For those of you who don't know, the Supreme Court's "season" runs from October to June. The Court hears cases from October to April and issues decisions in May and June. Traditionally they save their most important, controversial, and divisive decisions until the very end of their session in June. That means the court is getting ready to issue MAJOR rulings during the next week on issues like gay marriage and Trump's travel ban.
Here is an excellent little primer on the issues before the court and the make-up of the court itself. The article includes embedded links that will help to explain anything you don't understand, so please click away!
Major News from Court's Last Day
President Trump's Travel Ban:
As I'm sure many of you know, one of President Trump's first major actions as President was to issue an executive order (more on those during class) that effectively banned immigrants coming from seven Muslim majority countries (below).
The travel ban was immediately brought to court by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Association) and was declared unconstitutional by 2 separate appeals courts (the 9th and the 4th). President Trump then asked the Supreme Court to review it, and today they decided that they would hear argument on the travel ban in October. At the same time, they decided to let parts of the ban take effect until they made their final decision on its constitutionality. Here are some excellent articles on what the court did, why the did it, and the impact it will have:
from Politico.com
- from The Washington Post
The Court and the Separation of Church and State: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia vs. Comer
The court's most controversial ruling of the day came in a 7-2 decision in which the court ruled "that states cannot exclude religious institutions from state programs that have a purely secular intent — in this case, making playgrounds safer". The case is controversial because it seems to set a new precedent that public tax dollars can be used to fund religious institutions, despite numerous state and federal laws that say the opposite. Most importantly the case might pave the way for President Trump, and his secretary of education Betsy DeVos, to implement federal school vouchers programs. You can read more about the court's ruling here:
- from Politico.com
- from SCOTUSBlog.com
Questions for Discussion:
Rather than giving you specific questions for this current event, I'm just going to give you some general/big idea questions that you can use to start your comments.
- Do you agree with the court's decision in the case?
- How will the court's decision impact the country and it's citizens?
- How will the court's decision impact President Trump?
The Supreme Court seems to be doing the best that they could do to satisfy President Trump in his travel ban, but that does not seem effective. As I am sure we are all aware, President Trump sees almost any issue in absolutes; either something is one way or it isn't. He does not get his way completely in this case, while he does limit Muslims travel into the country. I think that the court is trying too hard to satisfy the President to realize the negative effects in the long run. The situation in the Middle East is devastating and many innocent people lose their lives daily trying to find shelter. Now that travel is strictly limited, many more people will be subjects of this mass terror. While accepting Muslims into the country would be putting ourselves at risk of a terrorist attack, doing nothing also affects many people. Trump's travel ban is selfish and not defensive to our country at all, it is cowardly. The Supreme Court, because of this, has now helped put the U.S. in danger of being a future enemy to the 6 Muslim countries when this war is over. The Court's decision was satisfying to Mr. Trump, but what about the millions of people facing terrorism every day? This travel ban is intended to limit terrorism, but terrorism is not a religion. The schools and African-Americans who are victims of gun violence is also considered terrorism, while Trump and the Court have made no attempts to change that. As for the Church, it is unconstitutional to allow a private group to receive funding for a playground. If state programs has solely secular intents, then religious exclusive organizations do not get to benefit from these programs. Tax dollars should benefit the many public schools that are worn down and unsanitary before they even consider funding a church program. It is one of the first decisions that was made as a country to separate any involvement between the church and the state, no matter the religion. It is not violating a free exercise of religion because the church could fund their own playground being a private institution. While a defense is that anyone can attend the preschool and use the playground, no family other than Christian families would send their child to a school like that. It is unfair to grant money for a playground to a private organization.
ReplyDeleteWould it be more beneficial to keep the church and state separate as well as continue allowing Muslims into the country? Maybe not one hundred percent but it would make us seem more humanitarian and democratic (as a nation). Do you think its more beneficial to defend ourselves our help those in need, even if it means putting ourselves at risk?
DeleteHello Dylan! I just wanted to say that I agree with a lot of what you said on both topics. As for the church and state debate, I believe that these two should be kept separate. Reasoning to my view lies in the very nature of the words public vs. private. Public schools are federally funded, and therefore are free to the people who want to attend them. Private institutions, meanwhile, are for the people who choose (key word) to pay for their tuition. In this lies the distinction between the two. Oftentimes, it is this difference between the ideas that affects the different approaches of both. Private schools tend to be known as more of a smaller community, and sometimes religious, both of which are traits that some people prefer in their schooling. The same applies for public schools. And that is fine, but federally funding some private institutions would cross a line that needs to be drawn. Even hundreds of years ago, the first leaders of America made sure to create this divide. Now is not the time to decide to change this. As someone who attended a catholic school from Kindergarten to see it close in 7th grade, sure it was hard to see my school close due to the lack of money, but I just cannot see the state paying for it either. Once again, I go back to the idea that these institutions are separated for a reason, and both have their own appealing qualities, but both also are unconnected for a reason, and we should not try to blur that line of distinction.
DeleteExcellent job both of you!
DeleteDylan - Good first comment! I really like you analysis of President Trump (the black and white president?). Next time, try to incorporate more evidence from the article(s) for support.
From the beginning, I have not been a big fan of President Trump. I certainly believe that a leader should be firm on his beliefs, determined, and set on his goals. However, views on major issues aside, simply his attitude has proven to be unpresidential. And this is coming from someone who does not necessarily involve themself in a lot of politics. As Dylan states, Trump has a very "black or white" outlook on many issues. Some see this as an asset; he has made clear cut goals and is intent on meeting them. On the other hand, I personally think that he is too close-minded, and should definitely, as a leader, learn to accept other people's views and opinions. I understand that sometimes one needs to put their foot down, but in a country like America, it is vital that Trump respects everyone's opinions. It is clear that not everyone agrees with him (as made clear by the close presidential election), which makes it even more crucial that he take into account his critics.
ReplyDeleteOn to the topic of his travel ban. Trump's views on this issue also prove to be extremely set in stone. Even when a revision of his own travel ban became an executive order, he turned to Twitter to criticize it. Once again, he does not compromise. I can see where he is coming from, as the threat of terrorism is a major issue today, yet, still, Trump's stance on this topic seems a bit extreme. In a war torn land, people flee anywhere they can. How can the United States, the country built on the idea of immigrants and diversity, simply close its doors to these people? However, I do agree with the proposed idea to check the connections of people traveling to the United States, and if they have family or valid reasons, they should be granted a green card or visa. Practically, though, the reality of this idea is imperfect. Chances are, refugees simply seeking shelter may not have any connections to the U.S, but this does not mean that they have any malevolent intentions. Surely, ISIS and other terrorist organizations are a major issue, but it is not right to profile every Muslim as a terrorist. I care for the safety of America and its inhabitants just as much as the next person, but barring immigrants solely due to their country of origin is not correct. This topic is indeed very controversial, and I do not envy the leaders tasked with finding a solution, but this harsh travel ban is not the way to go. There is a risk for this country, but we cannot ignore the horrors occurring to millions of innocent people in the Middle East. I may be going too far with this, but perhaps the way to go is not to close borders, even if temporarily, to Muslim countries, but go to the root of the issue. We must deal with the conflict and organizations in the Middle East themselves. To add, the refugees refused from the U.S. will also surely seek refuge somewhere else, burdening other countries, whether they be in Europe or neighboring Middle Eastern nations. A major superpower such as the United States, of course, must keep the concern of its own safety in mind, but must also consider the situations of others around the globe. We cannot remain uninvolved and watch the refugee crisis continue in the rest of the world while banning travel ourselves. In the end, I hope to see that the Supreme Court rejects this idea and this action does not take effect. Hopefully, the ideas, morals, and beliefs that the U.S. stands for will prevail and President Trump's travel ban will not succeed.
