AJ+’s Dena Takruri explores the results of Trump’s strict immigration laws. She visits an Arizona community where there is extremely strict ICE control. The residents of this community are “living in fear of ICE arrests.”
Trumps new Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed his intensive and aggressive take on immigration. He has made it clear that the Trump administration’s immigration policy will be strict and aim to deport undocumented immigrants. This has already begun. In this video, Judy Woodruff speaks with Nancy Montoya, who works for Arizona Public Media. Woodruff and Montoya discuss Sessions’ comments and Trump’s new immigration policy.
“There is no safety net anymore. If you are here and you cross the border illegally, the Trump administration is putting you on warning that you could be next,” said Mantoya.
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.
Vice President Mike Pence has made many statements of support about Trump’s Immigration ban, stating that stating to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that what Trump did is “impose a pause on countries that have been compromised by terrorism so that we can evaluate the screening process and establish … extreme vetting so that people coming in to this country don’t represent a threat to our families and our communities.” From this logic, there should be many more countries with travel bans, including the Philippines, Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, and more. However Trump has properties (or is involved in properties) in six (Philippines, Indonesia, and Egypt) of the countries listed above, and is in business with a wealthy family from the other (Malaysia.) According to CNN, there are a total of 40 countries that have active terrorist cells, are the base for terrorist organizations, or are state sponsors of terrorism. However, only seven have official travel bans. Trump’s defense of those specific countries is that they were originally chosen by Obama’s administration as “countries of concern,”
While those countries have a travel ban, there are still 33 that do not have any restrictions. The argument that by banning just those 7 countries will eliminate foreign-terrorists from entering the country is ludicrous. According to Nowrasteh, between 1975 and 2015, only 20 refugees have been convicted of attempting a terrorist act (zero Americans were injured/killed in these attempts.) Additionally, it can be seen in the previous article, that out of 580 terrorist related convictions, 92 people were U.S Citizens, while 40 were foreign-born, and 241 were not actually for terrorist offenses.
This proves that banning entry to Syrian refugees and individuals from the seven banned countries does nothing to prevent more terrorist attacks. Trump’s ban is only doing more harm than good by damaging international relations, blocking families who are only seeking safety, and inciting domestic tension.
Here is a map of countries banned by Trump with countries he’s done business in:
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.
Immigration is the process by which people come to live permanently in a foreign country. America is a place where people see lots of opportunities and tend to be drawn to immigrate to, which is why it has been coined as the “melting pot”. The topic of immigration has been recently talked about in the news and media a lot within the past year or so. Ever since the presidential election campaign began and the candidates were announced, immigration has been a major concern and platform for both parties regardless of their political affiliation. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump advertised the fact that he wanted to build a wall to keep the influx in immigrants down. He also planned to tighten the laws already existing on immigrants within the country, and more specifically immigrants that are here illegally.
The president has planted a sense of fear within those who are immigrants on American soil. This is not good because not only does he blame the influx on the previous presidents, but he is making people feel as though they are unwelcome and do not belong. Since taking office, he has already attempted to put laws in place to build the wall between the Southern border of North America and Mexico, but his plans have not flowed very smoothly at all. He wanted to have Mexico pay for the wall, but of course they declined this action, so the president has been scrambling trying to find funds and people willing to pay for the wall. It has been a hard task for him to accomplish, because many Americans do not agree with these means of controlling immigration either.
According to the Pew Research Center, rules about immigration have changed a lot over the years, but America is and has been known as a melting pot for many years now. Immigration laws began once the United States won independence from Great Britain. Originally, the immigration legislation laws imposed limits that favored Europeans, but in 1965 the law changed for the better for immigrants from other parts of the world.
This law from 1965 was known as the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, or Hart-Celler Act. It replaced the national origins quota system with a seven-category preference system to emphasize the reunification of families and skilled immigrants. The visa cap was also eliminated from immediate family members of U.S. citizens admitted each year. In 1976, there were also amendments put into place which established a worldwide limit of 290,000 visas. This was put into place specifically in Mexico because the country often time exceed the 20,000-visa limit. These rules were put into place at a time where many other laws of freedom regarding civil rights and people of other heritages were being put into place as well, so it truly helped present America as the melting pot it is.
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.