President Donald Trump's Executive Order on Immigration
President Donald Trump seems to have wasted little time in taking on the country's highest office, and he has certainly made an impression in a matter of weeks. One of his goals was to issue an executive order, EO 13769, that barred Muslims from entering the United States from seven countries. Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Iran were among the countries affected. The executive order essentially prohibited citizens, refugees, and residents of the aforementioned countries from entering the United States. The order was designed to bring about a change in the country's immigration policy.
The United States Immigration System
The customary mode of conducting affairs in the American legal regime has been giving leeway to at most 675,000 immigrants right to acquire permanent residence within the U.S and other immigrants and foreign nationals were allowed to enter America albeit on a temporary basis ("How The United States Immigration System Works"). The Immigration and Naturalization Act has been the legal instrument that has set the framework and receives the much-needed backing from the Constitution of the United States. Both laws have always protected the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers and provide for a non-discrimination policy towards them but the order that was signed by the incumbent president seems to deviate from the norm that has been set. The justification for his action is that the said Muslim states pose a major risk to the country's security due to the fact that they are countries that have numerous terrorist connections. He further states that his actions are legal and he places reliance on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which gives him the authority to institute measures to protect national security.
The Changes in the Immigration Policy
The current regime has planned to ensure that it puts stringent, measures to protect its territorial boundaries from unnecessary and unwarranted intrusions. The order deviates from the previous regime that had enacted policies to safeguard illegal immigrants from deportation. The Obama administration had put in place measures to accommodate some of the young immigrants illegally found their way to the United States in what was famously known as the dreamer program. The president, in executing the order that put a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country from some states, stated that the move was due to the fact that he felt that the current immigration policy is too lenient. This loophole, therefore, gave room for various adversaries to enter the country legally and usually end up being a threat to the country's security. Trump feels that the country's security needs to be firm and vigilant in its quest to fight the terrorists that have been hell bent on causing havoc to the country's social, political and economic fabric. Trump highlighted the previous immigration policies did not enhance accountability since almost anyone could get in the country and even gain permanent residence status. He further stated that putting safeguards such as the travel ban on Muslims and on the admission of refugees in the country would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is able to evaluate the country's security and weed out any possible terrorist that is within the country. The government has also proceeded to caution countries that do not provide sufficient information in relation to people that apply for visas to the US and would go further to investigate these countries in relation to their terrorist affiliation.
Implementation of the Change in Immigration Policy
Execution of the travel ban by the resident was one thing but the implementation is another task altogether. Intending to carry it out on his own is an impossible fete and would require a collective arrangement from the two arms of government and state organs such as the immigration officials who are stationed at the border entry points and the stern actions from the Department of Homeland Security. These state officials will ensure that they see to it that no Muslim from the list of the seven countries sets foot on the American soil. These officials would also come in handy to ensure that due diligence is conducted on countries that issue visas to the U.S. With as much as the executive order that the president signed does not require approval from the Congress, it is of necessity that he establishes a rapport with the two houses of the legislature. This is due to the fact that the congress has the ability to frustrate the current regime by limiting a number of funds that it requires to undertake various developmental and sustenance initiatives. Due to the fact that the law making authority squarely rests on the legislature, it can enact laws that will prevent the operation of the policy change that was effected by the executive order. The judiciary also needs to assist the president in the implementation of the policy. This is because it is the arm of the government that is tasked with the interpretation of the law and adjudication of the matters that are brought before the court. In the event that the judiciary feels that the order is not justified, they will end up acquitting the accused persons that are brought and this will be counterproductive. One of the considerable issues that have already been witnessed in relation to the judiciary is the order that was given by the district court invalidating the executive order.
Likelihood of Success
Trump is obviously going to enforce the executive order in order to ban the Muslims from entering the country and he is likely to succeed albeit resistance from various quarters both within the country and internationally. From the campaign trail to the first days in office, Trump has exuded sentiments that can be construed to show a strong disliking for the Muslim community. Some of his statement were initially being viewed as amounting to hate speech but were apparently protected under free speech. In as much as the president states that his actions are premised on the need to protect national security many people believe that it might not entirely be the case. The people that he resonates to actually feel that he is keeping part of his promises and would very cordially welcome the move to ban refugees and the Muslims in order to 'Make America Great Again'. But the more rational people actually view this as a wanton violation of the powers that the president has been issued with. He is likely to face a lot of resistance from human rights activists who view the order as a castigation of a particular religious segment. These activists view the ban as a violation of the constitution and shortly after the executive order was appended protests emerged from various states. The people within the country that adhere to the rule of law, justice, and morality such as judges, magistrates have expressed their disapproval of the order. This is seen by the district court's move to invalidate the decree Trump made and the outright defiance by Sally Yates in relation to the implementation of the decree. Ms. Yates was the acting Attorney General at the time when the order was being enforced and he rebuked the president's action and further stated that the Department of Justice lawyers would not be part of it (Michael D. Shear, Matt Apuzzo, and Eric Lichtblau).
Public Opinion on the Proposed Immigration Policy
In an unlikely turn of events, most of the people residing in the United States have aired their approval of Trump's move to ban the Muslims from entering the country. This is courtesy of a poll that was conducted by Reuters/Ipsos on 1st February 2017 ("Exclusive: A Third Of Americans Think Trump's Travel Ban Will Make Them Safer"). This shocking revelation seems to point out to the fact that majority of the population have embraced protectionist tendencies that seek to ensure that other people do not enjoy the rights, privileges, and resources within America. Therefore in light of the poll that was conducted, it seems that the proposed change is consistent with the prevailing public opinion within the United States.
Personal Opinion on the Proposed Immigration Policy
Unlike the prevailing popular opinion within the country, I have a dissenting view on the proposed policy by the current regime. I am completely against the proposed ban of the Muslims within the country. This is due to the fact that I associate myself with the naturalist or moralist school of thought that proposes that law and morality run concurrently (Furst, Lilian R). A deeper understanding of this statement clearly denotes the fact that the laws that are enacted by a sovereign need to do be promote the good and well-being of the entire society. It also means that law need not promote any unfair and immoral practices within a given setup. As I tried to benchmark the executive order that was proposed by the incumbent president, it failed to meet the threshold that was set out by naturalists. This is due to the fact that the order is premised on some animosity towards a particular section of people and its application would lead to unfair practices that would greatly infringe on some people who are protected by the Constitution of the United States that is the grund norm. The president needs to be seen as a symbol of national unity within the country and internationally and should, therefore, refrain from issuing remarks or doing actions that would make other people view him as deviating from the task that he was set to undertake when he took his oath of office. The final reason why I oppose the executive order is due to the fact that it is likely to lead to the loss of lives and the oppression of the asylum seekers who run the United States for refuge. These people obviously do not leave their native homes where they probably had the basic amenities to come live in camps own their own volition. Most often it is due to the deplorable conditions that they have been exposed to. Therefore, in conclusion, the president needs to think about the ramifications of his actions. This will help him strike a balance between national security and protection of individual rights.
Works Cited
“Exclusive: A Third Of Americans Think Trump’s Travel Ban Will Make Them Safer”.
Reuters, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG.
Furst, Lilian R. Naturalism. 1st ed., Taylor & Francis, 2016,.
“How The United States Immigration System Works”. American Immigration Council, 2017,
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works.
Michael D. Shear, Matt Apuzzo, and Eric Lichtblau. “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General
Who Defied Him”. Nytimes.Com, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html?_r=0.
