Trump's Travel Ban Essay

Attention Graber: President Trump's recent travel bans were nothing but a mess.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Bridge: Statistics show that immigrants from the countries that the prohibitions targeted have not been the primary cause of terrorism in the country. Non-immigrant teenagers commit more murders and violent crimes in the US than extremist immigrants. Thus, the criteria of the bans unnecessarily punish many innocent immigrants and spare some real violent characters in the country.

Thesis Statement: The administration should have only deported the immigrants convicted of dangerous crimes instead of targeting groups based on their countries of origin and religion.

BODY PARAGRAPHS

BODY PARAGRAPH ONE

Reason #1: To begin with, it is apparent that the recent travel bans are the ban on Muslims, which the president had promised during the campaigns.

Although Trump went on record as saying that Muslims should be totally and completely blocked from entering America, senior state officials have repeatedly denied any connection between the travel restriction and the president's campaign.

Jeff Sessions, the US Attorney General, in defense of the ban argues that the United States like every nation has a right to control who enters the country and keep out those who would cause harm (Gambino)

Notably, all the eight countries that the travel bans affected are predominantly Islamic nations: Venezuela, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Chad, Iran, North Korea and Syria.

All the eight countries included in the travel ban have shaky international relations with the US government.

Accordingly, the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained that "the affected countries did not adequately cooperate in sharing information with the United States."

Indeed a few weeks before the ban, the government conducted an appraisal of US international security, which rated nations by their cooperation with America in resolving issues regarding immigrants.

Critics of the travel bans, however, question how that makes their citizens living in America a threat to security.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said that America had ignored the fact that most of the citizens of Iran and Syria living in the land of the free had gone there to seek refuge from the terror that their home governments sponsor.

Regarding Iran and Syria, the enforcers of the ban had held that America could not host citizens of nations with state-sponsored terror.

Discriminating people by religion makes the policy contradict the spirit of the American constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

BODY PARAGRAPH TWO

Reason #2: Secondly, two courts have declared the travel bans unconstitutional as it violates individuals' fundamental rights.

A Hawaii district court ruling was the first of a series of court decisions that temporarily blocked the policy.

In the Hawaii ruling, the judge argued that the travel ban was intended to enforce the president's campaign promise of eliminating Muslims from the country.

The decision confirmed further, the fears of Americans who see the move as an attack on religion.

On the same day, a Maryland federal court gave an initial injunction, stopping the implementation of the ban in the whole country (Guardian).

While delivering the decision, the federal district court judge said that executive order does not have enough evidence to prove that the banned nations compromised the US security (Siddiqui et al.).

In other words, it could not demonstrate how allowing entry of nationals of the restricted countries into the United States would hurt its national interests.

Hardly four months later, a Virginia Court of Appeal declared the ban illegal as it victimizes people because of their faith.

Nine out of the thirteen judges who sat on the bench said that it was "unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam" (Siddiqui).

Consequently, it upheld the decision of the Maryland court that barred the execution of the restriction.

Considering that two new petitions have begun in lower courts, the divisive policy has little chance of reaching full implementation. However, the US Supreme Court made a ruling that lifted the two injunctions, stating that the implementation of the policy may begin as it goes through appeal hearings.

BODY PARAGRAPH THREE

Reason #3: Thirdly, the policy has already had some negative impacts on the economy of the country.

New Jersey recently joined the 15 states opposed to the travel bans, citing significant economic setbacks experienced as a result of the measure.

Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said that the restriction adversely impacts hospitals, universities, and businesses because it makes it difficult to recruit and retain workers.

Population movement destabilizes the economy, especially through the loss of consumers and workforce.

Evidently, the ban will significantly disrupt businesses because it will affect the business owners and buyers alike.

Grewal said, "In addition to being unconstitutional and running counter to such American values as acceptance, religious tolerance, and non-discrimination, the Administration's ban on travel has done incalculable economic and other harm to New Jersey and the other states" (Yi).

