|
|
Post by valera on Oct 2, 2017 1:28:43 GMT
I understand the motives behind the travel ban and I do not believe they are fueled by any kind of racism or hate. Trump stated, “as president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people”. I agree that this should be one of the president’s main priorities and I believe Trump is acting with the safety of the American people in mind. Trump is playing it safe with various countries that pose a threat or could potentially pose a threat to the United States. Arguing that racism or hate has anything to do with this is pointless because it clearly does not. The problem at hand is that there are several countries that may or may not be threatening to America and its people. The issue should be deciding how to deal with these countries, not pointing fingers or speculating why we should do it. Overall, I believe it is important to tighten up security with threatening countries until they decide to cooperate. However, I do recognize the point that it is unfair to some innocent citizens of other countries that wish to travel to America. Those citizens could be seeking a better life here or could even have American family. I think the travel ban should have specific limitations for each country directly relating to their level of threat and cooperation. One country whose limitations seem reasonable to me is Venezuela. Government officials/leaders and their families are banned from travel due to the corrupt government however innocent citizens are not banned. This obviously cannot be the case for all the countries as they all pose different levels of threats but they should all be reevaluated and given specific measures/limitations. These limitations should then all be presented by the government in an organized fashion and should include full reasoning for each limitation as well as any exceptions to the countries (ex. Venezuela). If the people could see something straightforward like this, I believe that more people would fully understand it and speculations/misconceptions of the travel ban would be eliminated.
Which countries should have a 100% travel ban with no exceptions? All/none/some of them? Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Confer on Oct 2, 2017 1:43:19 GMT
@callihan In a moral sense, no. It is never okay to just assume that your/our lives are more important than anyone else's. However from the presidents point of view it is his job to put us first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Oct 2, 2017 1:48:55 GMT
After reading the article, my stance on the travel ban did not waver much, if at all. I do agree with wanting to keep the country safe and secure; However I do not see what difference would come with president Trump’s travel ban on the eight countries listed. I understand Trump “wanting to be as safe as possible”, but I do not believe it will completely diminish any outside threat from entering the U.S. Who’s to say that someone else from a different country, that is not banned, won’t come in and attack us? I’ve heard the argument of “better safe than sorry,” but I can’t help but think there has to be a better solution. Additionally, it is not just those eight countries that are prohibited from entering the United States, but also refugees across the globe. The article did mention “Trump’s original travel ban, signed as an executive order in the first days of his presidency, was always meant to be a temporary measure while his administration crafted more permanent rules,” but when will that happen? Again, I understand that Trump is supposed to be keep the country safe, but isn't there a better alternative to protect American citizens while?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baker on Oct 2, 2017 1:51:06 GMT
I completely agree with Trump placing this ban, but I’m curious as to what is being hid from us that’s making him do this. There has been many terrorist issues in other countries within the last year or so. There was even an attack in May 2015 where two men attacked officers at the entrance to a Muhammad display in Texas. I don’t understand how critics are trying to turn this around as Trump targeting just Muslims, when they’re giving us reasons to be suspicious. He’s not doing this just because he was bored and decided “wow I want to target Muslims today”. He is clearly looking out for our safety. Ever since September 11, 2001 we’ve had every single reason to be suspicious and careful about who we let in and out of our country. Citizens of any country shouldn’t have to be scared to go out in public or get on a plane.
As I said up there what are we not being told that is making president Trump question letting them in? Also I feel as if the critics are completely twisting this whole situation around. As Trump said his main priority is keeping the United States a safe place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 2, 2017 1:53:49 GMT
Personally I feel that no matter how this issue is solved there is going to be problems and no matter what the president chooses to do, he is still going to be criticized for it. The travel ban is necessary to protect the United States from potential terrorists and it does a good job of that. However, there are still many people that are being wrongfully stripped of their rights to enter the United States. Either way with or without the travel ban there are going to be some lives protected at the risk of others and the president has every right to think of the American people first. Innocent people should not have to suffer just because of where they are from, they didn't choose to be born there, but until a more permanent solution can be created that is how it is going to have to be. There is nothing that can completely protect us from terrorism but for now the travel ban will have to work. There is always a better solution and hopefully one will be created in the near future that will allow innocent people to enjoy their rights as human beings but still protect the United States from terrorists.
