|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 27, 2017 16:21:20 GMT
President's Travel Ban: A Necessary part of National Security?
1.) Read the Washington Post Article attached in the hyperlink. You may pick another source's article reporting on this topic if you choose.
2.) Construct a response post. You need not answer all questions. There are multiple questions to get you thinking and discussing.
Some guiding questions to consider for the original post:
1. President Trump is quoted as saying, “As president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people.” Respond to this statement
2. Using your knowledge of public policy stances from the Republican party platform analysis, discuss the following statement: On Twitter, President Trump tweeted, “Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”
3. Is there a compelling government interest to create such a travel ban? Why or why not?
The following explains how you will be assessed:
1. Make at least one (1) original post that addresses one more of the guiding questions.
• Compose a response (around 200-300 words)
• Use specific evidence from the reading in your response
2. Pose at least one question for discussion that would invite a peer to respond at the end of your original post
3. Respond to at least two (2) of your peers directly
Instead of hitting the "Quote" button, simply use @thestudents name to signify your reply, this way we will not take up so much space (Thank you Emily Sarver for this idea)
All ground rules from in class discussion apply to the discussion board. You need not all agree with one another; however, academically present your stance.Article Link: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-changes-travel-ban-countries/2017/09/24/1fef7cfe-a140-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.2f576ca94118Great article for talking points
www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/politics/travel-ban-next-steps/index.html
|
|
|
|
Post by McIlwain on Sept 27, 2017 18:50:34 GMT
I completely understand why the travel bans have been put into place on the listed countries. The Washington Post article even explains the specific bans for each country, whether it's economic or overall. However, I cannot say that I fully agree with it, because we are refusing to take in immigrants who might very well need our help. Terrorism has been one of the most feared things in this country since September 11, 2001. It does make sense why they put this ban into place; because, as the President said, it is his job "...to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people...". By putting a label on these countries, we are putting more negativity into public policies like immigration and only making the problems worse rather than solving them. Not every person who comes from those countries is a terrorist. That's something that people seem to forget nowadays. As Americans, it's our job to help others who are at the bottom instead of closing our doors completely.
I'm not for terrorism by any means. I think it's horrific - just like any other sane US citizen thinks as well. But instead of simply slapping names on paper that generalize an entire population, we should try to go about this in a different way. Is there ever a chance that in the future that Trump (or the administration) will share my viewpoint? And what will it take to stop this "terrorism controversy"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Sept 27, 2017 21:22:43 GMT
I understand why the Trump administration wants to place the travel bans on these eight countries. As Trump stated, one of the many jobs as president is to “act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people.” If these eight specific countries are unwilling to give necessary information about themselves to our U.S. government, then yes they should receive restrictions and be questioned. Since September 11, 2001 we as Americans have put into place new security systems to protect our people. Without the knowledge of knowing who these people are we also have no idea what their plans may be. Sudan, a country once on the list, chose to give the proper information and they were then taken off the list. Unless these countries decide to act the way Sudan did they should be kept on the list and feared by American citizens if not kept out of the country. These countries were not chosen at random with the intent to keep Muslims out of the country. The countries decided for themselves not to share necessary information and are therefore receiving travel bans. As one of the senior administration officials stated “Those governments are simply not compliant with our basic security requirements” so, they are banned from entering our country. One may not be blocked from coming to America if they are visiting family members or offered a job in the country but, one should still be questioned and have to show proof that their intents for coming are not harmful.
What could these eight countries not be sharing with the US government to make the administration believe that they need to have a travel ban? Do you think that it could be necessary information to prove that they are not terrorists? If so what document of information would state that these countries don't have that intent?
|
|
duffy
New Member
Posts: 15 
|
Post by duffy on Sept 27, 2017 22:55:00 GMT
When it comes to this topic, I fully agree with the decision that has been made. This is not a matter of discrimination or hatred towards immigrants, it is simply the president doing his job. His first responsibility is not to bring people in, it is to protect the lives of Americans. Now, that does not mean I am against immigration. I think the fact that our country is seen as a safe haven is phenomenal. But at this point in time, terrorism is a very serious and scary issue. Clearly, countries have made it too easy for terrorist groups to attack within the past few years.
All I am able to see are people who enjoy criticizing a man who is only attempting to protect the lives of his citizens. If Trump didn’t create these regulations, and a large scale terrorist attack occurred due to the lack of security, people would still find reasons to attack his decision on not being more careful when it comes to who is crossing our borders. He didn’t randomly select these eight countries.
