-5

I don't understand why Trump's recent travel/immigration ban is considered to be so controversial, or why so many people are making a big deal out of it. There are only 7 or so countries affected by the ban, and they are all relatively small and impoverished. None of those countries are American allies, geopolitical heavy-weights, or economic powerhouses, so why do so many people seem to care so much? How would American citizens, business, and society be any different with a few less people from a few small countries?

  • 10
    Read some opposing viewpoints. This is really just a lazy question, at best, and at worse, just a rant asking for debate. – user1530 Feb 7 '17 at 8:18
  • 1
    @fixer1234 Because that's what America had before the ban right? "open borders with no controls or restrictions" Or no wait, maybe that's just your words. – DeveloperDoge Feb 7 '17 at 9:54
  • 1
    If they have "such negligible impact"... why disgrace your country in the eyes of others over it? – DeveloperDoge Feb 7 '17 at 10:29
  • 3
    Possible duplicate of Why do people oppose immigration ban? – Jeff Lambert Feb 7 '17 at 11:01
  • 3
    @DeveloperDoge "the problem won't go away if you refuse to talk about it": but the purpose of this site is not to solve problems by talking about them. – phoog Feb 7 '17 at 14:18
6

"Keep all your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to someone else: I snuff my lamp beside the golden door."

There, does that sound about right to you?

(P.S. credits to jcrreddit)

  • 4
    That sounds great! Here, in America, we have plenty of OUR own poor, homeless and destitute citizens to care for. Until we can completely and unequivocally end hunger, homelessness, and poverty for all American citizens what business do we have giving American resources away to non-citizens? – ryan G Feb 7 '17 at 8:10
  • 8
    @ryanG your irony detector is on the fritz. – user1530 Feb 7 '17 at 8:19
  • 1
    Ideologies of equality, kindness & compassion, of striving to be good human beings. Ideologies whose influence on decision making and our form as a society, has given us a competitive edge throughout thousands of years of competition against other populations with different beliefs.These ideologies are prevalent among the American people, they drive the emotional reactions and idea's of what's right and wrong, including on trumps ban. – DeveloperDoge Feb 7 '17 at 9:35
  • 1
    @ryanG immigrants fuel economic expansion. That's why the Declaration of Independence included a complaint that King George wasn't allowing adequate immigration. So the idea that reducing immigration will somehow create an economic benefit is completely backward. Sure, a few immigrants will end up taking some government benefits, but the vast majority of them are determined, motivated people who want to enter the country so they can work and make money. – phoog Feb 7 '17 at 14:25
  • 1
    @user4012 it's not a generalization, it's a description of the overall effects of immigration. If you want to refine immigration policy so it can do a better job of excluding those who would commit crimes or be a burden on the state, that's one thing, but excluding criminals by stopping immigration altogether, even from a small subset of countries, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. – phoog Feb 7 '17 at 17:23
0
  1. Some people want open borders with absolutely no restrictions. Anything that even temporarily restricts anyone from freely showing up is considered Un-American. See DeveloperDoge's answer.

  2. Aside from this specific issue, some people are seeking to undermine and obstruct Trump from carrying out his presidential duties. I don't believe there is any contention on this point, but I can create a list of examples to illustrate if so.

  3. Trump is a bit of a loose cannon when he speaks and has a habit of saying stupid things (especially before his staff forced him to use a teleprompter to minimize this). Early in his campaign he misspoke and mentioned the term "Muslim ban", which he quickly corrected. The people mentioned in point #2 have used that to characterize the temporary travel restrictions and vetting review as a religious ban; another way to undermine Trump and sow dissent. The actual order can be viewed here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

  4. The action is intended to be proactive to avoid foreseeable risks such as Europe has dealt with, which is why it is focused on current terror hot spots with little ability to vet refugees. Some people have raised issues that our previous terror attacks were perpetrated by people from countries other than those, so the refugees of those countries are being targeted without a valid reason.

  5. Trump made a decision to execute the order without advance public notice, weighing the inconvenience to people in flight at the time against the likelihood of advance notice creating a flood of people trying to beat the order. In addition, the implementation created some initial confusion about coverage for people who already had valid visas and green cards. A little over 100 people were affected, some delayed at the airport and a few were returned home.

  6. Some temporary restraining orders were sought against the action to allow judicial review based on issues such as the inconvenience it would cause to the travelers and "irreparable harm" the delay would cause to various constituents. That has been touted as proof that the action was unconstitutional, further adding to the narrative. CNN, which is clearly not in Trump's corner, published an article on these legal challenges, with links: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-trump-travel-ban/ To quote a headline from the article:

Not a constitutional challenge

Again, to cite an article with clearly no Trump bias, another CNN article summarizing the issues: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/

  • 2
    This is a rant not an answer. And you are literally just asking for downvotes. – user1530 Feb 7 '17 at 8:24
  • 6
    But, for the record, the downvotes have nothing to do with 'the narrative popular on this site'. It has to do with answers not being just partisan rants. Which this one is. There are very real legal and policy concerns about the travel ban shared by people on both sides of the aisle. To brush it off as 'everyone is just picking on Trump' is about as partisan as you can get. – user1530 Feb 7 '17 at 8:27
  • 4
    there is always an opposition out to undermine the opponent. That's politics. There are much more specific issues with this particular incident, however, that go above and beyond the typical "I'm right, you're wrong" rhetoric. There's a context we're all working with here. It's not jsut the order. It's Bannon. It's the tweets. It's the timing. It's all the other things he's done. You have to look at the bigger picture in terms of what makes something controversial. – user1530 Feb 7 '17 at 8:38
  • 4
    With regard to point 1 I am unaware of anyone advocating totally open borders, though I can imagine there are fringe crackpots out there who do. Opposition to the travel ban is not restricted to fringe crackpots, however. Do you have any evidence of mainstream politicians who advocate totally open borders without restrictions? – phoog Feb 7 '17 at 14:30
  • 4
    "inconvenience to people" - People in flight thought they were moving to the USA, based on their valid, approved, vetted visas. They quit their jobs, sold their homes and all possessions they weren't bringing with them, paid for flights to the USA, and then were sent back to a place where they had nothing left. Does that sound like a little "inconvenience"? – jalynn2 Feb 7 '17 at 15:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .