Miscellaneous: Foreign View On Ban

 


While we often think about the view of U.S citizens and families of the banned countries, we often forget that other countries have opinions on the matter. This ban not only effects our relationships with the seven banned countries, but also around the world. Many predominantly Muslim countries that were not on the banned list are appalled by the executive order. Even close allies such as Britain and France disagree. These linkshow tweets and a video from representatives from other countries and their views. An overwhelming amount show disagreement, however one politician from the Netherlands said he would do the same.

Advertisements

Affirmation: Immigrants and the Media


Not only has the immigration ban affected America economically, but it also has creatively. Two time Oscar winner  Asghar Farhadi, an Iranian director, boycotted the 2017 Oscars because of Donald Trump’s ban. He stated that his “absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of other six nations whom have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S., dividing the world into the ‘us and our enemies’ categories creates fear.” Many other celebrities made statements against the ban, including Yara Shahidi, daughter of an Iranian immigrant, Jesse Williams, who referenced Steve Job’s Syrian father,

The media is and was home to many immigrants, such as Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Salma Hayek, Audrey Hepburn, and Gloria Estefan. Specifically, celebrities such as supermodel Iman, who was born in Somalia, Paula Abdul, who’s father was born in Syria, Jerry Seinfeld, who’s grandfather was born in Syria, Iranian-American actress Nasim Pedrad, all are either from or have ancestry in countries banned. This proves that the immigration ban, if it stays in place, has the possibility to prevent future stars from entering the country. Not only are they famous for being actors, singers, or comedians, they also have contributed a lot to America through their philanthropy.

The ban also affected the promotion of new shows and movies internationally. Celebrities who are in America on a temporary visa faced danger of not being let back into the country. This would cause loss of profit for filmmakers. Additionally, it shows that no one is safe from the ban, it doesn’t only affect those abroad, but also those with more money in the country.

Below are some tweets from celebrities pertaining to the Immigration Ban.

Refutation: Muslim Ban Isn’t Just Limited To Muslims

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/

Refutation: Not Fully Protected

usa-trump-immigration

(CBCNews)


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:

trumpmuslimban

 

Miscellaneous: Watch What You Say

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.

img-4-15-600x300

Refutation: You Aren’t Protecting Us

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.

 

Miscellaneous: Fact Check Trump’s Statements About Immigration

This video was posted by the NYTimes and goes over checking and comparing the different statements that Trump has said about immigration. Often times his staff supports him and his statements, and instead of them apologizing for them, they call them “alternative facts”. They are not “alternative facts” though they are actually falsities which are statements that are untrue, incorrect, and insincere.

“Alternative facts” is originally a law term which describes the inconsistencies of facts put forth in a court, when there is plausible evidence to support both sides of the fact. In this video below you can see the different sides of “facts” that Mr. Trump speaks about.