Trump’s immigration ban stirs strong debate


Courtesy of Quinn Norton

People sitting around escalators on the second day of protests at San Francisco International Airport after the recent Trump Immigration Ban

Ivana Venema-Nunez, Reporter, Scottsdale Chronicle

The recent immigration ban via executive order implemented by President Trump has moved millions of people to protest while others support the order.

Arizona State University political historian professor Donald Critchlow believes that the bans were a precedent of previous plans set  by the Obama administration.

“Actually there have been previous bans on people coming from different countries or regions that they thought might be threats. President Carter put a ban following the Iranian revolution on people coming from Iran. There have been bans too, by Obama as well.” Critchlow said.

Critchlow thinks the ban wasn’t announced properly to the citizens who were already enraged by the executive action which led to protesting at airports.

“There was a precedent for this and secondly there wasn’t a clear directive with people with green cards, that is, work permits and so about 300 people on Sunday and Monday were held up some of those people having green cards,” said Critchlow. “Now an order has been given that people with green cards will be admitted. And also for the ban it also says in the executive order that it would be done case by case basis.”

SCC student and Communication major Stephanie Black is hoping U.S. citizens will come together on this issue.

“I think that it is everyone’s job in this world to stick together and when there are terrorists-yes-overseas-but there are also children there (overseas) who are scared every night that they are going to be blown up so I don’t think they should be banned,” Black said. “He’s letting in the Christians from those countries calling them minorities but not the Muslims and religious profiling to ban someone over their religion is un-American because that’s not what this country was founded on-religious freedom.”

SCC student and cinematography major AJ Silva thinks it’s not with racist intent, but a necessary precaution to secure ourselves from any potential danger pertaining terrorism.

“I feel like it is a legitimate reason for protecting our national security.” Silva said.

The uncertainty of this presidential term is going to be viewed on Donald Trump’s reputation and the willingness of media to delegitimize his actions as commander in chief. Silva’s opinion is that there is a reason why these countries have been banned, there is known information that terrorism has been an issue in Europe and these seven countries on the ban so, one is to think maybe it is in our best interest to help each other in this country first then ensure our immigration system is being followed.

“I think having a shotgun strategy of saying everything Trump does is wrong is not very effective, when you have to win over voters.” said Critchlow.