By now, you have certainly heard of President Donald Trump’s Travel Ban.  Moreover, you have seen the opposition to his order, with protests across the nation.  However, a large portion of the objectors do not understand the intent or reasoning behind the decision.  The ban was enacted as a way of freezing the vulnerable refugee security system, allotting the government enough time to strengthen it.

Before I continue, I want to state that I cherish religious freedom in the United States.  The travel ban has caused everyone (Liberals, Republicans, Independents, etc.) a great deal of consideration.  While I hate discrimination, there are some key reasons for this temporary forbiddance.  Intelligent and informed people can disagree, so I simply ask that you examine both the benefits and the criticism of this policy before reaching a verdict.

The Argument for the Ban

The public security is endangered by the United States’ faulty security system and lack of information.

When we look at recent history, we see some evident flaws, which have resulted in terrorist activity within the borders.  Not long ago, two Iraqi men, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, were residing in Kentucky, where they plotted to supply al Qaeda with money and weapons.  What is noteworthy is that these men were refugees who had denied any terrorist connections.

Let us consider the most notorious terrorist attack on the United States, 9-11.  Of the 19 hijackers, 3 or more were illegally residing in the states with expired visas.  Even so, they were able to fly on US Airlines, which they would use to strike (or attempt to) key monumental structures such as the Pentagon or Twin Towers.

These are just two examples, but the encounters emphasize that stronger security checks must be done, requiring more background information or proof of legal citizenry.  In momentarily stopping travel from the seven nations recognized as terrorist hotbeds, the Trump  Administration intends to create a time buffer where border policies can be enforced and more information can be gathered.

The Criticism

Our research demonstrates that the majority of the ban’s criticism is centered over its morality and true efficiency.

For obvious reasons, people are angered by the decision not to provide security for those seeking refuge.  The ban will not only suspend the Syrian Refugee Program, but give preference to Christian Refugees for the 50,000 openings in 2017.

The ban has been said to target the “wrong nations,” resulting in many rendering it ineffective.  For one, the nations, such as Saudi Arabia, behind the 9-11 attack are not included.  You would think that the countries whose terrorists have assaulted the United States would be the first to be restricted?  Secondly, many people, including the judge who halted the ban, say that there have been no terrorist-related arrests of people from the seven nations in the past decade or so, hence providing no real threat.

The enmity states that the wrong nations are included in the order and points out the evident moral questions to consider.

Synthesis & Conclusion

Trump’s Travel Ban is, in a way, a continuation of Barack Obama’s restrictions and limitations on travel of those seven nations.  The list of countries were selected based on security officials’ rankings of terrorist hotbeds, meaning the territories blocked were chosen with reason.  At the same time, there are several people who agree with the concept of a temporary restriction, but they want nations such as Afghanistan to be included and Iran to be excluded.  The idealness of the list is debated even by those in favor of a restricted travel.

The order is not a ‘Muslim Ban.’  It is true that Christian Refugees, assumed to be lower threats on average, possess an advantage in obtaining asylum and that the listed countries are Muslim-majority.  Even so, there are over 40 nations that are Muslim-majority not being banned and Muslim Refugees would still be let in.  Though ban still raises discrimination qualms, it is not a religious ban.

America’s Security may not be so secure.  Though the opposition claims there is no reason to fear the seven nations, there has been terrorist activity from refugees of those nations within the borders (ie. Bowling Green, Kentucky).  Furthermore, there are clear flaws in the system.  However, to fix these flaws, there has to be a halt to the process to identify and fix them.  A moral dilemma is raised about restricting political asylum, but one is also raised about compensating national security.

The order remains riddled with controversy.  There is no clear right or wrong solution to the refugee crisis.  The most rational thing you can do is to consider the situation.  There are intelligent people with good moral judgement on both sides.  After evaluating this ethical dilemma, choose to be for the ban, against the ban, or even neutral.

Advertisements