Julia,
DeleteExcellent first comment! I liked that you referenced Dylan's comment in your own, and that you did more than simply summarizing the current event, instead articulating your opinion with evidence from the articles. Well done!
The idea of limiting the travel of immigrants from these countries is a good idea, however, I agree with Dylan, Trump is either completely for or against an idea, and while that is not always awful, in this case it is pretty bad. In the situation of immigration, it is only fair that a religion that terrorists belong to is examined closely. I do agree that not all Muslim people are terrorists, but by allowing Muslims in, we could be allowing terrorists into our county. However, if the travel ban on Muslim countries is considered a punishment to the people in the countries that the travel ban affects, then by the Geneva Conventions, it would be illegal. According to The Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Article 33, group punishment is not allowed. "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed". so, it would be illegal to ban non-terrorist immigrants from our country. However,in my opinion, it should not be considered a punishment, so much as a method of security, that is, in my opinion, necessary, especially seeing the attacks in Europe. In addition to this, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a summary written by the UN of all of the rights all people deserve, in Article 13, it states "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country". This however does not mean that they can enter our country, so if it is not completely necessary, then, for safety purposes, the travel ban should be enforced to ensure that no terrorists will easily be able to sneak through into our country. Therefore, I take the side of supporting the travel ban. As far as the idea of the funding of Catholic School playgrounds, I could go either way. Technically, it does make sense for the government to fund playground safety changes, because I know that there are Catholic schools that pay taxes, I do not know if all of them do, because non-profit schools likely would not need to, but the rest do, so church and state are obviously not fully separated, so it is only fair for some aspects of Catholic schools are funded. However, church and state should be kept separate, because otherwise, other religions might feel as though they are not being treated fairly. So this argument could go either way.
ReplyDeleteDan,
DeleteGreat first post! Good job bringing in outside sources to support your view point. The only issue here is that the Geneva Convention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, while they are important documents, are not legal documents in the United States. As such, the Supreme Court will not consider them when making a ruling on the ban. Instead, they will use the Constitution as a basis to rule on the legality of the travel ban. So what do you think, is the travel ban constitutional?
The Supreme Court made the decision to let parts of the ban take effect until its constitutionality can be determined in October. This important matter is being delayed due to the Supreme Court’s season ending. The Court runs from October until the end of June, so every issue must either be addressed or postponed until the season resumes. Rather than do nothing about Trump’s travel ban, it was decided that some of the ban will be put in effect until further notice. I agree with the fact that something has to be done about the travel ban and that putting some of it in effect is better than doing nothing, but I do not think the matter was handled the right way. It is a very important issue that can affect millions of people in our country, so it should be a number one priority. The Court’s decision will impact the country by not allowing people from six Middle Eastern countries to travel to the United States. Those countries are, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump’s ban originally included the country of Iraq also, but it was removed. This travel ban will and already has started protest across the country. It could potentially spark conflict or even war between the U.S and the Middle Eastern countries involved in the travel ban. It is affecting families who have relatives in the U.S who cannot visit each other, unless there are special circumstances. There are some instances where relatives can visit family and some cannot, which is confusing and unfair because everyone should be allowed to be with family, despite the situation. Although the ban is meant to keep U.S citizens safe from potentially dangerous people entering our country, it also involves other issues that cause more problems than the ban solves. There are both many pros and cons of the ban, but it is only temporary. The pro’s are that it could ensure the citizen’s of the United States safety, however the six countries included in the ban aren’t the only places that pose a threat. The cons are that protests related to the ban are only driving the country further apart and causing more issues. The Court’s decision is considered “a win” for president Trump because almost all of his ban was put in effect. I personally do not think that this temporary travel ban is a “win” for the White House because it’s constitutionality is being decided in October so this isn’t permanent. There is no telling what could happen in October and what problems it could cause. I currently am neither for or against the travel ban because I do not know all the details and what the likely repercussions of the ban would be. As October approaches, I hope to gain an even better understanding of the situation.
ReplyDeleteHi Madison,
DeleteI agree that terrorism comes from other places besides the six countries currently affected by the ban. Trump doesn't realize that his ban will only spark conflict in Muslims who sympathize with the people in the six countries affected by the ban. It can create a worldwide debate. Many of the people in the six countries are innocent civilians who are going to find it harder to visit their family in America. Some of these people are caught in a state of civil war in their country and are looking to the United States to help them or their children become free from terror. Now that Trump has banned travel, if these people have no ties to the U.S, then they are stuck in a harmful environment. Although frightening, I agree with your point that Trump could possibly spark war between the United States and the six Muslim countries. His travel ban could be taken as a slam against the Muslim religion and make the United States look racist. Our Constitution states that everyone has the freedom to practice their own religion. Trump violates this First Amendment by discriminating against six countries that are mostly Muslim. You mentioned that this phase of the travel ban is not a “win” for the White House because it is only temporary. I disagree because the travel ban will become normal by October; and, if proven effective, not many people will mind if it stays in place permanently. Now that Trump has been given a shot to run his travel ban for the next few months, he will probably take to social media to promote it and persuade people to let it take full effect in October. Overall, I agree with your ideas.
As an American citizen i feel as if this ban is completely warranted and needed as when looking at countries like Germany, Sweden, and England it is evident that having a open boarder policy is bad for the citizens of the country. Its a hard pill to swallow but the people that are fleeing the middle east aren't all good. They come from countries that have been war zones for years and the law of they're lands promote violence against women, gays, and transgenders. Women's rights are ignored, gays have been reportedly throw of roof tops and other cruel treatments, and people who wish to change their gender identity are given similar treatment. The people from these places will most likely bring the same school of thought and try to enforce the same sharia law in our American society.I agree that some of the people should be admitted to the US but without proper vetting and security measures they shouldn't be allowed in, as Radical terror groups have been know to infiltrate nations by posing as refugees, if we have no security against this we will see the fruits of our ignorance to the danger of some of the refugees . The ban isn't perfect but with some more tinkering it will be just and efficient making Americans safer by cutting down the chance of Islamic terrorists getting in and hurting our people, and people that live by a violent code of living will not come and poison our country. I know some will find this extremely offensive but i find that we must protect Americans before foreign people.
