Recently, The United States has been welcomed into a new era. A new president, new congress, and new senators brings about change. After all, what are we (as humans and as a planet) but part of ever - changing nature?
With said new president, there have come many sudden surprises and just as many arguments between the left and the right parties in control. One of these issues concerning immigration has been fervently dubbed the 'Muslim Ban'. From the left, the country hears a lot of what one could call fear mongering and appealing to mob mentality (a lot of the same ideals that the POTUS ran on, himself), pulling at the heartstrings of America.
According to Blake Hounshell's January 29th 2017 article 'President Trump's First Defeat', the contesting of the so called 'Muslim Ban' had 'revolts against the president's immigration order...already brewing, led by refugee rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Democrats and liberals and social media'. He then goes on to talk about how the order was hastily crafted, using specific words that seduce you with feeling, as if you were there the entire time.
He quotes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that there were 'tears running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty'.
Some powerful stuff. Imagery like this is made to convey feelings, to get the public on their side and think of what monsters the current administration are for having blocked out so many from entering the country simply because of where they are from, even if their country has never had anything to do with terrorist attacks.
Don't get me wrong, they are not the only ones who use such tactics and the right side of the argument is not innocent by far.
That being said, while left leaning individuals in The United States tend to be labeled as 'tolerant, bleeding hearts, and snowflakes', the right seems to approach this issue with the blame game.
In Thomas Lifson's January 29th article 'Stunning media malpractice on Trump suspension of entry' he cites similar actions from both President Obama and President Carter, who suspended Iraquis and Iranians during their respective times as presidents.
The difference between that, is that many right leaning narratives on social media use September 11, 2001 as an argument point to justify the ban, while many terrorists who executed were actually United States born citizens, and the ones who have made attacks have nationalities from the following countries (according to the New York Times): Nigeria, England, U.S, Pakistan, among others.
While yes, the Obama Administration had labeled the countries in danger of radical Islam - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen (or, so it seems to be consistently listed in many articles, including one by The Atlantic, although Thomas Lifson denies that any other countries but Syria are listed in the executive order) - they had not blocked immigrants from said countries from coming into The United States so abruptly.
The process became more difficult and vetting took longer. This is clearly far different than keeping green-card holding residents on lock down at an airport simply because they happen to look a certain way, come from a certain country, speak a certain language, or worship a different religion than what is widely practiced (though The U.S has no official religion, of course).
In trying times like these, in a culture where effort is such a difficult thing to muster, Americans must keep their ears to the ground and look for reputable sources to check all of their facts before letting themselves be swayed by emotions, lest we get swept up in a clamor of our own, an eternal fight of 'us' vs. 'them'.
Sources
New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/25/us/us-muslim-extremists-terrorist-attacks.html?_r=0
The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/
President Trump's First Defeat, Blake Hounshell, January 29, 2017
Stunning media malpractice on Trump suspension of entry, Thomas Lifson, January 29, 2017