At some point a line must be drawn. Though we are a welcoming country as a whole, we cannot endanger those within our borders. This decision does not make Trump racist, evil, or selfish in anyway. He is playing smart and safe, which is something that should have been done a long time ago. We must protect our own.
What other actions could Trump have taken to attempt to ensure the safety of America? Is the fact that he is protecting his people really so terrible? At what point will we as Americans be able to collectively stand up for our country before we welcome dangerous nations with open arms?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Sept 27, 2017 23:55:02 GMT
When it comes to this topic, I fully agree with the decision that has been made. This is not a matter of discrimination or hatred towards immigrants, it is simply the president doing his job. His first responsibility is not to bring people in, it is to protect the lives of Americans. Now, that does not mean I am against immigration. I think the fact that our country is seen as a safe haven is phenomenal. But at this point in time, terrorism is a very serious and scary issue. Clearly, countries have made it too easy for terrorist groups to attack within the past few years. All I am able to see are people who enjoy criticizing a man who is only attempting to protect the lives of his citizens. If Trump didn’t create these regulations, and a large scale terrorist attack occurred due to the lack of security, people would still find reasons to attack his decision on not being more careful when it comes to who is crossing our borders. He didn’t randomly select these eight countries. At some point a line must be drawn. Though we are a welcoming country as a whole, we cannot endanger those within our borders. This decision does not make Trump racist, evil, or selfish in anyway. He is playing smart and safe, which is something that should have been done a long time ago. We must protect our own. What other actions could Trump have taken to attempt to ensure the safety of America? Is the fact that he is protecting his people really so terrible? At what point will we as Americans be able to collectively stand up for our country before we welcome dangerous nations with open arms? Trump could have taken in what I believe the longest attempt possible and could have made every non-american country make their citizens take a background check test. This would become a long process that many would despise. The route that the Trump administration took in making each counties government send the US gov. information about themselves was probably the most efficient way of handling the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Caldwell on Sept 28, 2017 0:07:17 GMT
I completely understand why the travel bans have been put into place on the listed countries. The Washington Post article even explains the specific bans for each country, whether it's economic or overall. However, I cannot say that I fully agree with it, because we are refusing to take in immigrants who might very well need our help. Terrorism has been one of the most feared things in this country since September 11, 2001. It does make sense why they put this ban into place; because, as the President said, it is his job "...to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people...". By putting a label on these countries, we are putting more negativity into public policies like immigration and only making the problems worse rather than solving them. Not every person who comes from those countries is a terrorist. That's something that people seem to forget nowadays. As Americans, it's our job to help others who are at the bottom instead of closing our doors completely. I'm not for terrorism by any means. I think it's horrific - just like any other sane US citizen thinks as well. But instead of simply slapping names on paper that generalize an entire population, we should try to go about this in a different way. Is there ever a chance that in the future that Trump (or the administration) will share my viewpoint? And what will it take to stop this "terrorism controversy"? Because of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on our country, this topic will never go away; for American citizens are scared and are always going to question new or foreign people coming into our land. Once one person in a group does something that gets a negative reputation that group now has received a bad name for themselves. I don't think that this is going to change unfortunately for many people won't look closer into the topic to find that only one person in the group did that negative action. Instead we hear that the group is now made up of all "bad influential people" and believe information without looking into the facts to find the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Sept 28, 2017 1:30:46 GMT
President Trump is in the position of protecting the nation from all threats foreign and domestic. As the number of terrorist attacks increase worldwide, our government must consider all options to keep itself safe. If that means barring travel from other countries, then so be it. The government must constantly be vigilant of who is entering and exiting the nation at all times in order to protect its citizens and sovereignty by controlling borders and immigration. Any other nation is willing to vet their systems. Like North Korea who has barred tourism from the US and Saudi Arabia requires that all tourists have an affidavit from the Saudi government and then approved by the King confirming that they may enter the country. Somalia, Libya, Eritrea, and the Central African Republic also have laws preventing US citizens traveling to their nations. Not because they are threatened by the US but because they want to be in control of their own borders and immigration, as does the US. Being a leader means making tough decisions that benefit the majority of people even if it disrupts a small group. So if stopping a few people from traveling to the US means protecting the over 300 million population that action must be taken. Unless its the NSA trying to spy on us again, but I digress. It is not a matter of discrimination but a matter of actual lives being at stake.