ReplyDeleteJason,
DeleteGood first post, you expressed your opinion thoughtfully, but you need to include more evidence from the articles. Remember this is a Supreme Court case, so it isn't just about whether you like the ban or not or if you think it's a good idea - instead the court is being asked to determine its constitutionality. In the future, your opinion is always welcome, just make sure to root it in the central question of the post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme court is reaching their summer break, but they still have an important decision to make. They have recently disclosed to the public that they are willing to discuss parts of president Trump’s controversial travel ban in early October. While it has many down sides and is not considered fair by many, it is a quick effort to terminate the drastic and hackneyed occurrences of terrorist attacks in the US. Overall, I disagree with the court's decision to pass parts of the travel ban.
ReplyDeleteLast February, Justice member Antonin Scalia passed away, and his death left a spot open on the Supreme Court. Obama was currently in office during this time, and he picked Judge Merrick Garland to take his spot. However, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader for the senate, declared that the new Supreme Court justice would be determined after America picked their new president. Once Trump was elected, Garland was out of the picture, and Neil Gorsuch stepped into the position. The Supreme Court remained controlled by the republicans as it had been previously. Also, in the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy will be 81 years-old in 24 days and is bound to retire soon. Neal Devins, a William & Mary Law School professor said "Kennedy leaving and being replaced by a Trump pick will almost certainly move the court to the right, and perhaps make the court the most conservative court we have had since the 1930s." Kennedy is known to think with an open mind politically, unlike all the other republicans in the Supreme Court. His retirement would give Trump the opportunity to put yet another conservative in the Supreme Court.
It can be argued that the travel ban is unfair and biased to non-muslims. Personally, I am against the travel ban. I feel that the US should be making efforts to eliminate terrorist groups, but I also feel that innocent civilians should not have to pay the price. As mentioned, the travel ban allows refugees from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Libya with family in America to come over to the US. Without a tie to America, an individual is disregarded and not allowed to come in to the US. Immigrant advocates argue that few people in the six countries affected by the visa ban seek to enter the United States purely for tourism, with no relationship to anyone in the US. Many of the immigrants are refugees trying to escape their country, which may be invaded by a terrorist group. This ban mostly affects these refugees because it extinguishes their chances of having a new life. The justices concluded that people admitted to U.S. universities, offered work by American businesses, or with other formal connections may be exempt from Trump’s new visa restrictions. This ban can also be construed to be part of Trump’s muslim ban that he prompted during his campaign for the White House. On the other hand, many feel that Trump’s travel ban is beneficial because it is the quickest way to ensure that terrorists won't get into the United States... and overall saves lives. Do you agree with Trump's criteria for letting refugees into the US? Do you approve of the Supreme Court’s agreement to discuss parts of President Trump’s travel ban?
The Supreme Court is getting ready to end their season, and they have some very important decisions to make. After Antonin Scalia’s death, there has been major controversy over who should fill his shoes. Obama was pushing for Merrick Garland to take his seat, but it had been decided that the next president should pick the new justice. It was unclear if Hillary would follow Obama’s recommendation if she were to be president, and Trump chose his nominee to be Neil Gorsuch. Garland waited a record of 170 days for the results, only to discover that Trump won the presidency. The seat was filled. There have been rumors that Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80, might retire during Trump’s presidency. Although Kennedy is a Republican, he tends to sway left or right depending on the issues. For example, he voted with four liberals on gay rights. If he were to retire, then Trump could find a stronger conservative to fill his shoes and officially give the Supreme Court a majority of conservatives. Currently, the Supreme Court is made up of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats, however Anthony Kennedy is not strictly for a certain political view, as mentioned above. Trump is probably excited about Kennedy's departure because he will gain more control over the Supreme Court, who will be mostly strong conservatives like him. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are also over the age of 78, like Kennedy; but their chances of retirement during Trump’s administration are less likely. How would decisions be made if the Supreme Court became majority conservative? How would the Supreme Court have been different if Hillary were elected president?
ReplyDeleteAs the Supreme Court wraps up their season, they will have to make tough decisions. One topic being postponed until next season is Trump’s travel ban. Trump wants to ban travel from 6 major Muslim countries with hopes to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Since the ban will not be legalized until October, travel from those countries to the United States will only be granted to those with direct ties to any businesses, colleges, relatives, or organization in the United States. Visas will not be given to those without ties to the US. I agree with the idea that the travel ban will help keep out unwanted threats, however I can see how some people will find it as discrimination against religion. The ban stops refugees from escaping civil conflicts, like in Syria, and comes as a detriment to some innocent refugees. However, it only takes one terrorist to get through to harm millions of Americans. I agree with the travel ban as a way to improve public safety. How do you feel about Trump’s travel ban? Do you find it as an act of discrimination or protection?
Also, there has been recent controversy over the possibility of funds being given to churches for secular purposes. One church argued that they should get state funding for a playground, since it is not a religious investment. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that churches should get funding for secular projects. This is still a heated issue with a lot of controversy and will find itself in the Supreme Court again.
Kathryn,
DeleteGood first post (I especially like that you talked about the current make-up of the Supreme Court's justices)! However, don't forget to focus on the issue of constitutionality and not just if you like the travel ban or not.
Personally, I believe our country has founded itself on immigrants and has become a safe haven for refugees. I do not agree with the supreme court’s ruling. However, their job is to decide what is and is not constitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that says we must allow immigrants and or refugees into the country. Thus, this travel ban does not go against the constitution so the supreme court can not make a case against it. The passing of this travel ban will create a sense of false security amongst citizens that believe this ban will end terrorism from muslim countries/ groups like ISIS. If this bill is passed it will work as an ego boost for Donald Trump because he will believe that he is making the right decision to benefit the country. But, instead of protecting the country like he think he is doing he is only alienating the country from part of the world.
ReplyDeleteI also do not agree with the supreme court’s most recent ruling. I do not agree with their ruling because it sets a new precedent that children with more money can receive a better schooling thus excluding children from lower income families. The public school system should be the first priority since it is the only absolute affordable schooling option for all citizens. A 2009 study said that 90% of children go to public schools while only 10% of children go to private schooling. Many of that 90% that go to public schools come from lower income schooling that can not afford private schools. If we take funding away from public schools than we are only making public schools worse for the students that attend them. Private schools for the most part fund themselves since children have to pay thousands of dollars to attend them. In the end this will give children from lower income families less of a chance for better education. It will also raise the population of the lower income community since the children growing up in the lower income community can not escape it due to little and poor education. For Donald Trump this allows him to grow the affluent community from which he comes from.
