Donald Trump and his supporters rationalize the executive order by claiming they attempt to prevent terrorism by impeding the travel from six majority Muslim countries. But, if that’s the case, then there is no explanation behind why people who aren’t from these countries are also getting hassled and denied entrance when travelling to the United States of America.
Although there are relatively stringent orders, many Africans also fear that they are being impacted by this executive order. An article from CNN states how several Nigerians have stated that they have been denied entry since the executive order has been placed. One instance is from a real estate businessman, named Femi Olaniyi, who was travelling to Los Angeles with a visa. As he recounts, an immigration officer proceeded to interrogate him and then held him in a cell for four days. Following the four days, he then revoked his visa and sent him back to Nigeria.
The explanation that was provided for the practices against numerous Nigerians was that it was in order to “establish practice rather than new policies of the Trump administration.” But if the ban is in order to monitor the people coming in from the six specified countries in the executive order, then the acts of denial of Nigerians goes against the pupose of protecting from terrorism. This raises the question of whether the executive order is really about banning Muslims or if it’s a ban on Black and brown people/
As a result of the Muslim ban, U.S. tourism has actually declined. This is not surprising, due to the fact that specific countries are basically banned from entry, however, the impact is greater than expected. This ban has also caused a decline in tourism from Europe and Asia, as well as our neighboring countries. Check out this article to read more about the consequences of this executive order. Maybe Donald Trump will reconsider this ban, if we get hit where it hurts, which is our nation’s economy.
In attempt to overshadow the true reasoning and motive behind the executive order that Donald Trump has imposed, his administration as well as his supporters claim that this executive order is for the benefit of the country. He claims that he is protecting the country from “terrorists.” But when looking at these statistics that Kim Kardashian posted on Twitter, we see that maybe we need to shift our focus to another threatening killer, instead of discriminating against Muslims.
A recent Washington Post article is in response to the revised travel ban that is being disputed in court. Donald Trump has a tendency to say things, often offensive and discriminatory, but then later deny ever expressing anything of that nature. Although he can try to alter the rhetoric used to describe the ban, the sentiment and purpose stay the same. He essentially is blaming Muslims for an abundance of problems that the nation faces.
Because our nation, especially the government, claims to be secular, the issue that federal judges are investigating are the contradicting nature of the Executive Order and Trump’s actual statements leading up to declaring the Executive Order.
Supporters of Donald Trump’s executive order have various reasons for why they are advocating for this plan of action, but they all seem to share a common sentiment; “We love refugees, but…” And, that’s where we are left to ponder, do they really love refugees, if it’s conditional? The argument is that “they just want to protect the US against terror attacks, and they think that President Trump’s travel ban is a good first step.” Ever since the executive order has been announced, there has been this facade of doing what is necessary and just.
Although we all can discern that there’s no way to truly predict who may commit terror attacks, there still is this belief that as a nation, we are moving towards a safer country if we stereotype certain groups. This stereotype of who is more likely to commit acts of terror is directly related to the executive order that was released earlier in the 2017. As of March 6, 2017, the executive order has been revised, but still upholds stipulations backed by flawed rationale.
Within the executive order titled, “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” under Section 1.h., it explains how recent history showcases that people who have obtained entry through the immigration system have ended up becoming threats to our nation. However, just because there are cases that provide evidence of terror attacks from these people doesn’t mean that keeping all immigrants out will solve this issue. There have been numerous incidents of terror attacks in our country at the hands of people who are considered to be the “ideal” American citizen. The only difference is the term we use to classify these attacks and the perception that follows. Acknowledging two cases where people who have come to the United States through the immigration system does not speak for the many others who are trying to do no harm. In Section 1.8., the executive order notes how Iraq is a special case in this situation. But, if the goal was truly about protecting the nation, there would be the same treatment and stipulations for all countries, not just six countries of the nation’s choosing. There is no level of comfort if we are only being protected from six countries citizens. If the true goal is to “protect”, there are a lot of flaws.
As with many issues, our country seems to be divided. Everyone tends to see things in a perspective of either being ‘good’ or ‘bad’, strictly in a binary sense. Through this political cartoon, there is a discussion of two “hot topics” in current news. The topic of gun control and the immigration ban.
The United States of America reveals itself to be a nation of hypocrites once again through this depiction shown above. Since the attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, our nation has felt a lot of unease. A misconception that many people had pre-9/11 was that “it could never happen to us.” But attitudes have changed since then, in the post-9/11 world all Muslim people have been stereotyped to be extremists. Anti-Muslim rhetoric continues to flood the media. And, more recent attacks have also incited a great amount of fear and Islamophobia, which has led to a push for a “Muslim ban”. However, one aspect of the issue that this political cartoon highlights is the fact that there have been numerous of shotings at the hands of white citizens, such as the Aurora shooting at the movie theater or the Charleston church shooting, but rarely does anyone use that to push an agenda that classifies all white people as terrorists. In the media, these shooters are seen to be individuals whose actions should not represent an entire group. But, unfortunately, Muslim people do not receive the same benefit of the doubt.
In order to grow as a nation, the country needs to stop picking and choosing when they want to be an advocate for certain issues. This is political cartoon shows another instance of how the media plays a role in shaping public opinion, but also how public opinion shapes the media.
With the recent election of Donald Trump to be the 45th President of the United States of America, there have been an abundance of issues of social and political issues. Although there have been numerous shocking plans that Donald Trump has announced, one of the most shocking acts that he has proposed is the immigration ban. This ultimately ends up being synonymous with a ban on brown people, because that often is the stereotypical image of who people consider to be immigrants. We have found this to be very troubling for various reasons, such as the fact that this country is built upon the backs of immigrants and because this ban really seems to align itself with being more of a race issue than what Donald Trump and his supporters claim for it to be about. Through this site, we will showcase the opposing viewpoint for this immigration ban and how the arguments from supporters are flawed and misguided. We hope to convince those who support this ban that this ban is unrealistic and also has repercussions within our nation politically, socially, economically, and ethically.