Responses to 2017 order by US President Donald Trump
Many organizations reacted to the enactment of Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," which was an executive order issued by United States President Donald Trump. Domestically, the order was criticized by Democratic and Republican members of Congress, universities, business leaders, major corporations, Catholic bishops, and Jewish organizations. Some 1,000 U.S. diplomats signed a dissent cable opposing the order, setting a record.[1] Public opinion was divided, with initial national polls yielding inconsistent results.[2]Protests against the order erupted in airports and cities.
Internationally, the order prompted broad condemnation, including from longstanding U.S. allies, although some leaders expressed support for it.[3][4][5] The travel ban and suspension of refugee admissions was criticized by top United Nations officials[6][7] and by a group of 40 Nobel laureates and thousands of other academics.[8] Dozens of medical and scientific groups protested the order as well.[9]
Official statements
Donald Trump's speech just after signing the executive order on January 28, 2017, indicated its purpose was to keep "radical Islamic terrorists" from the U.S. and invoked the September 11 attacks.[10] On January 29, 2017, Trump issued an official statement clarifying his stance on the executive order. Trump said that his policy is "similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months" and stated that the executive order did not target religion, stating "there are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order". Trump concluded, "I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria."[11]Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post stated that Obama limited immigration for six months, but continued to admit refugees during all six months and did not ban all citizens (including green card holders) from traveling to the United States, although lawful permanent residents have since been exempted from Trump's executive order.[12]Jonathan Chait of New York magazine said that the 2011 case involved a temporary response to specific intelligence regarding two suspicious Iraqi refugees living in Bowling Green, Kentucky and said that Trump's "sweeping halt in the absence of a reported breach" is not comparable.[13][14]
The statement also said that the order applied to countries "previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror".[15] The Trump administration's executive order relied on H.R.158 or the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,[16] which was passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama. The act, which was part of a necessary spending bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, removed the privilege of 90-day visa-free entry of dual nationals of 38 visa-waiver countries who had traveled to specific countries since 2011. Instead, these travelers could enter with a visa. These countries are Iraq, Syria, and countries on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list (Iran and Sudan), with Libya, Yemen, and Somalia added later by the Secretary of Homeland Security.[17][18][19][20]
On January 30, White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, used the Quebec City mosque shooting as an illustration of the need for anti-terror policies saying, "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant, and why the president is taking steps to be proactive, rather than reactive, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."[21] However, as the Toronto Star pointed out, it was strange to use this example since the accused gunman was not a Muslim.[22] The Independent in the UK also reported that Spicer's comments seemed to use the attack as a justification for the US president's own anti-terror policies but did not specify which policies he was referring to.[23]
Spicer held a press briefing on January 31 where he said that it was incorrect to refer to the executive order as a "travel ban" and that only the media was using those words to describe the order.[24][25] When pointed out by an NBC reporter that Trump himself used the word in his personal Twitter account, Spicer responded that it was because the media is using it. He also confronted the reporter that NBC news was part of the confusion for falsely reporting that Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly had not been properly consulted before the executive order was signed.[24]
On February 2, Kellyanne Conway cited a non-existent event, the Bowling Green massacre, during an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews as a reason to ban refugees.[26] The Bowling Green massacre, according to Conway, took place when two Iraqi terrorists pretending to be refugees caused a "massacre."[27] The event that Conway was intending to cite was the arrest of two Iraqi men in Bowling Green, Kentucky who were charged with federal terrorism for attempting to send money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq.[28] Conway apologized for her mistake.[28]
Trump Twitter and Facebook posts
Trump has also defended his executive order through Twitter. On January 29, he tweeted: "Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!"[29] On Monday, he continued to tweet, where he "de-emphasized the number of travelers affected by the hasty implementation of the travel ban", according to Business Insider.[30] It was also written in The Washington Post that his tweets were intended to minimize the impact the executive order had on travelers.[31] In several other tweets on Monday, he blamed travel delays on a Delta airline computer outage, "protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer".[30] The computer outage Trump referred to actually occurred on Sunday January 29, two days after the order was signed.[32] Trump defended the executive order on Twitter, stating that searching for terrorists is not about being "nice" and that "[i]f the ban were announced with a one week notice, the 'bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 'dudes' out there!"[30] On February 1, Trump tweeted, "Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!"[33] On February 4, in response to James Robart's block of the Executive Order, Trump tweeted "What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?" and later "Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision".[34]
