President Trump’s “Protective” Immigration Order
A campaign promise brought to life
By Caitlyn Jones
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, DONALD TRUMP MADE NUMEROUS PROMISES to Americans regarding his crackdown on immigration. He would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, make sure American workers were prioritized over immigrants for job opportunities, and shut down the entrance of Muslims into the United States. Seven days into his presidency, the latter of these came to life. Trump signed executive order 13769 completely restricting visa-holding citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from entering the United States for 90 days, barred the entry of refugees for 120 days, denied the entrance of Syrian refugees indefinitely, and required green card holders from those nations to obtain a case-by-case waiver to return. Although the Trump administration declined to classify this travel ban as the Muslim ban he proposed during his campaign, the order acts as a blanket travel restriction on all citizens of those Muslim majority countries.
The order started being enforced immediately, catching many travelers from those nations by surprise and inciting insurmountable public outrage. Some refugees, green card holders, and visa holders who were already en route to America when the order was signed were detained upon arrival, while others were denied the right to board their flights overseas. Some students of American universities who were on trips abroad were not allowed to re-enter the United States because their citizenship was in a country on the Trump administration’s ban list. Department of Homeland Security officials quantified the number of people directly restricted by the ban in the first few days, reporting that 109 people were detained upon arrival and 173 people were not able to board their flights heading to the US.
In addition to this, the order gave priority to refugees from these nations that are a part of the religious minority within these seven nations; more specifically, Christian refugees. Despite this deliberate isolation of Muslims, President Trump denied that the order had xenophobic underpinnings, saying “It’s not a Muslim ban, but we were totally prepared. It’s working out very nicely. You see it at the airports, you see it all over.”
What was in fact seen at the airports and throughout the nation were concerned civilians coming out by the thousands to protest the order. By the next evening, masses of people across the nation had gathered in major airports such as JFK, LAX, and Dulles International airport to show support for those targeted by the ban and protested the constitutionality of it. Community organizers and Democratic lawmakers also joined in on the resistance, rallying alongside the protesters. Despite the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, giving the president the power to restrict the entrance of immigrants and refugees to protect national security, there is much debate about whether Trump’s order is discriminatory in nature and unconstitutional.
The day after the implementation of the travel ban, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Brooklyn blocked part of the order, saying the government was “enjoined and restrained from, in any manner and by any means, removing individuals [that already had refugee status or a visa]”. Although this partial block against the order gave some travelers and families peace of mind, it did not block the ban completely. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement the day following the ruling, saying that it would continue to execute Trump’s executive order and that the government reserved the right to revoke any visas if the holder was a perceived threat to national security or public safety.
District Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order on all parts of the executive order, agreeing that it was discriminatory toward Muslims and allowing citizens of those seven nations to continue to travel to the United States. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement saying that the Department of Justice would seek an emergency stay against Judge Robart’s ruling and that the Trump administration would continue to stand by the executive order and that in was in no way unconstitutional. Despite their efforts, however, the request for the stay was denied.
On February 9th, three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted on whether the ban would continue to be blocked or be completely reinstated. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the ban would not be reinstated. President Trump immediately reacted to the ruling, tweeting “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Those directly affected and those who opposed the ban celebrated the decision, including former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who tweeted a simple “3–0.”
Although this ban was stopped, the fact that a presidential administration implemented discriminatory legislation puts all citizens on high alert for the years to come and the possible negative effects this administration could have on their communities. Later this week, the Trump administration is set to unveil a new immigration order that is possibly targeted at the same countries. If that order is nearly as discriminatory as the previous one, then this whole unfortunate process could start all over.