Given that nearly all states in America are cosmopolitan, people will soon experience similar economic effects in the rest of the country.

He also noted that the fact that New Jersey has one of the most cosmopolitan populations in America and remains a destination for many international travelers.

He said that the people who visit the US for tourism, studies, research, treatment, and work form a significant part of NJ population.

New Jersey State alone is home to thousands of Muslim immigrants, many of whom are citizens of the banned nations.

While the importance of internal security can never be overemphasized, the government should not let it interfere with the nation's economic stability and prosperity.

BODY PARAGRAPH FOUR: OPPOSING VIEW

Opposing view: But the government through the Whitehouse officials has long denied that the travel bans target Muslims, noting that the latest list includes Venezuela and North Korea, which are not majority Muslim nations.

It maintains that the action is part of its mandate to safeguard America.

Speaking in defense of the new announcement, President Trump said that his government could not afford to unacceptably put America intro danger by carrying on the same policies that have failed in the past (Shear).

Instead, they hold that the decision came from a rigorous assessment of the security situation in each of the countries.

Mr. Trump has also come out to defend himself from accusations regarding Muslim ban.

"My highest obligation is to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and in issuing this new travel order, I am fulfilling that sacred obligation," the President said in a statement sent to the media (Shear).

The president tries to assure the people opposed to the ban that his decision was well-meaning and within his mandate.

Apparently, the proclamation followed a three-month evaluation of the existing security measures in all countries of the world to eliminate the possibility of admitting criminals and terrorist in the US.

By banning a religion, the current administration thus disregards the Supreme body of regulations, which is the constitution.

• As Emanuel puts it, "the government may not prefer one religion over another. Also, the government may not prefer religion over another. Also, the government may not prefer religion to non-religion."(p.657)
• And President Trump knows that as the head of state, he has a legal obligation to defend the US constitution as much as he protects the citizens.

To avoid creating the impression that the executive orders are against the law, the administration has cited immigration law which gives exceptions for the obligation to protect the Constitution (Family).

INVERTED FUNNEL CONCLUSION

Lastly, the Trump administration should have only deported the immigrants convicted of dangerous crimes instead of targeting groups based on their countries of origin and religion.

Evidently, the recent travel ban will not help the United States eliminate criminals and terrorists within its borders. Neither does the inclusion of North Korea, and Venezuela obfuscates the characterization of the move as a 'Muslim ban.'

All Americans of good will should, therefore, stand up against the discriminatory and divisive orders by using all the avenues available in the law to challenge them.

Evidence presented in the petitions seeking to stop its implementation consistently proves that the travel ban is indeed a farce.

Works Cited

"Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional religious discrimination, US court rules." The Guardian, [Maryland], 15 Feb. 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/15/trump-travel-ban-unconstitutional-appeals-court-ruling-virginia. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

Emanuel, Steven. Constitutional Law. Aspen, 2010, Accessed 10 Apr. 2018.

Family, Jill E. "Trump's Travel Ban and the Limits of the US Constitution (La Exclusion De Determinadas Categorias De Extranjeros Por Orden Del Presidente Trump Y Los Limites De La Constitucion Americana)." 2017.

Gambino, Lauren. "Trump Travel Ban: New Order Targeting Six Muslim-majority Countries Signed." The Guardian, 9 Feb. 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/06/new-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries-refugees. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

Shear, Michael D. "New Order Indefinitely Bars Almost All Travel From Seven Countries." The New York Times, [Washington], 24 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/politics/new-order-bars-almost-all-travel-from-seven-countries.html. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

Siddiqui, Sabrina, et al. "Trump travel ban: new order targeting six Muslim-majority countries signed." The Guardian, [Washington], 6 Mar. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/06/new-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries-refugees. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.

Yi, Karen. "N.J. Joins Multi-state Fight Against Trump's Travel Ban." NJ.com, 1 Apr. 2018, www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/04/nj_joins_fight_against_trumps_travel_ban.html. Accessed 3 Apr. 2018.