encouraged negative stereotypes associated with people of the middle east and Islam, a commonly practiced religion among Arabic people. Mere weeks after his inauguration, Trump stayed true to his word and followed through with his plan, signing the order entitled “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” (Press Secretary 1). Banning citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from traveling to the United States, the order will be in effect for 90 days (Press Secretary 1). Because this ban seemed to portray the message that all people of those countries were dangerous terrorists, the Trump administration received extreme criticism from the public and many immigration rights groups because of their decision. Many organizations continue to voice their outrage, such as the ACLA Immigrants’ Rights Project. "The Trump administration has conceded that its original ban was indefensible.” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement to the LA Times. “Unfortunately, it has replaced it with a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws. The only way to actually fix the ban is not to have a ban” (Kaleem 1). This information suggests that many people believe that this order is perpetrating racism and encouraging the stereotyping of people of middle eastern descent. This is not the only order passed by Trump insinuating all Arabic people are dangerous terrorists. On January

Two U.S. federal judges have denied President Donald Trump`s new executive order about people coming from other countries to live in America for the time being. The new order would have kept all refugees from entering the US for 120 days. It additionally gave people coming from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have a 90-day delay from entering the states. Due to the fact that, 90 percent of the citizens of the countries named are muslim, some US citizens have called Trumps order a muslim ban.

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

As stated in “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, no one should be discriminated and human rights belong to everyone no matter how different they are. When Donald Trump passed the ban against Muslims in the United States, this was a clear sign of discrimination. In the article, “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for Refusing to Defend Immigration Order”, Trump’s order… affects immigration from seven countries that have predominantly Muslim population, temporarily bans certain travelers and places indefinite restriction on Syrian refugees.” Anyone who was from the seven targeted Muslim-majority countries were not allowed into the United

and stopping refugees from coming elsewhere in the world for 120 days minimum. It also stopped Immigration from 7 majority Muslim countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. People with green cards and students studying in American universities were denied entry in the U.S. after traveling abroad. They were detained for hours and others were sent to their original country causing great panic and emotional stress. For example, “Hammed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked for the U.S. government began to cry when speaking to reporters after 19 hours of detention” (Michael D. Shear pg. 5). Many people who have no intentions of hurting America are being affected. Refugees of war stricken countries who were already approved to arrive in the united states are now worried about their future. Students and work professionals who were only coming to help America are unable to. Detaining skilled people entry will only hurt America’s economy America has a history of immigration and accepting refugees making this order go against America’s foundational beliefs. Singling out people based on religious belief is similar to Hitler’s treatment of Jews in Europe. Trump’s actions have resulted in lawsuits backed by The American Civil Liberties Union citing constitutional and legal

On January 27th, President-elect Donald Trump had issued an executive order to temporary ban travel of refugees and citizens from seven heavily influenced Muslim-majority countries. The executive order didn't carry a good response in fact, many people in the united states and around the world held protests and caused an uproar. Hence, the severity of the situation began to increase to a staggering degree but the U.S. appeal court on Thursday ruled that President-elect Trump's travel ban would remain blocked.

According to data obtained by CNN, since the Refugee Act of 1980, which vets refugees thoroughly prior to allowing them sanctuary in the United States, there have been no terrorist attacks conducted by any refugees, from any country. In fact, prior to the Refugee Act of 1980 there were only three attacks and they were conducted by Cuban refugees. On January 27, 2017, exactly one week after Donald Trump was sworn into office as President, he issued an executive order halting the entry of refugees from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and most controversially Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Essentially this order came to be known as the travel ban. Trump implemented this ban on the basis of national security, claiming the need to protect American citizens. The travel ban has been controversial due to its targeting of primarily Muslim refugees, while still allowing for the influx of refugees of minority religions from the region such as Christians. This essay will explore and compare both the positive and negative aspects of the travel ban by analyzing its components and the possible effects it could have on the United States.

Those who oppose the travel ban argue that it is not strengthening our national security because there are already people of Muslim nations in America and that the visa insurance process is still active and does not discriminate. When Executive Order 9066 was taking place in Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona, between 110,000 and 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were moved to internment camps (“Executive,” n.d.). If there was this many Japanese ancestry in America in 1942, why would America not have that many or more Muslims in 2017? The Muslim nations have been coming to America in the early fourteenth century, the early sixteenth century, etc (“Islam in America,” n.d.). The visa insurance process claims that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality,

Preventing people from seeking refuge, based solely on the country from which they are fleeing, is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The travel ban implemented by President Trump prohibits individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from seeking asylum in the United States. This ban infringes on the natural rights they have as human beings, including the idea that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.). In addition, the basis of the ban is that refugees pose a threat to national security targeting individuals based on both religion and national origin. This statement is unfounded when one considers the general refugee population and additionally violates an individual’s right to freedom of religion and from discrimination of national origin.