An Executive Order Signed by a President of the United State
AnExecutive Order Signed by a President of the United State
AnExecutive Order Signed By a President of the United State
President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated into office as the 45thpresident of the United States on the 20th of January2017. President Trump had vowed to fight terrorism by all meanspossible within his power. True to that, upon taking office, thepresident signed an order to protect the United States from foreignterrorism. This was a reflection of the president’s commitment toprotect citizens of the United States. It comes in a wake ofincreased terrorist threats from the Islamic State of Iraq. Thesigning of the executive is a presumption of the role of foreignvisitors who are a threat to safety of Americans.
Backgroundof the Executive Order
The United States suffered an attack in the year 2001. Since then,significant efforts have been directed toward protecting the people.The United States engaged its troops in foreign countries includingIraq and Afghanistan in a bid to stem out the problem of terrorism.The signing of the order emanates from the increased cases ofconviction of foreign-born persons implicated in terroristactivities. The foreign nationals implicated gained the countrythrough different ways including posing as visitors, students,refugees or because of employment. The increase in cases of civilunrest has equally seen the rise in refugees. Some of those affectedopt to travel to the United States in a bid to get political asylum.Additionally, the search for better opportunities has seen the UnitedStates attract a high number of foreign nationals seeking to enterthe country. However, those received in the country have beenimplicated in various terrorist activities despite posing as innocentindividuals. This resulted in the need to exercise strictness in theprocess of issuing visas to individuals. The United States has apolicy to ensure that its citizens are protected from foreigners whohave intention to attack. The US Immigration laws seek to prevent anycases of permitting foreign nationals to the country with illintentions.
In the wake of increased terrorist attacks, President Donald J. Trumpsigned the executive order, “Protecting the Nation from ForeignTerrorist Entry into the United States”. This saw foreignersparticularly from Islamic States being targeted. Strict measureswould be adopted before the admission of citizens coming from thesecountries. Further, the order sought to suspend the issuance of visasto nationals hailing from these countries. The executive ordertargeted nationals from countries including Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudanand Yemen (Dewan and Smith, 2017). It means that citizens of suchnationals will not be able to access visas to get into the UnitedStates. Syria is a target owing to the increase in civil unrest inthe country. The execution of the travel ban will be essential inprotecting Americans from possible terror attacks.
The United States has continued to face imminent terrorist attacksfor the past decade. The deadliest attack was that which occurred inSeptember 11, 2001. The attack saw the United States lose close to3000 people while over 6000 suffered gross injuries. This was one ofthe serious terrorist attacks faced by the country. Since then, thecountry has witnessed a series of other domestic terrorist attacks.According to the US State Department, the number of Americans killedin overseas incidents of terrorism from the year 2001 to 2014 was369. Similar reports indicate that domestic terrorism has claimedclose to 3043 lives (Bower, 2016). This is attributed to the domesticacts of terrorism. The increase in the number of terrorist attacks isa reflection of the threat faced by American citizens from terroristgroups.
The United States has taken a raft of measures under the leadershipof different Presidents, from the reign of President Bush, Obama andnow Trump to try deal with the problem of terrorist attacks.President Bush was responsible for sending of troops to Afghanistanand Iraq, all in a bid to help fight the vice of terrorism. It was inresponse to the widespread cases of both domestic and foreignterrorist attacks witnessed by the Americans. The history of theexecutive order was aimed at dealing with the continued exposure ofAmerican citizens to terrorist attacks. During his campaign,President Donald Trump has vowed to deal with terrorism. Upon takingoffice, he made true his word by signing the executive order.Citizens hailing from the individual countries identified would notbe able to access the United States. This will be done by ensuringthat there is strict scrutiny against all those hoping to enter theUnited States. The fight against terrorism leading to the signing ofthe executive order was equally put forth by former President Obama.The president vowed to come up with policies that were transparent,ethical and nimble to help address the terrorist threats faced by theAmericans (Stern, 2015). Unlike other presidents, Obama’s approachto counterterrorism was seen as more diplomatic and based on wishfulthinking (Stern, 2015). During his leadership, the world witnessed arise in groups such as Al Shabaab in East Africa, Islamic State, allof which pose threats. The effect is an increase in number ofrefugees, seeking refuge in different countries. The signing of theexecutive order by President Trump could be attributed to the factthat many of those gaining access to the country posed threats to thenation in the name of refugees. This highlights the history of theexecutive order.