Marissa,
DeleteGood first post, keep it up! I'm glad that you chose to talk about the Constitutionality of the ban, and not just whether or not you like it. However, you said, "There is nothing in the constitution that says we must allow immigrants and or refugees into the country. Thus, this travel ban does not go against the constitution so the supreme court can not make a case against it." Make sure to check this statement out, and remember our Constitution is not a rigid set of laws, but a flexible document - therefore while there may not be anything that specifically says immigrants must be let it, there are other parts that would protect them.
I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision to partially allow President Trump's immigrant ban to be in effect. Putting a ban on the countries with the highest muslim population in order to prevent terrorism from entering the United States makes no sense. Terrorists come from all countries, all places, and just because some of them happen to be muslim doesn't mean it's right to put a ban on the entire country and all those people living there. There are many innocent citizens there that will be affected by this ban. They want peace and freedom just like so many of us do, so who is Donald Trump to say that they can't have that because they are muslim? This executive order is racist and virtually pointless for the sheer fact that banning these specific countries will in no way stop the spread of terrorism. The only things that will come out of this are that the many civilians living in these countries will have no connection with the United States even if their family lives there or they want to be there to escape to a better life, and Donald Trump's popularity will only continue to decrease due to the fact that his blatant racism will be displayed in front of all his people to see.
ReplyDeleteSara,
DeleteExcellent job expressing your opinion (I see some fiery debates in your class's future)! Just remember that disagreeing with Trump's travel ban is one thing, but determining its constitutionality is another. Definitely express your opinion on the ban, but don't forget to address the constitutional issues it brings up as well.
Alongside Julia, I have never been an advocate during Donald Trump's race for the White House, nor am I a fan of him now, officially being the president of America. I believe his views are bias and that he is primarily too quick to judge. Before sharing my stance on the travel ban decision, i'd like to make a point about a problem I came across while beginning to read these articles. It was stated that the Supreme Court deals with their most important trials at the very end of their season. In my opinion, I believe that if the issues are so important and cause havoc in the everyday lives of American citizens then they should be dealt with right away instead of being "put off." So, I ask my classmates along with Mr. Balanda if you agree with the Supreme Court's system or think it should be changed. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMore on topic, I strongly feel that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in letting Trump's travel ban take partial effect. As much as I agree with Dylan, in saying they are doing their best in order to satisfy Trump, they are going against the roots of our country. From the beginning of its' time, America has been known as the free country where people from all over the world traveled to so they could practice religion, culture, their rights and much more in a matter of total freedom and equality. By letting this travel ban take effect, whether partial or not, America can not be know as a "free" country any longer. Why should it be? Our president's goal is to block SIX countries from enjoying the freedom of America, all which occupy around the same religion, race or culture. His excuse, being to protect our American citizens from terrorist attacks. Just because a group who originates from that religion created horrible nightmares for the victims and surrounding areas of terrorist attacks, does not mean everyone who practices such a religion is capable of doing such inhumane acts, nor does it mean these people should automatically be called terrorists or invaders! The definition of terrorism is to incite terror. It is proven that White Caucasians are the most prominent when being accused of this term, yet they are not being classified as "terrorists". Why? Because they are White of course! This all ties back to my remarks of Trump being bias and too quick to judge. While letting this ban take place, we are talking about ripping people out of their homes for the prime reason being they practice the Muslim religion and are not part of an American industry. Overall, this ban is unfair and goes against everything America has ever been known for. It's a shame that our country has come to this and I hate watching it all happen without having any say, although of course that is a totally different issue. Therefore, not only does this ban hold promise to cause debating issues in American society, but it entices Trump to create more and more unequal laws. All this will do is give him a big head, in lack of better choice of words. I hope the Supreme Court revises its' decision in October to stand true with the America we all know and love. Thank you for reading.
Melanie! Great job thinking outside the box and posing a great question, "I ask my classmates along with Mr. Balanda if you agree with the Supreme Court's system or think it should be changed." I'd be interested to know what everyone thinks before I open my big mouth!
DeleteI, personally, have never been a fan of Trump. As seen through this travel ban, his ideas can be radical and not as well thought out as they should be. As people have said, terrorism is not strictly from these countries affected by the travel ban, however, seen throughout the world in different forms. I feel that, like Dylan said, the Supreme Court is simply just appeasing Trump's ideas, which will most likely cause problems later in his time in office. While I am happy that they decided to postpone parts of the ban until October, it would have been better to just hold the whole conversation then instead of imposing parts now. In my opinion, the travel ban has nothing to due with protecting our country from terrorism but instead keeping people who have different views than us from coming here. It is not a terrorism problem, it is Trump imposing his racist views on a select group of people and again like Dylan said, being cowardly. The people affected by this travel ban did not choose to live where they do, and many want to escape to better their lives here. This whole situation can easily be described as insane and Trump will most likely continue to face backlash probably for the rest of his time in office due to his impulsive and radical decisions.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
DeleteNice job referencing previous posts before writing yours - that's an essential thing to do when you're not the first to comment. Also, you said, "the Supreme Court is simply just appeasing Trump's ideas," Is this the job the Supreme Court or are they supposed to be more independent?
DeleteHi Matt,
As you said, terrorist groups are not just from the countries being banned, but throughout the world. On this same topic, what would stop a terrorist from going to another country not under the ban and flying over to the US? Trump excluding just these 6 Muslim countries will most likely not solve the terrorist issue. I also agree that the ban is especially unfair to Muslims looking to start a new life. Terrorism is a very difficult issue to prevent, and I believe that Trump created this ban to incite warning as well as show terrorist groups contemplating a strike that the US is prepared.
I feel like both the Supreme Court and Trump should focus on how many negative aspects there are to this ban like I previously stated. It seems like they are only looking at the fact of terrorism in these countries instead of the people that need help and look to us to do so. The Supreme Court should have waited until October to make any decision on the ban instead of just accepting it so quickly. So to state it clearly, I feel they should be a little more independent than what they currently are.
DeleteGoing off of what you said Keri, there are better ways than just cutting of travel from a country to warn terrorist groups. I am sure that we can come up with a better solution that will be good for both the US and the innocent citizens in those countries such as letting them in but keeping a tight security that will look over, not just the people coming over from Middle Eastern countries, but from around the world in general.
I have never been a fan of Trump and his views. His attitude towards others shows that he is bias towards some ethnic groups. Therefore I do not agree with the supreme court's decision for part of the travel ban to take effect. First of all, this is an important matter and should be resolved quickly rather than be postponed until October. His idea of banning the people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from coming to the U.S except under certain conditions violates the the first amendment which guarantees no government denigration of a religion. The point of the travel ban is reduce the threat of terrorism in the U.S by preventing potential terrorists from entering the country, but not all people from these countries should be labeled as a terrorist. This ban is an attempt to solve the threat of terrorism, but will ultimately solve very little. As negative as this may sound, terrorism is not confined to these specific countries and this will not put an end to terrorism all together. It is spread throughout the world and is not limited to Muslims. This is simply discriminating the Muslim population and making them look like they are the source of terrorism. It is unfair to prevent these people from getting a visa while many others are still in danger of terrorist attacks. As stated in other posts, the Supreme Court is trying to satisfy Trump without even considering the long term problems that could happen such as political tension between Muslim countries and the U.S or the U.S could lose allies in the Middle East. If Trump's ban is denied, then this will give him more reasons to pursue this idea.
