Since Donald Trump has been president he has signed several executive orders, most of which have caused anger and frustration in both citizens and politician. One of Mr. Trump’s most recent actions is presenting a revised version of his original travel ban which he signed on January 27th. His travel ban 2.0 will go into effect on March 16th, 2017, and will impact the countries of Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The order will restrict citizens from these countries from obtaining a visa for at least 90 days. It is also bans refugees from any country from entering the US for 120 days. Additionally, the order limits = the number of refugees permitted into the US from 110,000 to 50,000 for the next fiscal year.
The nation is divided over this order. Both sides have reasonable arguments, and with a subject like this it is hard to pick one side of the argument over the other completely. People who are against the travel ban are arguing that the country needs to have more compassion for the immigrants from these countries. They are merely trying to better their lives. The other side of the argument is proposing that the ban is necessary to keep unwanted terrorists from entering the country, and that the ban will help to protect the American public. Each of these arguments have flaws just like the travel ban itself.
Although I can see the reasoning behind both sides of the argument, I tend to be more in favor of a travel ban. However, I don’t believe the one that Mr. Trump has most recently put into effect is perfect. The six countries that the ban impacts have a proven track record of producing terrorists, but it leaves out some of the more major terrorist filled countries. For the past several years the US has had troops stationed in Afghanistan fighting the war on terrorism, but Afghanistan was not included on the list of banned countries. For the travel ban to make the impact that the president is seeking it needs to include more countries that have been major contributors of terrorists such as Afghanistan.
Along with this, the ban does not need to be a permanent order. A travel ban once perfected needs to be put into action for a long enough period that the government can establish an effective way of screening the immigrants from these countries. Once the country has an effective way of ensuring that little to no terrorists enter the country, the travel ban should be lifted.
The idea of a travel ban is a good one, however, I do not believe that the newest order from President Trump is the one that is best for our country. Even if Mr. Trump enacts the perfect plan for limiting travel from terrorist countries, it is not going to end terrorism. Where there is a will there is a way. Terrorists will find a way to gain entrance into our country despite a travel ban, but it is a step in the right direction.
Andrew Qualls. is 16 years old and currently a junior at Wister High School, along with his classes at the high school he is enrolled in two classes at Carl Albert State College. In the future, he plan is to teach creative writing courses. He also hopes to get one of the several books that he is writing published.
His articles will consist mainly of his opinions on books, fitness, and politics.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Oklahoma Welcome or of Wister Public Schools or any employee thereof. We make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of any information presented by individual authors and/or commenters.