With the goal of American safety at hand, how much is too much? IS it fair that in return the countries on the travel list bar US travel if they all ready haven't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Sept 28, 2017 1:42:14 GMT
I completely understand why the travel bans have been put into place on the listed countries. The Washington Post article even explains the specific bans for each country, whether it's economic or overall. However, I cannot say that I fully agree with it, because we are refusing to take in immigrants who might very well need our help. Terrorism has been one of the most feared things in this country since September 11, 2001. It does make sense why they put this ban into place; because, as the President said, it is his job "...to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people...". By putting a label on these countries, we are putting more negativity into public policies like immigration and only making the problems worse rather than solving them. Not every person who comes from those countries is a terrorist. That's something that people seem to forget nowadays. As Americans, it's our job to help others who are at the bottom instead of closing our doors completely. I'm not for terrorism by any means. I think it's horrific - just like any other sane US citizen thinks as well. But instead of simply slapping names on paper that generalize an entire population, we should try to go about this in a different way. Is there ever a chance that in the future that Trump (or the administration) will share my viewpoint? And what will it take to stop this "terrorism controversy"? Because of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on our country, this topic will never go away; for American citizens are scared and are always going to question new or foreign people coming into our land. Once one person in a group does something that gets a negative reputation that group now has received a bad name for themselves. I don't think that this is going to change unfortunately for many people won't look closer into the topic to find that only one person in the group did that negative action. Instead we hear that the group is now made up of all "bad influential people" and believe information without looking into the facts to find the truth. If one person commits an act in the name of a group that supports that act, does it not make the whole group responsible? When people are scared they will do anything. By being scared you let the person instilling the fear win. To conquer this fear you have to stand firm in your stance against it. Leaders have to make decisions that benefit the most amount of people. Barring certain nations from immigrating to the US does not always equate to negativity about immigration. All you are doing is trying to reaffirm people trust that the system is safe. |
|
|
|
Post by Novak on Sept 28, 2017 1:51:22 GMT
I understand why the Trump administration wants to place the travel bans on these eight countries. As Trump stated, one of the many jobs as president is to “act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people.” If these eight specific countries are unwilling to give necessary information about themselves to our U.S. government, then yes they should receive restrictions and be questioned. Since September 11, 2001 we as Americans have put into place new security systems to protect our people. Without the knowledge of knowing who these people are we also have no idea what their plans may be. Sudan, a country once on the list, chose to give the proper information and they were then taken off the list. Unless these countries decide to act the way Sudan did they should be kept on the list and feared by American citizens if not kept out of the country. These countries were not chosen at random with the intent to keep Muslims out of the country. The countries decided for themselves not to share necessary information and are therefore receiving travel bans. As one of the senior administration officials stated “Those governments are simply not compliant with our basic security requirements” so, they are banned from entering our country. One may not be blocked from coming to America if they are visiting family members or offered a job in the country but, one should still be questioned and have to show proof that their intents for coming are not harmful. What could these eight countries not be sharing with the US government to make the administration believe that they need to have a travel ban? Do you think that it could be necessary information to prove that they are not terrorists? If so what document of information would state that these countries don't have that intent? Several of the countries on the travel ban have also banned the US from entering their nations. As of proving that countries have no intent of terrorism could be a slippery slope. If a country would prove that they have no intent and then an attack on the US is traced back to an individual from that country it could be cause for war. As that would be making the country liable for the attack. In terms of the individual, all aspects of their life are investigated to make sure that they are unlikely to be a terrorist. Until the world calms down in terms of conflict, however unlikely that may be, border and immigration security will be of utmost priority. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Sept 28, 2017 15:36:18 GMT
I agree with the president’s decision to enforce a travel ban due to the current state of terrorism all over the world. The ban is in place to ensure the safety of the American people, not add to Trump’s list of enemies like the article briefly said. America has been and continues to be a safe haven for anyone needing a new home but the problem arises when people take advantage of our country or fail to comply with our laws and regulations. This is the reason why specific countries are banned and each countrie’s rules vary. The ban is stated in the reading to be situation based and not time based which means any country could be taken off the list if they comply with our government and the citizens do not pose a threat to the American people. With all the terrorist attacks and threats that occur not only in America but also in other countries there is definitely compelling government interest to create this travel ban and enforce it. However there is not compelling interest for a complete shutdown of our borders like the article briefly mentioned the president considered.