ReplyDeleteI am, unlike a good amount of classmates, a fan of Trump and the fact that he wants to protect the country from threats outside that could potentially harm the American people. The travel ban is a step in the right direction for the country's safety. Although this may not stop all the terrorist attacks from occurring, it does filter out threats from six major Muslim countries of Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Somalia. So for me, the court's decision was the correct one to at least agree and make a real change. However, I do agree with what Keri said with the fact that terrorists are everywhere and can come from any country out there. I also feel unlike many others that Trump is not being racist when addressing the Muslims as terrorists. For countries like us, France, Germany, London, and many other countries, those following the Sharia Law have a hate for Christians and that hate can be translated through murder and terrorism which has been demonstrated in many cases. So, realistically this travel ban can save lives without us even realizing it. Many of us as people don't know if terrorists from any of those six countries were planning to board a plane here and cause something horrific in the future. When the travel ban is put in full effect, that cannot happen. Perfect reasons for this travel ban are the attacks in Paris and London. Maybe if they had a travel ban of some sort, lives wouldn't have been lost. Lastly, I believe that by the Supreme Court backing Trump this time, he will make more big decisions like this to try and make even bigger leaps and bounds to give the United States citizens a safer place to live. In conclusion to give fellow bloggers something to think about that believe Trump's actions are racist or offensive to people in other countries, since when do the lives of American citizens not become the absolute top priority? His goal is to protect us because he is the president of the UNITED STATES not any other country.
ReplyDeleteThe decisions that Trump makes will affect other countries other than ours, but I will focus on what you said about how his top priority should be American citizens. By imposing this travel ban, he is furthering previous implications about how Muslims can be terrorists (like any religion). However, because he focusses on these Muslim countries, people in our own country who are strong supporters of Trump go to extremes and form racist opinions. I have seen multiple times where people in the UNITED STATES have commited hateful acts towards Muslims with the excuse of "this is Trumps country now." While I can see where you are coming from with him not being racist, people take it to extremes in our own country and this is where the travel ban becomes an issue here in the US. Trump needs to realize that there is terrorism in our own country even though it is on a much smaller scale.
DeleteTrump does realize that there is hate crime that is committed in this country from Donald Trump supporters. He has not taken any action on it yet, but in an interview on 60 Minutes last November, he had told his supporters specifically, to "stop it." This definitely is not enough, but this shows that Donald Trump does not support these hate crimes and wants them to end.
DeleteFirst, I want to commend ALL of you for have a legitimate political discussion and discussing your opinions in respectful ways.
DeleteConnor,
Since its your comment specifically I have a couple small critiques. First, nice job discussing your opinion, but I would caution you to be careful when you say things like, "Trump is not being racist when addressing the Muslims as terrorists". Whether you realize it or not you've basically said that all Muslims are terrorists or that it is fair to assume they might be. I don't think you mean it this way, but remember your fellow classmates can only understand your arguments based on the words you choose to use so be careful and proofread!
Secondly, don't forget to discuss the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the ban and not just your opinion of it.
The travel ban on Muslim-majority countries of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen is a false attempt to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States and supports racial discrimination. The court's decision of allowing partial enactment of President Trump's travel ban is quite illogical because terrorists do not occupy particular territories, rather, they are already blended within society. Who is to say members of ISIS or any other extremist group are not hiding in the "safety" of UN-affiliated countries? Just recently, a coordinated series of attacks in Paris left 130 dead and another attack caused 22 deaths in an arena at Ariana Grande's concert in Manchester. Terrorism cannot be contained by targeting certain countries because terrorists are integrated into the people of the world, and it wrong to associate a nation as being the source of it. The court's decision also demonstrates the administration's out-right racial intolerance toward Muslims and encourages Americans to criticize people of specific countries. Furthermore, this ban is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment, which stands against the federal derogation of religions.
ReplyDeleteAs for the United States,social and political problems will rise due to the tens of thousands of visas that will be denied and the 50,000 refugees that will be refused entrance to the United States. Diplomatic relations with leaders of the six countries affected by the ban will also get worse and the United States will run into obstacles regarding other countries. With October coming closer, President Trump will be pressured to come up with good reasons for enforcing a ban. However, as Justices Thomas,Alito, and Gorsuch state, the decision would "prove unworkable".
I have grown up with a family of Conservatives and also plan to be a conservative when I am old enough to vote, but I do not agree 100% with Donald Trump's travel ban. As I was reading about how the supreme court was allowing Trump’s travel ban to take partial effect, I had controversies on being able to agree that it should or should not. I understand where Donald Trump may be coming from since, “ It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.” This was said by Donald Trump and it seems as though he only has this travel ban for the safety and protection of the American people, but as I continued to read the travel ban it seemed very unconstitutional and is really a ban towards Muslims in America. Although I am not Muslim, I am religious and am Catholic, we obviously have different religious views, but I think it’s hypocritical to go to church every week praying for peace and are taught to love one another and I know not everyone believes in this and you are obviously not going to like everyone, but It’s hypocritical to believe in this, but then after agreeing to ban others from coming into the country and causing more chaos than peace. With this being said I have controversial thoughts on whether the ban should take place because of some extremists, or should not since it seems to be very unconstitutional.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have mixed feelings on Trump's presidency so far. I do not strongly like or dislike him. In my opinion, I think the travel ban is not about Trump being racist towards Muslims, but more of protection for our country and citizens. The safety of this country is a very high priority, with all the very frequent terrorist attacks going around in countries that allow Islamic immigration, it's become an epidemic, so I do agree with the court's decision to have this travel ban take effect...partially. This is a step in the right direction in protecting our country, but constitutionally, it violates the first amendment and I am not in favor of this. Also, it does not help the cause of ending terrorism worldwide. This travel ban also does not even 100% prevent terrorism in our country. As people in this comment section have mentioned, terrorism is not 100% from these select countries. ISIS is operating in over 30 countries! But, as I have said before, this is a small step in the right direction for our safety in my opinion. As for the court's decision impacting Donald Trump, I don't think this will impact him much. It is not like the court does fully agree with Trump, seeing as only parts of the travel ban were allowed, and they're going to discuss the ban in October when their break is over. So it's not like Trump will think that the court will be on his side for this ban, or other decisions that he makes and has to argue for.