What are some ways the government can create a better solution to the problem? Is that even possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baker on Oct 2, 2017 1:54:30 GMT
After reading the article, my stance on the travel ban did not waver much, if at all. I do agree with wanting to keep the country safe and secure; However I do not see what difference would come with president Trump’s travel ban on the eight countries listed. I understand Trump “wanting to be as safe as possible”, but I do not believe it will completely diminish any outside threat from entering the U.S. Who’s to say that someone else from a different country, that is not banned, won’t come in and attack us? I’ve heard the argument of “better safe than sorry,” but I can’t help but think there has to be a better solution. Additionally, it is not just those eight countries that are prohibited from entering the United States, but also refugees across the globe. The article did mention “Trump’s original travel ban, signed as an executive order in the first days of his presidency, was always meant to be a temporary measure while his administration crafted more permanent rules,” but when will that happen? Again, I understand that Trump is supposed to be keep the country safe, but isn't there a better alternative to protect American citizens while? I understand where you are coming from, but also these two countries have given him reason to be suspicious. He’s not just pulling 8 random countries out of a hat to ban. This may look as he’s targeting people, but he is in all honesty interested in keeping us citizens of the United States safe. |
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Oct 2, 2017 1:55:56 GMT
@callihan The thing is, Trump and his administration claimed they did not want the travel ban "will stay running" because the article had even stated "[Trump's original travel ban] was always meant to be a temporary measure while his administration crafted more permanent rules," therefore President Trump will not "be doing anything in his power to keep the ban running" but hopefully find a more effective way to keep American's safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baker on Oct 2, 2017 1:57:34 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? I like your question “is the fact that he is protecting his people really so terrible?” I agree with that 100% , I mean there’s not very much else he could do. If a country is being suspicious then why should we let them into ours? It’s would just be asking for trouble if we did. People are being way to harsh on this and totally twisting the meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 2, 2017 2:06:30 GMT
@henry
If I was an innocent person from one of the countries affected and I wanted to travel to the United States I would be very upset about the travel ban and would see it as unfair. After all I would have done nothing wrong why am I being punished?
|
|
|
|
Post by Confer on Oct 2, 2017 2:08:13 GMT
Personally, I believe that the ban that has been created by Trump and his administration is, in fact, necessary. This travel ban could and is being interpreted in many different ways, both negatively and positively. However, the most important and legitimate interpretation, is that our president is just trying to do his job and protect the American people. As quoted by President Trump himself on Twitter, “Making America safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet”. The next step for the Trump administration, however, should be to figure out the best way to vet immigrants. It is unfair to ban them without actively trying to find a solution to our current immigration policies. But in the same respect, the ban itself is not about them. It is about us, the American people and our safety. It is about limiting the number of possible attacks on American soil. Some people view the ban as unfair, I can sympathize with them. It is with a heavy heart I condone this. I wish it did not have to be this way, however, this is the state of our current civilization and until we can fix our messes, we can not help others clean up theirs.
How do you think the ban personally effects your everyday life, if at all?
Do you think the increasing ban will widen the gap between American people and the legal immigrants that already hold residency in America and contribute to our society?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoughton on Oct 2, 2017 2:09:02 GMT
@baker The countries that have time and time again proven to be dangerous under any circumstances to a growing population can overcome my thoughts on the travel ban, but what I'm trying to convey in my post is that it isn't right to hold an entire country accountable for the actions of what a few citizens have done. On the subject of terrorism, you cannot believe every Muslim is a terrorist and that ever terrorist is a Muslim (I'm not saying that's why Trump banned certain countries, this is an analogy). America was never a country know to being afraid of any possible outside threat, so why now?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:11:29 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 bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:11:55 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 bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:12:19 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 Murdock on Oct 2, 2017 2:14:03 GMT
I utterly agree with President Trump’s decision. Terrorism has been greatly feared for many years now. As the president of the United States it is his job to protect the people; even if that means enforcing restrictions and such. These eight countries have been noticed because of their choices to not share very necessary information. No random countries have been chosen out of spite or for the purpose of keeping Muslim immigrants out of America. I understand people may think it has something to do with Trump being “anti immigrant” but it could be any countries that he should protect us from. It is important the restrictions and policies are followed to avoid terroristic actions. President Trump is being safe with his decisions rather than running the risk of putting the people of America in harm’s way. If he would let anyone who pleased in and something occurred where people were injured or killed he would be the one taking the blame for allowing strangers to enter the United States. There are many foregine people who are safe to allow in our boarders but for those who are not willing to follow what is asked of them should be kept out in order to keep everyone safe.
Can you assure someone will not take some sort of action against our people if you do not know anything about them? Is there such thing as “too much” restriction when it comes to the lives of our American citizens?
|
|
