Home of the American Heritage student newspaper

Trump travel ban is necessary

in Opinion by

Since Trump’s announcement of his immigration ban regarding seven middle eastern countries, much controversy has arisen over the issue. Although not implemented in the best fashion, the temporary ban is necessary to devise a proper way to screen individuals entering the United States from the highlighted countries.

The ban bars people entry to the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen (all countries highlighted in President Barack Obama’s 90-day travel ban Executive Order) for 90 days; refugee entry for 120 days; and Syrian refugees indefinitely.

One of the biggest misconceptions of the ban is that it is a Muslim ban. This is both untrue and would be unconstitutional. If it were a Muslim ban, it would apply to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan and Turkey, as 87% of the Muslim population resides outside of the seven highlighted countries. Additionally, the majority of the world’s Muslim population does not reside in those seven nations. The ban is solely to reorganize the immigration law enforcement to better check for terrorists from the seven countries identified by President Obama as some of the most dangerous countries in the world for their history of harboring terrorists and sympathizing with terrorist organizations.

The biggest issue with the implementation of the ban is the denial of legal visas. Students, business travelers and workers were all negatively affected by the law. Those with pre-existing visas already have families and a settled life in the United States and do not need to be sent back to their respective countries without evidence of misconduct. Although I agree with the overall goal of the ban, which is to implement better immigration screening, the negative effect it has on legal visa holders is unacceptable. After amendments made on Feb. 2, certain Green Card Holders and Special Immigrants, such as Iraqi military translators and interpreters, are exempt from the ban. The ban also does not apply to Dual Nationals, who already possess a U.S. Passport, and Diplomats.

Moving forward, the Trump administration must revise the law to incorporate the complexities of the American nation and its people.



  1. The writer states that the ban on the 7 listed countries is necessary to be able to devise a better immigration ban from those countries. The writer goes on to say that it is not a Muslim ban as more Muslims live outside of those countries than live in the countries listed and there was not a ban placed on those countries.
    That is just the point. Why was the ban placed on the 7 countries in the first place? The U.S. has an immigration vetting process already in place and even a tougher vetting process from those in the middle east. Why was the ban not placed on Canada, France or England if its purpose was only to improve the vetting process? After all, these countries have had terrorist activity too. Why was the ban not placed on Saudi Arabia or Egypt? Oh, now I know why. Canada, France, England, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are big trading partners with the U.S. Heaven forbid if we lose that trade even at the expense of allowing terrorists into the U.S. Saudi Arabia gets about 20% of the arms shipped from the U.S. Could manufacturers here in the U.S. take that blow to their pocket book if we placed a ban on immigrants from that country and a ban on exports to that country? Remember that most of the terrorist on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The 7 countries were picked (and I do not care who picked them) primarily because they are considered 3rd world countries that have very little economic ties to the U.S. They thought that people would not react for this reason. But they were wrong and people did react. While the Supreme Court may eventually uphold some form of ban (due to the fact the it has become more about politics) that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the events around the world because it only comes back to us haunt us in the end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Opinion

Go to Top