Date Trump Immigration Ban

Mulroy (2017) showed that the Trump immigration ban affected 20,000 refugees and many immigrant students nationwide. This view is shared by Finnemore & Ikenberry (2006) while studying the Muslim ban. He concluded that the ban threatens the U.S liberal order. They argued that the ban emerged from antagonistic revisionist powers looking to upend the postwar order and shouldn't have come from a nation that upholds liberal orders.

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

Order now

Moreover, it established that powerful states should support one another to protect and maintain a liberal order. Collingwood et al. (2018) also contributed to the immigration ban debate arguing that after his inauguration, President Trump, signed an executive that changed the immigration procedures and policies of the United States of America. These policy changes resulted in the banning of the seven predominantly Muslim states from entering the United States of America for 90 days.. Trump's immigration ban received support from conservative Republicans who felt that it would make America safer. In a separate study, Ikenberry (2017) uncovered President Trump's dark chronicle regarding the national decline arguing that it disregards the building of a liberal international order.

Secondly, he found that President Trump challenge concerning the liberal contravenes the norms and values of the liberal democracy, and it is seen as disrespect to them. In a similar study, Saleh (2017) explored President Trump's travel ban. It found that Trump's executive order on immigration provisionally postponed the admission of immigrants and barred U.S citizens from visiting seven Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Iran.

Secondly, Saleh (2017) discovered that the immigration ban caused a lot of fear and anxiety among Muslim immigrants. It also found that Trump's initiative ignored the fact that immigrants immensely contribute to the American workforce and productivity. The study showed that between 2010 and 2013, immigrants comprised 13-17% of the American workforce. Finally, he discovered that if the travel ban is executed then many sectors of the American economy would suffer and the life of immigrant scientists and engineers would become miserable. The reason is that the immigrants fled the country because of reasons such as fear of persecution, searching for a better place to improve their lives among others. Importantly, immigrants make a significant contribution to the U.S economy since they work and pay taxes just like other citizens

Similarly, BBC (2018) conducted a study on the issue of immigration ban and found that the original executive order issued in the January 2017 denied people from seven predominantly Muslim countries entry into the United States for 90 days. The executive order further halted the immigration of refugees for 120 days even though Syrian refugees were completely banned. The United States Supreme Court made a ruling that supported the implementation of the basis that the banned Muslim states were found to have links with terror organizations. Mulroy (2017) concurred with this argument when he explored various arguments that opposed the ban. It found that the ban affected more than 20,000 refugees and many immigrant students nationwide. The study also showed that Trump's new immigration policy also banned legitimate green card holders.

Trump's decision was defended based on federal immigration statute that allowed the president to postpone the United States entrance by any class of aliens. However, the finding indicated that the Departmental lawyers use the legality of the order that includes anti-discrimination statute, equal protection, and due process, separation of state and church among others to oppose the draconian immigration policies. Finnemore & Ikenberry (2006) conducted a similar study when they explored the American foreign policy. The study determined that the ban was an affront to the U.S liberal order. It concluded that it is the best time for the powerful states to forge a united front in support of the liberal order.

The immigration ban went against federal statutes that prohibit discrimination of individuals based on their gender, race, or place of birth. It might seem like a simple ban to those who are not affected, however, to a large number of refugees, and international students studying in the United States it amounted to discrimination. International laws are also against the travel ban due to its implication on the nations affected (Mulroy, 2018). It may not be the first time that a travel ban is being implemented; however, the due processes ignored. The rights of both citizens and non-citizens who depend on the United States of America will be adversely affected. Many of these individuals may end up feeling discriminated against due to issues that may not directly be their doing. Syria, for example, is a country that has been at war for a long time.

Against this backdrop, many refugees, students, and U.S asylum seekers living in the United States would be affected. A travel ban would hinder them from going to and from their home countries. The immigration ban is a bad idea at this time since Muslim countries, in particular, view it as a Muslim ban because all the countries affected by the immigration ban are Muslim majority nations. This creates a conspiracy theory that although probably misplaced, it might serve the interests of American enemies. A Muslim ban is considered an intrusion of human rights. Many Americans who are of the Muslim religion are opposed to the immigration ban due to its apparent similarities to an actual Muslim ban. This notion is backed by the fact that no citizen of these nations committed a terrorist attack on American soil in the recent past. This is a disturbing fact because the president claims that the travel ban will protect the US from terrorist attacks. It is therefore not justified that citizens of these countries, who have gone through plenty already, should bear the brunt of the travel ban (Saleh, 2017).

Conclusion

The immigration ban was done contrary to other statutes and the constitutional procedure. The prohibition of immigrants does not consider constitutional requirements of equality since it is more severe on the Muslim than members of other religions. My opinion on this is that since the country is ruled by Republicans and that some other statutes can be amended, it is essential for the government to respect the American Constitution since it represents all Americans. The immigration ban is a violation of human rights and a flawed policy decision. Moreover, it serves to show the double standards that exist, albeit in many of our institutions, the government of a world superpower in this case. Most of the citizens of the United States of America are probably conscious of the issues the immigration ban brings even though they are cognizant that the ban affects students, workers, families, and even citizens of the United States. Rational thinking maybe a friend at this time; he would do well to use it to solve the problems of this great nation.

Works Cited.

BBC. "What is Trump Travel Ban?" BBC News, 26 June 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39044403.

Collingwood, Loren, NazitaLajevardi, and Kassra AR Oskooii. "A Change of Heart? Why Individual-Level Public Opinion Shifted Against Trump's "Muslim Ban"." Political Behavior 40.4 (2018): 1035-1072.

Finnemore, M., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2006). The plot against American foreign policy: Can the liberal order survive. Foreign Affairs, 85(6), 160. doi:10.2307/20032157

Ikenberry, G. John. "The plot against American foreign policy: Can the liberal order survive." Foreign Aff. 96 (2017): 2.

Mulroy, Steven. "The Best Legal Arguments Against Trump's Immigration Ban." The Conversation, 31 Jan. 2017, theconversation.com/the-best-legal-arguments-against-trumps-immigration-ban-72196.

Saleh, Lana. "Trump's Travel Ban." ASBMB, Apr. 2017, www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/201704/Essay/TrumpsTravelBan/.