Why Is Trump's Banned Order Ethical?

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

I. Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump has recently approved a ban involving the restriction of travel into the United States of immigrants from seven Muslim countries. Since this ban is only for up to 90 days, this is just the beginning of a potentially longer or even permanent ban. This is not the first time he has demonstrated the lack of regard with social equality.

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

Back in 2015, Republican Party nominee Trump made his opinion known about his proposals to temporarily ban immigration in the United States. In a press release statement, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." I see what Trump reasoning is and I think it could be reasonable, but I believe it is still unconstitutional. The Seattle federal judge that suspended Trump’s order, Gordon, states that “the court concludes that the government’s reasons, as provided in the [executive order], are facially legitimate are bona fide but unconstitutional.” I am somewhat in agreement about the ban being reasonable, but you can not say that people from a religion are considered “terrorist” or associate a religion with “terrorist” or terrorism, which Trump is doing. However, although he has a good reasoning it is not enough, because a good purpose doesn’t make anything

The United States has had numerous presidents varying in political parties, beliefs, and ethical values. And in a country as diverse in race, religion, and culture as the U.S. is, it does not come as surprise that the country has yet to elect a president in which everyone supports. Every president has their flaws and every action of the White House is controversial and scrutinized. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “The ultimate measure of a man is not of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy”. With every presidency comes controversies which can define the legacy of that president and their impact on the country. Following more present day presidencies, President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration is an extremely controversial topic around the world right now. Using an executive order President Trump has temporarily banned travel from seven countries.

hoping to get a chance at a better life; others are refugees escaping persecution and civil wars in their home country. Krishnadev Calamur wrote about Donald Trump’s Executive Order 1187 and how Donald Trump had made it his goal to ban all Muslims from the start of his campaign and seeing that those countries were in Barack Obama’s visa-waiver program he took advantage and used it to ban all seven countries (5). The grand result of this ban ended in people coming together to protest at several airports across the country where people with valid documentation were detained. This ban had a great impact that a multitude of citizens, lawyers, demonstrators, and the media descended to witness the order’s impact, but Trump tried to dismiss the reality of the impact by tweeting, “Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning.” (15), when it was a lot more than that. The S. 2458 introduced n Senate mentions, “To amend section 217(a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, relating to the restriction of the use of the Visa Waiver Program for aliens who travel to certain countries.” (3). This demonstrates what Hanson and Johnson have been trying to present; that there is no humane way of handling undocumented immigrants and that the day when government has made it possible to fix this problem is far from being created

Every day in my middle school eighth grade social-studies classroom, I often found myself asking the questions, “Why study history; shouldn’t we let go of the past; why is studying the past important?” Oddly enough, I found my answer to these very questions in a quotation in my social studies textbook. The quote profoundly stated, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” After reading the article, “Then Came War”, the story of unjust racial prejudice against Japanese-Americans in WWII, the answer to my question finally clicked. The story of Japanese Americans in WWII has brought forth many lessons, can be applicable to prejudicial events of our time, and has explanations and the impact of racial prejudice and stereotypes.

Trump sparked great controversy after he passed a travel ban which banned people from seven different Muslim majority countries, and put a hold on the refugee program indefinitely. Unfortunately, Trumps grace upon this wonderful country of ours was put on hold when a judge transgressed his boundaries and deemed the act unconstitutional. Refugees have been a problem to the world for the past decade or so, and have caused hardship to many people across the world, putting stress on the many different governments and the citizens of them. For too long, we the world, are stripped of our happiness and pleasure as we watch these ragged, pathetic beings cling onto what little life they have left like a slaughtered lamb still fighting back although

Rallies, riots, and protests have been springing up even outside of the U.S. Former president Barack Obama has already spoken out against the immigration ban recently put into place. “In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen[s] and how all Americans have a responsibility to be guardians of our democracy― not just during an election but every day,” said Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis, quoted in a 2017 NPR article. Not only that, but according to a 2017 New York Times article, the immigration ban is illegal. Over 50 years ago, Congress outlawed discrimination against immigrants based on national origin. In 1924, after the troubles relating to the Asiatic Barred Zone, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system.” Trump, in defense, quoted a 1952 law allowing the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens,” which was restricted in 1965, something our president should know if he’s going to run the country for four years. Donald Trump, by doing this, is violating the beliefs of the Philosophes, i.e. Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke. He does so by ignoring religious tolerance, and by violating the Constitution and natural rights. Donald Trump is not only lacking knowledge on the Constitution and American laws, but he is also putting out country at risk by placing this ban in order. On the contrary, Trump is doing so with best

On Saturday, January 28th, Donald Trump enacted an immigrant ban on the countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Trump believed that the Muslims in those states were terrorists and could possibly hurt the United States. When this ban came into effect, immigrants were stranded at airports and people, nation-wide, were livid and confused as to why the ban was enacted. Immigrants were frightened for their lives and wanted to go back to their home in America, but they were considered dangerous. After the ban, the United States chose sides on whether or not to support or despise the act. In, "Ask a Chicagoan, Mr. President, about 'dangerous' immigrants", the Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board successfully persuades the Chicagoland

From a Constitutional perspective, Donald Trump’s policies violate the First Amendment by creating this order he

On January 27th, President Trump issued an executive order banning entry of citizens from seven Muslim majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Although public opinion appears largely negative; I believe the “Muslim Ban” fits in to traditional American political culture due to previous issues that have divided our nation. America has a long history of creating a largely positive influence on the world. However, America also utilized slavery, displaced Native Americans, and denied Jew’s refuge during WWII. Looking back on these controversial events makes the right thing to do seem so obvious.

Trump announced, at a rally in Mount Pleasant, S.C. during his run for the Republican nomination, that he would call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" in the United States and compared his plan, favorably, with the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. He also claimed he would send Syrian refugees already accepted into the U.S. back to Syria if made President, saying “I 'm putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration, that if I win, if I win, they 're going back" (Obeidallah, 2015). Trump has also made statements that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database and order them to carry special identification that denotes their faith (Obeidallah, 2015).

Yesterday I read a news story, which was disturbing and left me in awe. The article was titled “Donald Trump: Ban All Muslims Entering US”, by Ed Pilkington was published in Guardian dated December 8, 2015(http://bit.ly/1OLTDLt). The story talks about Trumps comments about denying entry to Muslims into United States.

I am writing to you because I believe that the executive order President Trump signed, banning refugees and Muslims from certain countries, is considered unconstitutional and goes against everything that America represents.