Whether the courts reject Trump's travel ban or not, it looks like it might already be having its desired effect: limiting travel from high-risk countries. With so much uncertainty surrounding the travel ban, my guess is that residents of the six listed countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) are simply opting out of travel to the US for fear of being detained, investigated/interrogated, or otherwise inconvenienced during their travels. This is probably just speculation, but my guess is also that potential terror threats might be making note of the increased security precautions that now cover entry into the US.

I personally support both the constitutionality and reasoning behind the travel ban, but what do you all think? I'm sure there are more than a few of you who disagree ;)

Comments (13)
View Newer Messages
bitter-clinger
bitter-clinger

child labor laws shouldnt apply in this case. Just like laws governing humane conditions for prisoners shouldnt apply to those convicted of crimes while in the US illegally.

lafillefrancaise
lafillefrancaise

@bitter-clinger - Not accounting for child labor laws, are we?

bitter-clinger
bitter-clinger

America isnt the goddamned battered women's shelter of the world. It also isn't an American value to flood this great country with people who dont immediately embrace our constitution and are willing to work their asses off to become Americans. It should be a requirement to recieve refugee status, that all of them, including children, be required to work for one year on public works projects(road repair, litter pickup, etc before even being considered for asylum.

zzackbrown
zzackbrown

Isn't the purpose of this "ban" to make time to improve vetting procedures for the refugees coming from countries that have no real passport system? I don't see a problem with that at all and I am an American and serious Christian. My great grand parents came to America from Italy...legally. The process isn't great, but its the concept that needs to be respected. Immigration isn't even the issue here. If people are seeking refuge then they can and will stand in whatever extra line they need to stand in to get where they want to go. Europe is literally transforming into a massive Muslim ghetto. Our cultures are so fundamentally different that we can't just let them pour in without vetting them first. The risk of dangerous individuals making their way through is just too great. People try to make this an emotional issue and that does nothing but cause more division. IDK maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but that's the way things look from where I am standing.

lbrindley
lbrindley

What ever happened to America being a "melting pot" and embracing the "tired and poor" from countries that have persecuted them? Not allowing those escaping persecution to enter the US does not embody American or Christian values.

EssyK
EssyK

I'm pretty much for the Travel Ban, because it's necessary for the safety of America, but what about all of the innocent people who wanted to flee to the country for protection? I just hate the idea of throwing them under the bus and feel like we could at least try to help them in some other way.

DavidWatts
DavidWatts

"Trump said illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border is "the lowest in 17 years."

Border Patrol data support Trump’s claim. In March, Border Patrol recorded 12,193 apprehensions at the southwest border, the lowest in at least 17 years.

It’s worth noting that apprehension rates have been declining since the recession, and significantly so since their peak of 1.6 million in 2000.

Overall, we rate Trump’s claim True."

DavidWatts
DavidWatts

I am very much for the Travel Ban, and I agree with what you said about the 'chilling effect' of this administration on illegal immigration, even with the ban being suspended -- and not just on the countries listed in the ban. From PolitiFact:



MindingFreedom
MindingFreedom
1
RoamingMillennial
RoamingMillennial
New Comment
4