ReplyDeleteI am honestly not a huge fan of Trump, and his new ban. Although the Supreme Court is partially allowing his ban, it can end up to be a huge mistake. The travel ban may prevent the terrorist of the Muslim Countries to enter the United States, but it also prevents tourist and people who are trying to get away from all the terrorism. Although, the travel ban is keeping us safe it is also harming the lives of many Muslims, refugees, and the lives of the people of the United States. The United States shouldn't ban many countries based on their religion. We are all equal and we should not discriminate the Muslim religion. Also, just like Madison Cossette wrote by banning those six countries it can create a war and those are not the only six countries involved with terrorism. Banning those six Muslim countries and not any other terrorist country with a religion that is not Muslim can start a war between our people and all the Muslim countries. The worst part of it all is that the Supreme Court isn't going to do anything with the ban till the start of October. Also, just like Matt and Dylan wrote the Supreme Court may just be appeasing Trump's ideas. Our country is a democracy and we should get a say on the ban or not. With all the protest about the bans, the Supreme Court should have waited till October to hear the peoples voices and not try to appease Trumps ideas.
ReplyDeleteFor the other article, I agree with the church. The church should have an access to the states funds. The churches are apart of the states and should be allowed to have access to the funds just like any other place. Churches are a big part of peoples lives just like school and work, so shouldn't they have some of the funding too.
In recent times, when people think of the word "terrorist" most are instantly reminded of Muslims. This is the idea that they get when they think of Muslims. However as a Muslim, I can safely say that Islam does not teach people to terrorize others and force them into this religion, as we are all Gods creations and every one of us has a right to live life the way we choose to. Muslims are not terrorists, but people who choose to be terrorists are. Back in January, in order to please his supporters and make America "safer", Donald Trump "Billed his travel ban, which was rewritten to make it easier to defend than an initial, more sweeping version in January, as a common-sense precaution against terrorism." I definitely don't agree with Donald Trump's original ban, but I also disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to partially allow the "Travel Ban" to be in effect. I feel like banning people from Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Sudan and Libya is not only unfair to the many people, the majority of which are innocent and have no ties to any terrorist group, but I also feel like it's pointless. In the comments made earlier by a lot of students, it was mentioned that terrorists are not located only in the Middle East but are found in many other places of the world. Even if this "Travel Ban" prevents terrorists from coming from the 6 countries, they will find another way to enter the United States, possibly by being a citizen of a different country. On the other hand, denying people's rights because of their ethnicity and religion to enter the country without ties to America, I feel like, is unconstitutional because America was built from immigrants. As Kirsten Morin mentioned above, "This ban violates the first amendment which stands against the federal derogation of religions." The main reason why, at first, people immigrated to America is because they wanted to practice their religion freely. Also, the iconic and world renowned Lady Liberty has stood for decades as a symbol of the United States of America, welcoming millions. It symbolizes liberty and a new beginning for all, no matter ethnicity or religion.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court is now taking a break for the summer and will decide fully what they’re going to do with the travel ban. First off, I just want to talk about how they run the system: they listen to arguments and problems during October-April and push them off to the side till May-June, including MAJOR issues such as this ban. I believe this is wrong. They should deal with the MAJOR problems right away instead of waiting. Now this ban is an issue and is being put off until October. To my classmates and Mr. Balanda: Do you agree/disagree about how the Court’s system works? Do you think that it’s right to deal with the problem right away instead of waiting? Thank you!
ReplyDeleteOn that note, let’s talk about the ban. Trump wants to specifically ban travel from 6 major Muslim countries in hopes of decreasing the amounts of terrorists here. Now according to the Washington Post, the Court will take partial effect, for now, on the ban. It states, “For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.” This means that if you are not a legalized US citizen, but you are one of the three, then you are most likely to get a visa (an approval on a passport stating that the holder is allowed to enter, stay or leave in a certain period of time in a country). If you do not relate to any of the three and came here illegally then you cannot get a visa. Alongside Kathryn, I strongly agree with the ban along the lines of public safety and keeping out threats. But there are some things I disagree with. I want to start off with public safety. First off, refugees are in danger over there. Unfortunately, ISIS and other people are killing innocent refugees that are trying to escape the terror of their world. In my opinion, this decision is hard to make. I personally believe that we should not allow them to come into this country. Now here me out: there is no way of telling who is who; who is a refugee and who is ISIS. Without knowing, ISIS can easily sneak in and attack people here. For example, the Paris attack last year was an attack through ISIS. They claimed responsibility. This is when the public safety comes into play. Europe is allowing refugees into their country and allowing a greater chance of ISIS unknowingly sneaking in. This also happened with the Ariana Grande concert. There are more attacks in Europe than the US because they are letting refugees in. We, on the other hand, are restricting it to insure public safety.
Now for the cons. The ban stops the refugees escaping the civil conflicts. Innocent people are getting hurt. Also, this country was built from immigrants and people who were seeking freedom, and to study their religion, culture, ways, etc. This goes against the American way. That's the sad part. But unfortunately, it only takes one move, one mistake of one terrorist to get through to millions of Americans and harm them.
I just want to end off with a couple discussion questions for my classmates and Mr. Balanda:
1)How do you feel about the ban and how it should be handled? Do you believe that Trump is doing it for protection?
2)If Hillary were elected president, how do you think she would handle it? How would the Supreme Court react to her decision?
Just remember we all have our personal opinions on how this should be handled.
I do not agree with the court's decision in this case. The fact that the court decided to put part of the issue in effect before they even discuss the legality of it is a little ridiculous to say the least. Why put in something that might not even be constitutional in effect? It is the court's duty to discuss the issue and decide whether or not it is constitutional, and I think in this case it's almost like they wanted to appease the President. The ban says visas should be denied from six terror prone countries, to prevent any attacks on the homeland. I do agree that there should be some kind of action to protect the United States from terrorism, but the decision on something big like this should have taken place way earlier. Like I said before, the entire court hasn't even decided if the travel ban is constitutional yet, it just makes little sense to me as to why the court would allow a part of it to take place. One other thing I would like to point out is why Trump was allowed to nominate someone into the Supreme Court when he was only a President Elect. I thought people could only be nominated by the official President of the United States. If this is true, then why did Trump get to nominate someone before he was even elected President?
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has also discussed an issue involving the funding of churches in the United States. It basically says that states can't get rid of religious institutions that have non-religious intents to use the money they get. This makes sense because if a church is trying to make places safer, or do something that has nothing to do with religion like build a playground, they should receive funding. On the other hand, if the court says no to this, religious institutions can get funding from the state, and use the money on something for religion, such as to build a church. This is unconstitutional because the United States is secular, and using the tax payers money for religious purposes is simply wrong. Therefore, I agree that religious institutions with secular intents should be funded, and religious institutions with non-secular intents should not.
I'd just like to point out that I might have been wrong about the nomination of the replacement for Antonin Scalia. I was confused with when the nomination took place, and thought it was early last year instead of this year.
DeleteSean, I hate to say it, but yeah, you're a little confused about the nomination to the Supreme Court. Trump did nominate Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court after he was sworn in as President. The controversy came because the seat Trump filled was vacant since February of 2016 and Senate Republicans refused to let President Obama fill the seat.
