Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore
In the past weeks, multiple executive orders were passed by President Donald Trump; among these orders one has remained a topic of discussion for the country. This executive order relates to immigration and a 90 day ban Trump set regarding immigration from seven different countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. They are all countries originally identified by Barack Obama and his Administration as high stakes terrorist countries. The reason behind the tension surrounding the executive order is that one side argues that the order is necessary to keep the country safe, while the other argues that ban is unconstitutional. Because of this, the Department of Justice (DOJ) deemed the order unconstitutional because it is said to discriminate against religious minorities, specifically Muslim majority nations.
Caleb James, a junior who does not support the travel ban, sides with the DOJ stating that he believes the ban is not constitutional.
“It is unconstitutional first and foremost,” James said. “I mean if you read the first amendment to the constitution it establishes no state endorsed religion and obviously [President Trump] is targeting the Muslim demographic and placing priority to people that are not Muslim.”
Others, such as Nicholas Cantin, share opposing views.
“I think it was a smart executive order,” Cantin said. “It’s certainly not a Muslim ban as people call it, because if it was, it would include the most populated Muslim country of Indonesia, or the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia or Turkey, and it also would have included every European country that has ever taken in refugees at any point…. I don’t think it went far enough. I think in terms of if he wanted to actually stop terrorism, he would have done something more drastic.”
Senior Matt Oldham agrees that the ban is needed, although he also can see the other side’s argument.
“I think that it’s an interesting dilemma because you have a select few that should be banned and [others who] are legal and that do the right thing, and there is a small percentage of them that are actually bad people,” Oldham said. “For the ultimate sake of our country and the ultimate safety of our country, it has to be that way for a little while, just so they can get an understanding of who we in the country and what we require.”
The main controversy still stands around whether or not the executive order acts as a ban on Muslims. James holds strong views defending his stand point.
“Well honestly, it is ignorance based,” James said. “The main motivation is just racism and xenophobia. I feel like a lot of [Trump’s] supporters are just ignorant to his proposals. You know he is a demigod in every sense of the word; he plays to people’s fears.”
Cantin contrasts this argument, noting where the phrase “Muslim Ban” originated, but does not believes Trump’s executive order is a ban on Muslims in any way.
“I think [Trump] helped paint that perception [of a Muslim ban], and it’s his fault partly, because he said that he wanted to have a Muslim ban, and then he walked it back and said he just wanted to ban people from certain countries,” Cantin said. “So I think it is partly his fault that it is called a Muslim ban, it is also partly the fault that news media is constantly calling it a Muslim ban. It is honestly a lot easier to just say it was a Muslim ban than to say it was an executive order to not allow people from seven countries to come to the United States.”
With tensions high on both sides of the argument, most of the country has now decided to sit back and wait for the government to make its final decision.
– By Jessica Kolomichuk
