|
|
Post by Gills on Oct 2, 2017 2:14:28 GMT
campbellIt is unfair that non threatening citizens of these countries are unable to enter the United States. There should be background checks to show that these people are harmless and should be allowed to enter the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Murdock on Oct 2, 2017 2:23:26 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 would like to believe that there is a better way of attacking this situation, but unfortunately I really cannot think of any other solutions.. We have sadly gotten to the point of fearing attacks. In this case I think it would not have been such a big deal had something been enforced sooner because now it comes off as targeting or judging. |
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:27:47 GMT
Trump, although blunt and brutally direct, has made the correct decision when it comes to the travel ban. The ban targets high risk countries such as North Korea, America's most outspoken enemy at the moment, and Syria, a country flooded with refugees. While the second may cause people to question the ethical dilemma of the decision, we must remember that there has to be a way to run a sort of background check on the refugees, otherwise there are few things stopping enemies of the U.S. from hopping aboard a refugee transport and coming to America. While I may not go so far as Trump when he said “The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific", I definitely think that it is a step in the right direction, and once we solve the problem of the polarized violence coming from within our borders we've seen recently, we can revisit and revise this issue.
What would be the correct way to respond to countries such as Syria with a refugee crisis while still maintaining the safety of the U.S., or should one be sacrificed at the expense of the other?
Has Trump taken the ban too far, or not far enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:30:46 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. The problem many people have is that we are doing this out of fear of a threat we perceive to be much larger than it is, which fuels the debate of how many people are radicalized against the United States, how many would act on those beliefs, and where is the radicalization founded in, Islamic ideology or maybe its fueled by the tensions between the Middle East and the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by Murdock on Oct 2, 2017 2:32:20 GMT
I agree with the decision president Trump has made on placing a travel ban. I’m not entirely sure if his methodology of choosing which countries to ban was the right way to do it but at least something was done. The rules he’s made for people from other countries being able to come into this country if they have prior ties to people here such as family or job offers is a reasonable way of doing this. It makes sense when president Trump said, “Making America Safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet” because it’s only logical that the only way we can be safe is to, at least for the time being, attempt to filter the incoming immigrants and prevent future terrorist attacks. My question is, when will the travel ban end? Considering there’s always going to be people trying to get into this country to commit some form of terrorism will there ever be a stop to it or are we just going to have to keep modifying it? There will always be restrictions and background checks to enter our country and almost every other country; it the safest way for everyone. The ban itself will end for these eight countries when they decide to obey OUR restrictions. This is their choice. Also, there will always be modifications to be made because things are always changing. There is no way to get around the modifications. |
|
|
|
Post by bluedorn on Oct 2, 2017 2:35:54 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"? The question boils down to whether we can take in refugees without causing a sizable problem of radicalized refugees in the U.S. as there is no reasonable vetting system in place that will work with the amount of refugees. A big argument in favor of the ban is the situation that happened in Germany. Disregarding terrorism, the cultures of the refugees did not mix well with western countries. The refugees in Germany caused a huge problem because at the very base, Middle Eastern cultures are very conservative and traditional, while western cultures have become very modernized and progressive. |
|
|
|
Post by valera on Oct 2, 2017 2:59:06 GMT
@henry If i was a citizen from a banned country I would feel as if it is unfair that I am being punished for something I have no control over. I would maybe even feel disappointed in my country and (if the situation is bad enough) would probably do anything to try to get out.
@gills A possible solution would be to create specific ways for some non threatening citizens to enter the country (criminal/background check).
|
|
|
|
Post by campbell on Oct 2, 2017 15:36:04 GMT
@gills I don't think that there will ever be a better solution to the travel ban. If other countries are unable to cooperate with United States criminal background check then I also feel like they shouldn't be allowed in the country. Until other countries decide to cooperate the travel ban is the best option
@henry if I were a citizen of one of the countries that isn't allowed to travel to America then I would be very upset, especially with the country that I live in because they are the ones who won't cooperate with trump and are preventing me from entering the U.S.
|
|