My question is how would you feel about the ban if you were a citizen of one of the banned countries? Would you feel the same as you do now? If not how would your feelings change and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Sept 28, 2017 16:41:40 GMT
I concur and comprehend with President Trump's settlement to impose a travel ban because of the current events that comply with terrorism in the world today. Due to having the up rise of terroristic threats and acts of terrorism the United States must be alert and have protection. According to CNN, Trump tweeted, "Making America safe is my number one priority.We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet." In a statement that occurred on Sunday night, September 24th 2017 the White House had called for new restrictions as a "critical step establishing an immigration system that protects Americans' safety and security in an era of dangerous terrorism and transnational crime." By the act of disappointing the United States' rules and regulations, this has led to why these certain countries have been banned in Trump's latest attempt. I have concluded that there was no harm in President Trump’s decision with the travel ban against immigrants. Along with Trump’s idea of building a “wall”, he has nothing against the immigrants, but he is fulfilling his duties and responsibilities of being a president for the United States.
Why was there not actions and procedures taken before “we” as americans, we targeted with terrorism, such as 9.11.01 or the current situations today?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neely on Sept 28, 2017 16:45:50 GMT
I agree with the president’s decision to enforce a travel ban due to the current state of terrorism all over the world. The ban is in place to ensure the safety of the American people, not add to Trump’s list of enemies like the article briefly said. America has been and continues to be a safe haven for anyone needing a new home but the problem arises when people take advantage of our country or fail to comply with our laws and regulations. This is the reason why specific countries are banned and each countrie’s rules vary. The ban is stated in the reading to be situation based and not time based which means any country could be taken off the list if they comply with our government and the citizens do not pose a threat to the American people. With all the terrorist attacks and threats that occur not only in America but also in other countries there is definitely compelling government interest to create this travel ban and enforce it. However there is not compelling interest for a complete shutdown of our borders like the article briefly mentioned the president considered. My question is how would you feel about the ban if you were a citizen of one of the banned countries? Would you feel the same as you do now? If not how would your feelings change and why? If I was a citizen of that country, I would feel as if I was a target or threat to the United States. In addition I would most likely not feel the same way now. As an American I feel like I have a lot more freedom whereas other countries are not as privileged as to have. |
|
duffy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by duffy on Sept 28, 2017 17:28:24 GMT
I believe that there is no such thing as being too careful. Anybody could turn out to be a wolf in sheeps clothing, and Trump’s choice is not his way of trying to generalize an entire population. As president, his first responsibility is to ensure the safety of his people. Until we can get a grip on the insane danger we are facing, this was the safest route to go. The countries we are turning away are filled with people who would enjoy seeing our nation burn to the ground. We need a solid vetting system before we can even think of allowing citizens of these nations to walk among the millions of men, women, and children residing in our borders. Better safe than sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by pflugh on Sept 28, 2017 18:54:54 GMT
President Trump had every right to go forward with this travel ban. This article gave valid reason why the eight countries he had listed are banned. They were either unable or unwilling to give the United States what they needed, such as willingly passing along terrorism and criminal-history information. It is Trump's responsibility to protect this country and that's exactly what he's trying to do. People that disagree with this ban most likely don't look into the topic and just hear things like "Trump is against all Muslims." In the article, a senior administration official tried clearing this up by saying, “The restrictions either previously or now were never, ever ever based on race, religion or creed." Terrorism as been a big thing ever since September 11, 2001. Anything could happen so people can never be too careful. In class it was mentioned that sometimes harsh is needed and is a good thing. It shows that we aren't going to be pushed around, and that America is standing their ground.
Why do you think those eight countries wouldn't share certain information?
|
|
|
|
Post by pflugh on Sept 28, 2017 19:19:15 GMT
I agree with the president’s decision to enforce a travel ban due to the current state of terrorism all over the world. The ban is in place to ensure the safety of the American people, not add to Trump’s list of enemies like the article briefly said. America has been and continues to be a safe haven for anyone needing a new home but the problem arises when people take advantage of our country or fail to comply with our laws and regulations. This is the reason why specific countries are banned and each countrie’s rules vary. The ban is stated in the reading to be situation based and not time based which means any country could be taken off the list if they comply with our government and the citizens do not pose a threat to the American people. With all the terrorist attacks and threats that occur not only in America but also in other countries there is definitely compelling government interest to create this travel ban and enforce it. However there is not compelling interest for a complete shutdown of our borders like the article briefly mentioned the president considered. My question is how would you feel about the ban if you were a citizen of one of the banned countries? Would you feel the same as you do now? If not how would your feelings change and why? If i were to be a citizen in one of the countries that was on the travel ban list, then I would be very upset towards my government. They would be the reason why the people of that country cannot travel because they won't share specific information with Trump. I would understand why Trump is not allowing that country to be in America, but I would still be offended. |
|