On February 5, President Trump shared a fake news story on his Facebook page, claiming that Kuwait also imposed a similar ban on immigrants from several Muslim countries, supposedly inspired by Trump's executive order. The comment attached to the shared story was "Smart!", and in the next 24 hours it received 250,000 likes and over 68,000 shares. After the story was picked up by the far right outlet Breitbart News, whose former executive chairman is Trump's advisor Steve Bannon, by the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik News, and the fringe conspiracy website InfoWars, the government of Kuwait issued a statement "categorically denying" the existence of such a ban and stated that immigrants from the supposedly restricted countries "enjoy full rights" in Kuwait.[35][36][37]
On February 8, after Trump's executive order was upheld at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Trump angrily tweeted "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!" Trump also told his press poll "it's a political decision and we'll see them in court...it is a decision that we will win in my opinion very easily."[38][39][40] Trump described the decision as "disgraceful" in a tweet and quoted one line of an article by Benjamin Wittes (a Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution),[41] "Remarkably, in the entire [9th Circuit panel's] opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the)[lower-alpha 1] statute."[42] Wittes' article, however, supported the Ninth Circuit's decision. Trump's tweet came just minutes after the Wittes' article at Lawfare had been discussed on MSNBC's Morning Joe.[42] The following day Wittes described as "disturbing" that Trump would cite something "with apparently no idea who the author was or what the publication was, and indeed without reading the rest of the article."[43]
Domestic political reaction
Trump on refugee/immigration order: "It's not a Muslim ban" (video from Voice of America)
Trump faced much criticism for the executive order. Democrats "were nearly united in their condemnation" of the policy,[44] with Senate Minority LeaderChuck Schumer saying that "tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight as a grand tradition of America, welcoming immigrants, that has existed since America was founded, has been stomped upon".[45] Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said the order "plays into the hands of fanatics wishing to harm America".[46] Senator Kamala Harris of California and the Council on American–Islamic Relations denounced the order and called it a Muslim ban.[47] Trump's order was also criticized by former U.S. Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright[45] and Hillary Clinton.[48] Kevin Lewis, spokesperson to Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, also said (in apparent reference to the order) that the ex-president "fundamentally disagrees" with religious discrimination.[49][non-primary source needed] SCOTUS judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent detailing the racially motivated bias she believes to be at play in the formation of this play, concluding that it was driven by "anti-Muslim animus, rather than by the Government’s asserted national-security justifications".[50]
Among Republicans, some praised the order, with Speaker of the HousePaul Ryan saying that Trump was "right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country" while noting that he supported the refugee resettlement program.[51]Alabama governor Robert Bentley also supported the order.[52] Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said that he was "pleased that President Trump is using the tools granted to him by Congress and the power granted by the Constitution to help keep America safe and ensure we know who is entering the United States".[53] However, some top Republicans in Congress criticized the order.[44] In a statement, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham cited the confusion that the order caused and the fact that the "order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security".[54] McCain stated that the order would "probably, in some areas, give ISIS some more propaganda".[55] Senator Susan Collins, who announced in August 2016 that she would not vote for Trump because she felt he was "unsuitable for office",[56] also objected to the ban, calling it "overly broad" and saying that "implementing it will be immediately problematic".[57] Several other Republican senators offered more muted criticism.[44] In response to McCain and Graham's statement, Trump criticized them on Twitter January 29, questioning their stance on immigration and saying that they "should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III".[58]
Sixteen Democratic[59]state attorneys general signed a joint statement condemning the order as unconstitutional,[60] including those in California, Pennsylvania and New York. The statement said they intended to "use all of the tools of our offices to fight this unconstitutional order".[61] Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo both pledged to have their states look into how they could aid refugees in state airports.[62]
Critics described the order as a "Muslim ban"[63][64][65][66][67][68][69] for targeting Muslim-majority countries and prioritizing minority-religion refugees. President Trump, however, stated that, "this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting," while Rudy Giuliani, who said he helped write the order, called it a legal alternative to a religious ban targeting Muslims.[70][71]
The Supreme Court later upheld the Ban, to which Trump responded "The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States."[72]
Protests against the order at New York's John F. Kennedy International AirportTrump immigration order sparks protests at New York's airport (report from Voice of America)Protests against the order at San Francisco International Airport on January 29, 2017
On January 28 and thereafter, thousands of protesters gathered at airports and other locations throughout the United States to protest the signing of the order and detention of the foreign nationals.
