Tuesday, a Hawaiian district court judge named Derrick Watson issued a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s third attempt at a travel ban. Watson also ruled against the president when he issued the second travel ban, earlier this year. President Trump, when he was candidate Trump, had often promised to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. He tried, in the first few weeks of his administration, to issue a travel ban that was struck down in court, and has attempted two other times. Now, with the horrific casualties in the attack on Mogadishu in Somalia, one of the countries in all three of the president’s attempted travel bans, and with terrorist activity throughout the world, it makes one wonder, should we have the travel ban?
Those in favor of the travel ban feel it is crucial to the security efforts of the United States. They feel that we have, in Muslim extremists, an enemy that is bent on our annihilation, and we have to take steps to protect ourselves. In addition, they feel the president can take whatever steps he feels necessary to protect this country as its commander in chief, and if he feels the ban is necessary, then it is. Finally, they feel if we don’t have the ban, then we are in more danger of a possible 9/11 type attack, than with it.
People against the travel ban feel it is really a Muslim ban. They see it as discriminatory towards Muslims because all of the countries in the first two bans were poor, Muslim countries and, in the third ban, North Korea and Venezuela were just added so it wouldn’t be struck down by the courts again. Also, they feel the ban is unnecessary and is just an attempt to keep a campaign promise to his base, not to keep America safe. Finally, they see the ban as yet another step towards isolating the United States from the rest of the world, and they view that as putting the United States in more danger with the ban, than not having the ban.
We live in a dangerous world and we have to protect ourselves. It is the president’s number one job to keep this country safe. What steps he takes is up for debate. Is keeping out people from countries that have terrorists in them one of the steps we should take, or is allowing people to come here and view our culture and learn about us a better way? We shall see.
In this clip, CBS News covers the decision to block the latest travel ban:
Should we have a travel ban against certain countries, like Libya and Somalia? Will having that ban keep this country safer? Conversely, will it further push certain people and groups away, and make them resent and even hate us more?
In support of a travel ban
People in favor of the ban see it as a step towards keeping this country safe. They feel that if the president thinks we need it, then we do.
You guys *fought* this.
Thanks for making us less safe without good cause pic.twitter.com/yS9FloNHhf
— Allen Harris (@crash_matrix) October 17, 2017
Because a) it isn’t a Muslim ban and b) it is constitutional and c) immigration isn’t a right if foreign aliens
— #CNN = #FAKENEWS? (@PeteS77252077) October 17, 2017
I SUPPORT THIS BAN. MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
— Barbara Morris (@Barbara95822712) October 16, 2017
— ⚡️DNEW.SITE⚡️ (@DnewSite) October 7, 2017
In opposition to a travel ban
People opposed to the ban feel it is racist and that it goes against the founding principles of our country.
Thank God we have members of the judiciary who are true to the constitution and reject the fear mongering that Trump governs by.
— Bruno Hugo (@BHPIII13) October 17, 2017
— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) October 17, 2017
The ban makes no sense at all. The only thing it did was isolate the US and expose eurocentrism in US.
— Jen Cleo (@jcleowest) October 16, 2017
"We’re glad, but not surprised, that President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has been blocked once again." – @ACLU says
— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) October 17, 2017
Do you think we should have a travel ban?