Proposingsides of the Executive Order signed by the President
The decision by President Trump to sign the executive order has seendifferent groups rise in support of it. Reports by the CNN and othernews agencies have depicted growing support for the travel ban.According to Lewin (2017), people have been supporting the travel banfor various reasons. According to those interviewed, the decision toimpose the ban would help in ensuring that people of the UnitedStates are protected from any form of attack. It was evident thatthere were concerns regarding those fleeing away from the persecutionencountered in countries such as Syria (Lewin, 2017). However, therewas emphasis on ensuring that those admitted into the United Stateswere indeed victims and not sympathizers of the Islamic State. Thesupport for the executive order has emanated not only from individualcitizens but top government officials. Thirteen Republican-led stateshave shown support for the executive order (Pitcht, 2017). Theattorney generals and the governor have signed the amicus brief thatsupported the ban as it went to the Federal appeals court. Notably,attorneys from Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana,Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, South Dakota andWest Virginia have joined the support of the signing of the executiveorder. However, it is critical to acknowledge the fact that suchstates are Republican and this can probably be attributed to theirdecision to support the executive order. The brief signed by theattorneys reiterated that the courts were infringing on thepresident’s constitutional ability to come up with nationalsecurity decisions (Picht, 2017). The argument presented is that thepresident has the duty to protect its nationals from any form ofattack. The denial to support the executive order would mean that thefederal government is not given an opportunity to protect thecitizens as provided in the United States constitution. According toLevy (2017) a survey conducted in the United States have shown that54% are in support of the president’s executive order. Theparticipants were of the opinion that it was beneficial to the peopleof the United States in the long run if they are protected. Despitethe executive order targeting individuals from Muslim countries, itwas essential to acknowledge that the ultimate objective was toensure that Americans are protected by all means against any form ofterrorist attacks. The new poll was a reflection of the fact thatthere was an overall agreement regarding the need to protectAmericans despite the nation’s noble need to uphold theirhumanitarian role. It is a confirmation of growing support for theexecutive order signed by President Trump. Further, there was generalagreement that the executive ban was within the President’s mandateto ensure that the citizens are protected.
OpposingOpinion of the Executive Order
The support for President Trump’s executive order has been met byan equal measure of opposition from different groups of individuals.According to Agiesta (2017), CNN Polling Director, a significantproportion of Americans were against the travel restrictions imposedby President Trump. The survey indicated that 55% were of the opinionthat the travel ban was an attempt by Trump’s administration tolock out Muslims from gaining entry into the United States (Agiesta,2017). However, 47% said that they supported the executive order ontravel ban that would see travelers from seven countries of Muslimorigin being denied entry into the US. It reflects the variationsthat exist regarding the executive order. Despite the acknowledgmentthat the ban was a fulfillment of Trump’s campaign proposal, thedecision was seen as being discriminatory. Particularly, Muslimswould be denied entry into the US. Specifically, 82% were of theopinion that this was a Muslim ban while 25% saw this as a decisionto Muslims from entering the country (Agiesta, 2017). This is areflection that there is general divisiveness in the outcome of theban. The executive order is seen as being detrimental anddiscriminatory to the Muslims. This establishes reason to questionthe decision by the Trump administration to try and lock outindividuals from gaining access to the US. Further, the fact that theban targets a particular group of people is a reflection of the factthat it could be discriminatory. The poll further indicates that 46%think the ban makes the United States less safe from terrorist acts.A similar percentage is of the opinion that the ban only serves tohurt more of American values by keeping out people.