Atlanta, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport[75] – 11 people were detained at the Atlanta airport before a federal judge blocked part of the order from being implemented; the confusion and chaos following the order also "placed in limbo 40 Atlanta-bound refugees who were already in transit when Trump signed the order."[76]
Chicago, O'Hare International Airport[80] – The executive order caused a chaotic day at O'Hare's international terminal, where 18 travelers were detained the day following the executive order's issuance. All were released by the end of the evening. A crowd of thousands protested; no arrests were made.[81]
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport[84] – some two dozen people were reported to have been detained for a time under the order.[85] An Iraqi man in a wheelchair traveling on a special immigrant visa was released after 15 hours of detention; volunteer lawyers who filed an emergency writ on the man's behalf said that he had been targeted for attack in Iraq because he worked for U.S. military.[86]
Denver International Airport – a handful of travelers were detained and then released at Denver's airport, including two married surgeons from Iran who were returning home.[87] A peaceful three-hour demonstration at the airport ended after a federal judge blocked enforcement of the order.[88]
Philadelphia International Airport – several travelers were detained at the airport before a federal judge ruled upon the issue; two Christian Syrian immigrant families who were detained at the Philadelphia airport were sent back to Doha, Qatar. About 200 people participated in a protest at the airport; Governor Tom Wolf and Mayor Jim Kenney participated.[99]
Salt Lake City International Airport – "While immigrants were detained at airports elsewhere in the country, there was no indication that had occurred in Salt Lake City. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which was fielding calls from reporters, did not answer several phone calls Saturday from The Salt Lake Tribune." Several hundred people gathered at the airport to demonstrate opposition to the executive order and show support for the Utah refugee community.[101]
Sacramento International Airport – a large crowd at the Sacramento airport denounced the executive order; there were no reported detentions in Sacramento.[102]
San Diego International Airport – More than 1,000 demonstrators, many bearing the American flag, protested at the airport over two days in opposition to the executive order. San Diego airport officials said there had been no detentions under the order at the airport.[105]
San Francisco International Airport – A diverse crowd of more than 1,000 demonstrators demonstrated at the San Francisco International Airport. On January 29, airport officials said that five people had been detained under the executive order and later released.[106]
In response to protests, the airport operators of John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and Seattle–Tacoma International Airport shut down transit access to the airport (AirTrain JFK and the SeaTac/Airport light rail station, respectively). New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered that AirTrain service resume,[113] while Sound Transit ordered the resumption of light rail service in Seattle.[114]
U.S. diplomats
The "dissent cable" memo
More than nine hundred United States diplomats in the State Department created a memo or "dissent cable" outlining their disagreement with the order.[31][115][116] The memo was sent through the "Dissent Channel"[117] which was put into place in 1971, originally to allow senior leadership in the State Department to have access to differing viewpoints on the Vietnam War.[118] On Monday, January 30, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told dissenting diplomats to leave their jobs if they do not agree with the Trump administration[119] by saying "They should either get with the program or they can go", despite the rules protecting dissenters in the State Department.[119]
Social media reactions and celebrity influencers
Following Trump's announcement of the order, the topic began to trend on social media platform Twitter.[120] The first hashtag emerged from, Zaki Barzinji, who worked under the Obama administration as Senior Associate Director of Public Engagement and worked as a liaison to Muslim American communities of faith. He tweeted a night before President Trump officially released the order to the public on January 25, 2017.[121][non-primary source needed] Shortly after, hashtags such as #MuslimBan, #TravelBan, #NoBanNoWall, and #BanTrumpFromUK emerged on other social media sites. In June 2017, terrorist attacks on London Bridge occurred. Donald Trump used the opportunity to prove the effectiveness of the Travel ban policy, tweeting "We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!".[122] London Mayor Sadiq Khan, among many others, denounced his response to the attack.[122] As a response to his tweets and the Executive Order, online protests used the hashtag #BanTrumpFromUK proceeding his state visit. Protests urging for the cancellation of Trump's UK visit garnered up to 1.5million signatures.[123]
Facebook in particular was used as a means to mobilize those that were interacting with the movement online to a physical location by means of Facebook event pages.[124][non-primary source needed] This allowed hundreds of thousands of users to come together at different locations and protest Trump's executive order. As individuals were detained at airports, broadcasts of these detentions on news networks strike panic amongst affected communities, particularly Muslim and immigrant communities. Emotional responses were evoked from many across social media in the forms of hashtags that engaged citizens to stand in solidarity with those families affected by the ban.
