Before I begin, allow me to say this. I have the utmost respect for you all, regardless of where you stand on this important issue. The following is the result of thorough research (which I will kindly cite for you all) and an earnest desire to make the world a better place for everyone. After giving this a read, I invite your respectful discussion in the comments below.
To My Fellow Americans and Wonderful Friends Around the World,
Trump’s recent executive order is of deep concern to many
and rightfully so for the following reasons:
1)
The order’s rationale is questionable.
2)
The order makes the world a more dangerous place,
not a safer one.
3)
The order is unprecedented in breadth of effect
and lack of credible intelligence.
4)
The order has been undemocratically crafted and incompetently
implemented.
Firstly, while vying for our citizens’ safety is important, during
times of fear, we cannot allow that fear to displace rationale. The rationale for the order appears in its
first section, citing the 9/11 attacks; yet, not one of the 9/11 attackers came
from the countries affected by the ban. Furthermore,
since 9/11, not a single person has been killed in the United States from
anyone who emigrated from any of the seven countries affected by this blanket
ban (1). The order sacrifices rationale at the feet of fear.
Next, the order fails at its most fundamental goal of
keeping America safe. Experts agree (8) the
order could make the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one. The order gives ammunition to the violent
extremists by feeding into the ISIS narrative while alienating those who might
help us most. This danger alone warrants
opposition to the ban.
The order is also as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. In the two most commonly cited examples,
both Carter and Obama placed limits on immigration, but they were warranted by
specific events and/or intelligence and applied to only one nation.
In 1980, Carter, for example, blocked most Iranians
traveling to the United States in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. There were still humanitarian exemptions, and
the action was warranted by the aforementioned specific event, the Iranian
hostage crisis (2). Also in 2011, with
credible intelligence on two Iraqi terrorists, Obama delayed (but did not ban)
visa-processing on future travelers from Iraq.
Iraqi travelers were still admitted continuously (albeit in fewer
numbers) during this time (3).
By contrast, Trump’s order simultaneously bans seven nations
while lacking a specific event or even credible intelligence to warrant
it. Both the magnitude of the order and
the lack of intelligence supporting it are unprecedented.
There’s also the matter of the seven countries themselves (Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen).
Why were these countries chosen?
The list of seven countries has its origins in the Obama
administration, but the context in which the list appeared is critical. The list of seven nations appeared in an amendment
to the visa-waiver program, a program allowing citizens of certain countries to
come to the United States without a visa for up to 90 days. However, if any of the citizens had traveled
to one of the seven nations listed, they would not qualify for the waiver. Instead, they would have to apply for a visa (4).
This is key. Travelers
from the seven countries would only be barred from the waiver. Not from a visa. Not from traveling. In its original context, citizens from the
seven countries were eligible for visas and travel to the United States.
The Trump administration has taken this list of seven
nations and misconstrued it, neutering it from the original context and
isolating it from the original intent.
The only thing that seems to be improperly immigrated here is the
context of these seven countries in Trumps executive order. They were never intended for use in a blanket
ban. If anything, they were intended to
receive visas.
Finally, of concern is the way the order came about and the
way it has been implemented. This
executive order is the brainchild of a small number of people. The order did not go through Congress. It was not the product of broader
collaboration. It was the creation of a
select few close to the president.
That’s not democracy. That’s
oligarchy.
Even beyond the substance of the ban itself, the actual
implementation of it has been incompetent.
People across the nation have been caught off guard by the order, even the
very people responsible for administering it.
Judges have ruled against it, and yet those rulings then failed to be
carried out (5). The executive order hasn’t
been orderly in the slightest. It has
been poorly thought out and poorly rolled out.
While it is true parts of the ban are temporary, it is worth
noting the suspension on Syrian refugees is indefinite despite the fact the
United States refugee program is already highly stringent. Refugees are among those most carefully
vetted. The process can take up to two years from application to entry (6). Furthermore, the United States is far from saturated
with Syrian refugees. Just last year,
when the refugee floodgates were relatively open under Obama, only 12,500
Syrian refugees were admitted into the United States (7). This order is as devoid of compassion as it
is rationale.
Allow me to close by quoting the order itself: “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”
(9). This ban itself is the hostile
attitude toward our country. This ban
itself is the threat to our founding principles. It undermines our basic values of democracy,
equality, freedom, and human rights. Our
founding fathers were immigrants from Europe, willing to get on a boat and
cross the Atlantic, risking everything for the hope of a better life. Are these so different?
For the above reason, I maintain this ban is divisive, dangerous, and quite frankly un-American. And so, I appeal to all of you to
show courage and leadership by publically opposing this ban.
With the utmost respect for you all,
I invite your respectful discussion in the comments below,
Mark Chase
1)
Shane, Scott. "Immigration Ban Is Unlikely
to Reduce Terrorist Threat, Experts Say." The New York Times.
N.p., 28 Jan. 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
2)
"Jimmy
Carter: Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions." Jimmy
Carter: Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
3)
"Fact Checking Trump’s New Immigration
Order." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
4)
"Immigration Expert Outlines Origins Of 7
Countries In Trump Order." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
5)
"Judge Stays Trump Refugee Ban Amid
Protests And Confusion Nationwide."NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 31 Jan.
2017.
6)
Krogstad, Jens Manuel, and Jynnah Radford.
"Key Facts about Refugees to the U.S." Pew Research Center.
N.p., 30 Jan. 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
7)
"U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State,
n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
8)
"Experts Skeptical That Limiting Refugees
Would Deter Terrorism." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
9)
"Trump's Executive Order On Immigration, Annotated." NPR.
NPR, n.d. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
