An unorthodox view on the US 'Muslim ban'

With all the backlash from the recent hold on immigration that US President Donald Trump has implemented, I thought I'd take the time to highlight a side of the debate that many may not have stopped to consider during the outpouring of rage, resentment, disappointment and judgment.

Firstly, let's look at the countries that are included as that's certainly been a sticking point for many critics. But do you know where that list of countries originates from? It's from Obama's administration.

You see the countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen), as pointed out by White House spokesman Sean Spicer, come from a preordained list that was set out under Obama as part of the visa-waiver program. The USA allows the citizens of more than 30 countries to visit for short stays without a visa under this program, but there are exceptions in that the waiver does not apply if a citizen of an eligible country has visited any of the seven listed countries on or after March 1, 2011. This rule was put in place under measures by the Obama administration and means that individuals meeting the exclusion criteria must apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate. These seven countries are listed under section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) of the U.S. code, and were not chosen because they are 'Muslim countries' per-se, but because they are the countries that were deemed by Obama's administration to pose the most threat.

Now, to demonstrate proof that the ban is not a ban on Muslims, consider that by no means are these seven countries the most populous Muslim countries, nor are they among the top sources of Muslim immigration to the US- those countries are still unaffected with regards to immigration. However something that does oppose Trump's alleged motive is the fact that these countries are not the most prolific when it comes to producing terrorists. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan that have a much worse history for producing West-hating terrorists are excluded from the ban. One would have thought that in trying to protect the US from terrorism it would have been pertinent to include those countries. Some have suggested this shows some substantial bias due to the fact that Donald Trump himself has business interests and properties in the countries which, whilst potentially posing much more of a threat, have not been included under the ban.

However it does make sense to some degree that Trump would use an already existing U.S. code as a starting point in deciding which countries to include, and as I've said in a separate article, until proven otherwise we have to accept Trump's orders on the wording contained therein and not draw any possibly untoward inference from it's contents. Which brings me onto my main point.

If a country simply said it wanted to ensure it did its best to protect against horrific terrorist acts, would you be against that? If a country said it had to adopt due diligence in protecting its citizens and therefore needed to carry out extensive checks on those who come into the country from destinations that have been proven to produce terrorists in the past would you complain? If you yourself had migrated to a country, built a life there, and held that country dear to you and genuinely cared for that country's best interests, to then find out that it was worried about further terrorist attacks, and that having already suffered at the hands of terrorists it wanted to carry out some further checks on those who, like yourself, were coming into the country, would you be outraged?

What the mass protests and ongoing legal challenges are about, are the people who are currently permanent residents of the US (on a 'green-card') that, at the time of the ban coming into place, were travelling abroad and have now found themselves on their return to the US detained and subject to checks prior to being allowed back into the country. Now, presuming that the US lives up to its word and lets those detained individuals back into the country following the checks, is there really anything wrong with that? Surely if you were in that position you would be glad that the country you have chosen to call home was so diligent in its duty to protect itself? Knowing you have done nothing wrong and that you pose no threat, wouldn't you simply wait it out and accept that a moment of inconvenience is worth the security of a nation?

I can only speak hypothetically of course; I am sure that if I was going through the process myself I'd be rather distressed, and though I would ultimately get over it once I was allowed back in, it would certainly be a complete travesty if it turned out I was refused entry back into what is in effect my home country. If that is the case, if individuals are actually permanently prohibited from re-entering their own country, it would be a devastating injustice, and well worth protesting against. But that hasn't happened yet and we must give new things a chance to prove their worth before we start criticizing them. So when you look at it in the way that I've highlighted here, isn't it really worth reserving judgment for now, in the knowledge that this could just as likely turn out to be a good thing as a bad thing?

#ExecutiveOrder #Lawsuit #Legal #Courts #Constitution #Intelligence #News #CurrentAffairs #Immigration #Government #Justice #Trump #USA #Terrorism #President #Politics #Obama #Muslim