Navigating Through the Travel Ban

The way we interact with other countries is constantly evolving to meet the needs and priorities demanded by a particular time or circumstance, and sometimes these changes go virtually unnoticed by the masses if it seems routine and mundane enough. However, we are in a time of change which puts a magnifying glass on our new president's decisions in his first 100 days, and the nation is closely (and nervously) watching his splew of executive orders in rapid succession. The one that particularly affects immediate foreign policy and has the nation in respective confusion, dismay, or possibly appraisal, is the executive order on January 27th, 2017 placing a temporary ban on traveling from 7 Muslim-majority countries. The initial response to the order sparked a lot of controversy, protests, and extrapolations from the order that may not specifically be outlined in such.

sourse

The wording of the order can clear up some of the misinformation myself and others have most likely seen on the internet, because to understand how something affects us we must dive into what even does this mean?

The content of the order is broken down into 11 sections with multiple subsections for further elaboration of each focal point. The first three sections labeled policy, purpose, and suspension of Visa's contain a lot of the meat of the order and the rest focuses on implementation and logistics. The order establishes its foundation as means to protect the United States from foreign terrorist entry. As suggested in the "purpose" aspect of section 1, despite the lengthy background check process involved in visa-issuance which was revamped after the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, the wording of this sections asserts that the visa process has not stopped would-be terrorists from entering the country. However, I find it interesting to note that the executive order does not include any countries with which radicals have actually killed any Americans in the United States since September 11th. Perhaps even more interesting, the order did not even initially state which countries the ban would apply too at all. Hmm. It's obvious where some confusion could manifest from when the initial order fails to mention where exactly it even applies, but after the release of the order the Department of Homeland Security cleared that up with a fact sheet. Thanks guys. Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen.

sourse

As the order began to take immediate affect, people who had been previously issued visas were detained at airports around the country and not allowed admittance. So, this is where the controversy arises. The detainment of people who had been in the country legally and now being told they must go back stirred up a splew of protests calling to release them. 

sourse

sourse

While it may be a result of pressure to assert dominance and carry out a the promises of a very national secutiry centered campaign, this immigration ban affects real people- people who have been living in the United States peacfully and productivly for years. Krishnadev Kalamur for The Atlantic writes, "There have been multiple reports since the executive order was signed of people being prevented from boarding flights; refugees, who had gone through the years-long process before being approved to come to the U.S., stranded in third world countries; of Iraqis who had worked for years with the U.S. military being denied entry; of Iranian students stuck overseas; of U.S. tech companies recalling its foreign workers because of the possible impact." Not only does the ban signify America turning our back on those in need of refuge, shelter, and compassion at no fault of their own, but it also demonstrates a shift in treatment to members of our own society. Sequentially, the detainment of families and people traveling back into the States set off a chain of protests in airports such as JFK International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport.

sourse

While the legality of Trump's actions is being called to question, individual Judges in at least 4 cities have made rulings about the detainment of people at individual airports filed by ACLU and others. These challenges to the executive order appear to be just the begining, and it appears to be the start of a domino affect of other judges doing what they can legally to play a role in the deterioration of the compassionless decision. One specific immigration lawyer, Leopold, representing two Iraqis detained at JFK airport comments that no one is questioning Trump's power to close borders to a class of person deemed detrimental to our security, but states “The problem we’ve got there is that this is unprecedented.”

Whether this is an aggresive attempt to assert dominance and remain true to lofty (and racist) campaign promises, a true push for tighter national security, or an incompassionate measure to keep those in seek of refuge from war-torn envirments out of our country will become clearer as the affects of the order arise. This new ammendment to our foreign policy has caused waves domestically and around the world, and it is just the begining. Whether you see this as American nationalism and much-needed security and peace of mind, or as morally scewed and ulteriorly motivated, I urge all to keep a close eye on the turnout of such a dramatic change to our immigraton policy.

---