Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrEmail this to someone

Trump’s second “travel” ban is as unconstitutional, illogical, and immoral as his previous ban, despite its creators proclaiming its moderate nature.

The second ban does address the issues of implementation present in the first: it has been checked by lawyers and homeland officials and legally exempts green card holders and other permanent U.S. residents from being barred. Additionally, there was a 10 day period before it was to take effect.

However, the ban still unfairly disadvantages American religious minorities as disclosed in a clause of the ban—“refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution” would be prioritized only if the individuals were of “a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Reza Aslan, a religious studies scholar, interpreted this to mean a “Christian fleeing discrimination in Yemen would be given entry, but a Shia facing death and starvation would not.” Because Muslims are in the majority in the countries affected by the ban, they are by definition the subject of the ban.

However, despite having “watered down,” as Trump calls it, the ban, its origins are just as harmful. Syrian refugees will be blocked from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days. Simply because all the banned nations are Muslim-majority countries, Trump believes it will “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the U.S.” The sentiment of the ban is still as unconstitutional as the first.

Trump claims that the ban is not a Muslim ban, as it does not affect the “40 other Muslim countries,” and he changed the name from “Muslim ban” to “travel ban.” Still, he explicitly said on the campaign trail that he would call for a “complete shutdown of Muslims” entering the United States. His new claims seem to be a cheap cover-up to avoid being deemed “religiously intolerant.”

His proposition for a “religious test” also speaks volumes for how he demonizes others based on their religion. Trump is not promoting effective security efforts but rather advocating for a government that disregards facts to feed the fears of ignorant citizens and unconstitutionally discriminates against the innocent.

The new ban is also devoid of logic. Though Trump cited the 9/11 attacks as a reason for heightened security, not one of the 19 perpetrators were from any of the seven countries mentioned in the order. The president’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, refused to include Saudi Arabia on the list apparently in order to avoid straining Trump’s business ties with the country. Of the terrorist attacks since 9/11 in the U.S., the majority have been carried out by American or Russian citizens, which means that the “extreme vetting” will not even be targeted towards the “right” group of people.

Even the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence analysts report that citizenship in one of the seven Muslim-majority countries is an “unlikely indicator” of the terror threat a traveler poses to the United States. Regardless, the ideological effect of banning a group of people based on ethnicity or religion is counterproductive. The ban will only escalate the hate and alienation toward our own Muslim American citizens. These estranged Muslims are left more vulnerable to being recruited into terrorist organizations or brainwashed into committing lone-wolf terrorist attacks.

In his response to the U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling of Hawaii v Trump, Trump explains his understanding of how a president can and should control immigration:

“We’re talking about the safety and security of our people. I was elected to change our broken and dangerous system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country and left our people defenseless.”

His ban is a show of power to the people of the United States. Trump claims it will fix a broken government and secure and empower the American people, both of which are unsubstantiated and untrue: the ban makes the U.S. appear fearful, willing to kill an integral part of our culture—acceptance towards all in face of hardship— in order to appeal to a mob mentality. Even the U.S. State Department’s website proclaims that “the U.S. refugee resettlement program reflects the United States’ highest values and aspirations to compassion, generosity and leadership,” and that the United States is “proud” of its history of welcoming immigrants.

The ban is the Trump Administration’s form of terrorism: it demonstrates that the government will institutionally qualify pieces of someone’s cultural identity as proof of personality, and whatever that personality is, claim that it is intrinsically harmful to the United States of America. The pursuit of happiness applies only to the politically empowered.  People who are “different” will fear their positions as travelers, students, workers, and citizens in this country. They will live in fear of having their constitutional rights taken away at any moment.

This ban not only blinds us to cultural differences that should be celebrated instead of banished, but it also gives ammunition to those who wish to perpetuate an ideological war against the U.S. such as Putin, ISIS, and even Kim Jong-Un.

Each of the Trump administration’s discriminatory acts only further validates worldwide disillusionment with America. With this ban, we let down the countless Iraqis, Iranians, and other Muslims who have cooperated with the U.S. for our army’s own gains against the true terrors of the Middle East: extremist groups, not Muslim civilians.

The promotion and execution of this travel ban would have been fatally harmful to our society’s values. If the ban had not been stopped by federal judges across the nation, it would have given room for the President to “go back to the first one” and thus leave a precedent for future acts of institutionalized discrimination.