The Future of Trump’s Travel Ban

Supreme Court Gives Ban Temporary Victory Until Hearings in October

By: Haziq Naeem

On January 27, President Trump signed an executive order banning the entry of individuals from seven Muslim majority countries and halting entry of all refugees for 120 days and the entry of Syrian refugees permanently.

Protests burst forth at airports across the country where people flying in from one of the countries listed in the order were detained.

The ban was put together by Trump and his top aides, including his former chief strategist Steven Bannon and his top advisor Stephen Miller, both of whom have been accused of racism, bigotry, or anti semitism.

Bannon and Miller saw the executive order as only the beginning of their agenda to transform immigration policy in the country to change the rules on who is allowed into the country and on what grounds.

The ban excludes refugees from all countries from seeking asylum in the United States, even from those countries where there is no terror related activity or concern despite the executive order claiming “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States” in its heading.

This blanket ban on all refugees runs counter to the stated goal of the order, and whether the ban does more to help than harm the country is dubious.

The executive order also bans immigration from seven Muslim countries but excludes all those Muslim countries where Trump has done business.

Despite the orders temporary language for refugees entering from non-terror related countries, the administration has indicated that they believe they have the power to extend it indefinitely and include more countries within the ban.

The executive order itself contains vague and very broad language such as “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001.

The facts are that roughly one individual per year since 2001 has died because of a foreign-born terrorist.

The odds of death from natural causes such as disease or climate related incidents are much higher, so the statement containing the word “numerous” seems to be intentionally vague to hide the actual fatality rate, the effectiveness of the ban, and the actual intentions of the ban.

The executive order also states that “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” another vague and dubious sentence.

The United States does not impose an ideological test on those wishing to enter the country, and nor would such a test work on those entering the country intending on doing it harm because they can simply lie.

The process for refugees entering the United States is already a very strict one, with numerous layers of security checks, interviews, and background checks by various agencies of the United Nations and the United States, so refugees entering the country are vetted and do not pose a threat.

Following the rollout of Trump’s travel ban, two federal appeals courts swiftly banned important parts of the executive order.

The executive order was then revised to exclude Iraq from the countries where people could not enter and eliminated the requirement of having certain attitudes towards the constitution and other beliefs as a requisite for entry to the country.

One of the goals the President and his aides had with the ban was to specifically to help Christians enter the country, despite the fact that religious discrimination is illegal and that Muslims are in large part the ones being terrorized in Syria and in other countries.

In response to the executive order, United States diplomats circulated an internal memo that stated that Trump’s executive order “runs counter to core American values of non-discrimination”.

Despite the initial losses served to the executive order by lower courts, the United States Supreme Court has allowed the ban to be implemented blocking refugees from entering the country until the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the executive order in October, giving Trump somewhat of a victory until then.

The future of the executive order remains to be decided, but the lives that have been affected for the worst because of the ban cannot be undone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.