The executive order has not only drawn criticism from individuals butcorporations as well. Corporations that have publicly opposed theTrump ban include Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. The techfirms are of the opinion that the immigration is illegal and onlyserves to harm efforts directed toward innovation, competitivenessand growth (Hern, 2017). The stance taken by the tech firms has seenthem file a legal brief stating that the ban would have adverseeffects on the telecommunications industry. It would mean that thetalented migrants cannot be hired because of the fact that they comefrom countries affected by the ban. Smaller firms such as Reddit,Uber, Dropbox and Netflix have equally signed the legal brief. Theopposition against the ban emanates from the fact that the companieswould be affected because of the lack of diversity. Acknowledging therole of migrants in the telecom industry, the tech firms state thatthe United States would be affected. For decades, some of the firmshave benefitted from skill and expertise from the migrant workers.The impact of the travel ban would be felt by companies benefittingfrom migrant skills. The argument presented is that the ban woulddiscriminate people on the basis of their nationality. Indeed, theopposition by the individual tech firms confirms the fact that theban could have detrimental effects on the wellbeing of Americans.Despite the noble reasoning behind the entire issue, it is evidentthat there are adverse effects compared to the outcome. This set theground for opposition in a bid to ensure that issue is addressed.
The executive order has equally been opposed by the Washington State.According to Laughland (2017), Washington was the first state tooppose the president’s executive order. The opposition resulted inhalting of implementation of the order through a nationwideinjunction. The decision to oppose the ban has resulted in anincrease in the number of Democratic states that have filed a requestto join the suit. This means that there is general disagreementregarding the decision by Trump to sign the executive order. Theorder would bar application of visas from individuals in the sixnamed Muslim countries. Further, there was a halt on the resettlementprogram of refugees.
The signing of the executive order has received divergent opinionsfrom different quarters. There is a group of individuals in supportof the order while others are opposing the same. However, it iscritical to evaluate the impact of the ban on the wellbeing of thepeople. The president has the constitutional right to protect thecitizens of the country. However, it is critical to acknowledge thatthere are established mechanisms through which such objectives can beachieved. The president must equally recognize his internationalobligation to protect human life. The failure to accept refugees whoare persecuted is inhuman. The executive order should be evaluated tomake it more accommodative and not punitive. Further, considerationshould be made on the effect of the order. The concerns raised byopposing parties should be evaluated as a way of determining theimpact to the whole country. However, it should be acknowledged thatthe president equally has the constitutional mandate to protect thecitizens. The facts presented by those supporting the order should beequally evaluated.
Agiesta, J. (2017). CNN/ORC poll: Majority oppose Trump`s travelban. CNN. Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-poll/
Bower, E. (2017). American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence inone graph. CNN. Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttp://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us/terrorism-gun-violence/
Hern, A. (2017). Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft fileopposition to Trump`s travel ban. the Guardian. Retrieved31 March 2017, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/06/apple-google-facebook-microsoft-file-opposition-to-donald-trump-immigration-ban
Laughland, O. (2017). Washington state to challenge Trump travelban as legal opposition mounts. the Guardian. Retrieved 31March 2017, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/09/washington-state-trump-travel-ban-legal-challenge#img-1
Levy, G. (2017). Poll: Majority Support Trump’s Travel Ban.U.S.News. Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttps://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-08/poll-majority-support-trumps-travel-ban
Lewin, L. (2017). In support of a travel ban. Edition.cnn.com.Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttp://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/travel-ban-supporters-cnnphotos/
Picht, M. (2017). Donald Trump`s travel ban gets support from 13states. AOL.com. Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttps://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/27/trumps-travel-ban-gets-support-from-13-states/22014442/
Smith, E., & Dewan, A. (2017). What it`s like in the 6countries on Trump`s travel ban list. CNN. Retrieved 31March 2017, fromhttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-countries/
Stern, J. (2015). Obama and Terrorism. Foreign Affairs.Retrieved 31 March 2017, fromhttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/obama-and-terrorism
No related posts.