DeleteI personally do not agree with the courts ruling in the way that they want states to fund some religious programs because the religious programs should be left to the people that follow it. The ruling against passing secularly intent laws was a good desicion so that people can't be seperated. having seperation between certain groups of people could cause something similar to segregation that was once a part of the us. despite this however tax dollars should not be going directly to a private religious facility that is run by the followers of the religion.
ReplyDeleteThe travel ban that Trump has put in place does show how he personally feels about that area. However his desicions to ban those seven compared to some other higher risk countries is what confuses me. Putting a travel ban is not something that is wrong or shouldn't be done, however the way trump decides of these countries and the fact that the supreme court would allow part of the ban to take function before it had been passed. This causes an issue for seeing how the supreme court acts in circumstances as such. allowing something to take place before it had been allowed may show bias or possibly favoritism on top of the consequences for if the ban weren't to actually go through and the lack of trust in going to the US.
The courts desicion affects trump in making him feel more powerful in how he does things and more confident in banning travel or even trade with other countries. Trump could evn decide to pass laws segregating muslim groups or hispanic groups. this would be unconstitutional but the supreme courts power and their initial bias towards Trump's travel ban could lead to more drastic desicions. Trump is happy that he made the right desicion and will continue to attempt good desicions.
This could be written off and dismissed as bias. However, I will remain unbias towards either side. I actually don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision and I also don't agree with how they only let certain parts of the ban take affect. Many people have an unrelenting fear of people who are from the Middle East, and also take every oppurtunity to shame them, just because they happen to come from a different area, America was discovered by immigrants. This is hardly what you could call fair and just. However the court's decision will be looked upon with mixed reactions, some people will welcome it, and others will hate it. Most likely, Trump will want another revision done on it, should the Supreme Court disagree with him. By placing a ban like this, it affects people in a negative way, not all people from Saudi Arabia are terrorists, that is a generalization made by ignorant people. Again, this isn't justice, this is hypocrisy. The message that is being sent out with this ban in place isn't a positive one.
ReplyDeleteStephan,
DeleteDon't worry about bias, this is politics, bias - or more appropriately, differences of opinion - are part of it. In fact, differences of opinion are what make discussing politics fun! That being said, you need to express your opinion more clearly. You're concerned about being fair to both sides of the debate on the travel ban, but your own opinion is muddled in the process.
While, personally I am a fan of Trump, I don't completely support the travel he is trying to pass. America was born on immigration and without this immigration we would not be and diversely populated as we are right now. But with this being said, he is only trying to pass this travel ban to protect the country and the citizens inside it. This was said in a statement recorded by politico.com where President Trump stated that, "Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective." However, like Keri Rodriguez said, though this travel ban is being placed on 6 Muslim countries of Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Somalia, there is terrorism from all over the world. The only way to completely stop the threat of terrorism would be to stop all imports/exports and all immigration.
ReplyDeleteThe court's decision of allowing some of the travel ban be in place until the final decision in October, is a way a form of appeasement. What they are doing could become a repetitive thing though, so this decision made could either work in their favor or in President Trump's favor. This decison could impact the country and us living in it because the Muslim countries could build up a deep hatred for the United States and perform a terrorist attack like none other, which could put all of us in danger. Or we would lose our Middle Eastern allies and in the event of a World War we would lose all our connections on that side of the world, and we could possibly lose access to oil.
I agree with Griffin in the sense that the Supreme Court's decision will make Trump feel more powerful and confident. This one little decision could cause Trump to make some very irrational and drastic decisions which can become unsafe for the United States.
I am personally a fan of Trump and agree with the ban he has placed against the six terrorist-prone countries: Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya. While this plan does seem strict, it does provide leeway for those with connections in the United States. Stated by The Washington Post,"if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American University, you can still probably get a visa." This means that the ban is not completely cutting off these six nations from the United States, but instead trying to limit the flow of people coming to this country without valid reasoning. Backing what Keri said,the only way to completely eliminate terrorism is to cut out all imports, exports, and immigration. However, Trump's ban is at least a step forward in bringing greater security to our country.
ReplyDeleteI know that many disagree with the whole idea of banning people and that it is solely based on the Muslim religion, but this is not the case. Recent terrorists attacks such as those in London and Paris have stemmed from people living and travelling to and from Middle Eastern countries. Another con that many see when relating to the ban is how it is hurting the refugees trying to escape out of war zones in their country. Don't get me wrong, this is a horrible thing that no one should have to endure, however, when it comes to being the President of the United States, Trump's first priority must be to ensure safety and security to the American citizens. Yes, the country was formed by immigrants, but why would we endanger the lives of those who were born here to bring in immigrants who pose a possible threat to our country?
As for the Supreme Court, I do agree with their decision to put part of the ban into effect. The American people benefit from this, by still being more protected than if the ban was not in place. Since the Supreme Court's final decision is not until October, there is s lot of time for things to change in our country. If the ban does go through, I can only imagine more rallies and protests will arise, just like those that took place at airports across the nation after President Trump first announced his plan. Not only does the decision affect the American citizens, but it plays a great role in Trump's presidency. Even before Trump won the election, creating a ban to benefit U.S. citizens was one of the first tasks he claimed he would address when he got into office. If he is able to create a system to protect the people, while not distancing the U.S. from Middle Eastern countries, then this will be a great achievement under his presidency.
Although many of my classmates disagree, I believe Trump has the right idea in endorsing the travel ban. The travel ban was initially created to prevent anyone in the 7 countries -Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen- from entering the United States (where most radical Muslims originate) for just a 90-day period. This would allow Trump and his officials time to think of a better way to filter out the people who have bad intentions from those who don’t. However, a lot of people in the US have made Trump’s travel ban seem like an attack against the entire Muslim community. As Melanie stated, “America has been known as the free country where people from all over the world traveled to so they could practice religion, culture, their rights and much more in a matter of total freedom and equality.” I agree, the United States wants to welcome modern Muslims into the country and let them practice their religion, but there are some radical Muslims that don’t agree with how our country is run and want to do harm that the ban would hopefully filter out. Still, there have been many protests to stop this ban. Because of this, another controversy has been brought to attention: whether or not the Supreme Court made the right decision to let Trump’s original travel ban take partial effect. Because of the backlash from his original ban, Trump had to make a “watered down, politically correct” version to satisfy some of the protesting population. This new version no longer blocks Iraqis from crossing over to the US. Also, the ban now allows people from the other 6 countries to enter the United States if they have direct relations to a resident in the US, have an existing visa, green card, or are wanted for a business or organization.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow most parts of Trump’s travel ban. We as a country are in a very vulnerable position and need a temporary blockade while Trump works to figure out a more permanent solution. The reason why I semi-disagree with the court’s decision is that if Trump’s ban were to be in full effect, he could think up a better approach to the issue without having to worry about refugees crowding the country, whether they are good or bad. Even though there are many things to complain about Trump, I agree with Kailyn that he is just trying to protect our country and its citizens the best he can.
The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the American people, not people from other countries who wish to settle here. If anyone were to be allowed into the United State, the US could very well end up like the many European countries who suffered dire consequences from letting so many refugees flood their borders (ex: the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris; the Stockholm terror attack on April 7, 2017; the Normandy Church terror on July 27, 2016; the Brussels terrorist attacks on March 22, 2017; and the list goes on). We don’t want to have more terrorist attacks to suffer from like the ones that affected the European countries. America already had to fight through its share of terror attacks such as the Boston Marathon Bombing on April 15, 2013; the Garland, Texas shooting in 2015; the Orlando, Florida nightclub shooting on June 12, 2016; and the San Bernardino shooting in 2015.
It seems to a lot of people, President Trump isn’t going about things the right way. So, if you were in his position, how would you go about this issue?
The Supreme Court has made the decision to tackle the beyond controversial issue of Trump's travel ban and have provided it with partial approval. This approval has been deemed unconstitutional by the masses, however, it is not completely unjust. By approving this ban only partially they are affirming their concern and support of national security. By only approving it partially they seem to be indirectly addressing the fact that they cannot remove immigrants completely as they are people too. By doing this they are also trying to establish trust between the Supreme Court and new President Trump while maintaining a humane appearance as best they can. As for Trump, this partial victory appears to come off as a complete victory. He may have only gained partial support of his ban, but partial approval is much better than no approval at all. Do you think that this can possibly inspire Trump to take action on larger and more controversial projects in this future seeing as the Supreme Court may approve them as well?
ReplyDeleteAt this point and time, I have not come to the conclusion of if I am for or against Trump yet, but I do believe that the Supreme Court's decision to test the travel ban is an unfair solution and in the long run, more harm will come out of it than benefits. Since the Supreme Court only operates from October to June, they needed to make a decision so the issue would not be unaddressed. The Supreme Court decided to give Trump’s travel ban a temporary go until they can readdress it October. I believe it was a unintelligent thing to do even if it is only for a brief time. The travel ban affects Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran, six countries in the Middle East. The ban hopes to decrease terrorist threats and attacks. Like Kailyn touched on, there is terrorism all over the world so in order to eliminate these terrorist attacks all travel to and from the United States must be cut off. Even if the ban on these countries discourages the terrorist in them, it is also limiting the innocent people of that country. These citizens are now unable to see family and loved ones inside the United States. If Trump's travel ban becomes a full-time thing those families can never be reconnected face to face and may lose all touch with one another over time. Even if the travel ban only last till October those people would still go without seeing each other for four months. If you were told that you could not see you friends and family for the summer months how would you feel? The Supreme Court passing Trump's travel ban is considered as a win for him because his plan is now in session and he can finally see how it affects the people he has placed it on. Since his travel ban has only been a reality for a short amount of time it can either have a positive or negative outcome but we do not know for sure and won't until October.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't agree fully with Trump's travel ban because there are still terrorist in other countries, not just those six listed. An article posted by The Washington Post, "What the Supreme Court's Travel Ban Ruling Means" , mainly focuses on how the Supreme Court allowed part of Trump's executive order to be put into play. Which gradually made the travel ban more strict and serious. It also describes how everyone felt about this big change. When this started the Supreme Court had only let portions of the travel ban happen, because there were way too many changes to be made at first. If you were not a US citizen with a relative here, you could get a visa, but if you were a visitor you could not get one. The Muslims from Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria probably felt like they didn't belong. This is because they are being told to leave, but they want to come to America because it's safer than their home country. Also, they want to start a new life.
ReplyDeleteThere will be a ban on visas that is supposed to last 90 days and then be fully looked at in the October term. US citizens are probably glad to see this because they want to know that they are safe and don't have to worry about anything happening in their country, like terrorist attacks. Overall, both sides have different ideas that they believe should happen to make their life better.
Question: Do you agree with Trump's travel ban? If so, why?
The court decision to go ahead with the travel ban has been through the ringer. This proposal had to be resubmitted several times before the court passed it. I agree with the court decision to pass the travel ban. The ban could possible answer questions as to whether or not entry into the country from these six countries actually pose a threat to the security of the US.
ReplyDeleteThe country is divided over the travel ban. Many people are of the opinion that the travel ban targets the Muslims. This kind of thinking goes against the constitution of America. There are many people who have relatives that travel from these country, and possible depend of these family members for support on a daily basis. Example of this might be a grandparent that babysits. The travel ban can affect people's finances and family life. The decision to target a particular group have left many people feeling a sense of unfair treatment. Also as Leah had stated, “ .. There are radical Muslims don’t agree with how our country is run and want to do harm that the ban could filter out.” I agree with Leah in the overall fact that it will be a benefit t our country.
I personally dislike Trump very strongly (which I make very clear) nor do I agree with his bill. Another thing I disagree with is the court's decision to let this bill take effect. Although the ban is not unconstitutional, it definitely is unpresidential. In the constitution it doesn't say anything about banning immigrants or not enabling them to come into our country. I truly believe that this is unpresidential because, as a president you are supposed to serve and protect your country. Trump literally can't ban 6 countries and expect terrorism to be defeated!! In the Politico article it states how President Trump says the bill is used as a "common-sense precaution against terrorism." So many people stereotype Muslims and refugees to be terrorists because of 9/11 and ISIS, but terrorism is EVERYWHERE, not just the Middle East and people can't just blame ONE religion. Statistics even say there are more white terrorists than Middle Eastern terrorists. Another thing that really makes me angry about this ban is the fact that our ENTIRE country is made up of immigrants! He is truly just alienating America and making it what it isn't. He is trying to protect our country, but what from exactly?! Honestly there is no issue with people coming into our country trying to find homes, visit family, or get away from the violence of their own country!! I just don't find it presidential that he's literally being border-line racist. If you really think about it he is being racist. Only because if he wanted to get rid of terrorism once and for all, he would have to ban any terrorist, white terrorists, black terrorists, Middle Eastern terrorists, etc.
ReplyDeleteI also think this will negatively affect citizens of this country as well, because what if someone had family, and then they couldn't visit them because they weren't allowed to travel into America. That is honestly messed up and ridiculous in so many ways. I think the court's decision makes Trump look bad because our country is made up of immigrants and that will just cause so many people to become angry that someone who lives in America, let alone serves our country, doesn't even agree that most of the people that live here should even be here because immigrants are so "bad." Therefore I completely disagree with this ban for many reasons.
As I do think terrorism is a terrible thing, issuing a travel ban could be even worse. Not just for the people in those countries, but Trump and all of America as well. First off, travel ban is automatically bad because there are many people who are not terrorists who are trying to get into this country to live safely and get more protected. Second, the travel ban can stir up much controversy and being the world we live in, could be a major problem. More people than there already were will start to target Trump. However, targeting Trump means targeting America and all the people living in it as well. Therefore the Supreme Courts decision to pass the travel ban is a very bad and calamitous idea.
ReplyDelete