An Instagram post that garnered a lot of attention was an illustration by Jamie Hu.[125] The illustration shows the American Statue of Liberty hugging what is shown to be as an immigrant woman. The illustration is supposed to symbolize how those that were opposed to Donald Trump's executive stood in solidarity with immigrants. These people supported immigrants that wanted to take refuge in the United States. Music group Fifth Harmony's member Lauren Jauregui shared the picture on their Instagram timeline in solidarity with those being affected by Donald Trump's policy, and this garnered the illustration much popularity.[125]
Celebrities voiced their opinions on the executive order on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. Reality star, Kim Kardashian, tweeted "statistics" with an image titled "Number of Americans killed annually by," followed by statistics that denounced the order.[126] Actor Seth Rogan tweeted "Saskatchewan has offered to take in refugees stranded due to the #MuslimBan. I've been there and it's nice."[126] Pakistani activist, Malala Yousafzai, shared a statement on Facebook, stating that she was "heartbroken that America is turning its back on a proud history of welcoming refugees and immigrants."[126]Kerry Washington tweeted, "stick to my stomach today about the #MuslimBan."[126]
Murad Awawdeh also had a hand in influencing the popularity of the hashtag #NoBanNoWall. Awawdeh was the New York Immigration Coalition Director and made one of the most widely circulated tweets shortly after the announcement of Donald Trump's executive order. He tweeted, "TAKE ACTION: #NYC head to #JFK #T4 arrivals for a rapid response protest NOW! #NoBanNoWall #MuslimBan #Resist.” This tweet got thousands of retweets and embarked one of the first floods of people into JFK airport for the first physical protest against Executive Order 13769.
Other media responses included a short film by Washington post writer Jason Rezaian, which highlighted the separation of spouses due to the ban.
In a joint statement, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration urged the new Trump administration to follow "the longstanding U.S. policy of welcoming refugees", stating: "We strongly believe that refugees should receive equal treatment for protection and assistance, and opportunities for resettlement, regardless of their religion, nationality or race."[128][129]
The travel ban was condemned by Amnesty International, which vowed to fight it; the director of Amnesty International USA termed the executive order "dangerous",[130] while the director of Amnesty International UK said that it was "shocking and appalling" and feared that the ban become permanent.[131]Human Rights Watch similarly condemned the measure, saying that "The decision to drastically curtail the refugee program will abandon tens of thousands to the risk of persecution or worse and cede American leadership on a vitally important issue" and would not make the U.S. safer.[132]
The International Rescue Committee condemned the executive order; its president, David Miliband, said that the executive order presented "a test for the Western world ... of whether or not we hold fast to the values of non-discrimination and to universal values of freedom from persecution."[133] Miliband also called it "a propaganda gift for all those who would do harm to the United States."[134]
Fifty-one Nobel Prize laureates, along with thousands of other scholars, including Fields Medal winners, John Bates Clark Medal recipients, and National Academy of Sciences members, signed a petition condemning the order, stating that the order compels the "unethical and discriminatory treatment of law-abiding, hard-working, and well-integrated immigrants fundamentally contravenes the founding principles of the United States" and was detrimental to the national interest.[136]Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai also condemned the executive order.[45]
The Wall Street Journal editorial board blasted Trump's executive order as "blunderbuss and broad".[137]The New York Times labeled the executive order as "cruel, bigoted, cowardly, and self-defeating", calling it a "blatantly unconstitutional" and "un-American" decision that exacerbated "injury and suffering... on families that had every reason to believe they had outrun carnage and despotism in their homelands to arrive in a singularly hopeful nation".[138]The Sacramento Bee condemned the order as "sickening, draconian, disgraceful, and wrong on every level, to the point of incompetence".[139]The Boston Globe described the act as "shameful" and "offensive", saying that it not only fails to protect Americans but also "hands a propaganda victory to ISIS, appearing to vindicate the claim that the United States is out to get Muslims".[140]
It's a horrible move. It is a political, ideological move driven by the language of the [Trump] campaign and ... promises in the campaign that were hyped by an exaggeration of the threat, and in fact what [the U.S. is] doing now has probably made us less safe today than we were Friday morning before th[e] [executive order] happened. Because we are now living the worst jihadist narrative possible: that there is undying enmity between Islam and the West. Muslims out there who were not part of the jihadist movement are now being shown that the story they were being told by the jihadists—"They hate us, they're our enemy"—that's being acted out by the American government. And frankly, at a humanitarian level, it's an abomination.
Academic and scientific community
Over 6,000 college and university professors signed a national petition during the weekend of January 28 denouncing the executive order.[142] A letter denouncing the immigration ban has by February 1, collected more than 18,000 signatures from academics.[143] Leaders in a large number of colleges and universities issued statements against the immigration ban.[144] Academics criticized the executive order because of the disruption in education it caused some students, because of the confusion in its implication and in "many cases, expressed moral outrage."[144] The Association of American Universities has called for the immigration ban to end "as quickly as possible."[145]Johns Hopkins University has asked students and faculty to avoid traveling outside of the United States.[146] More than 4,500 International academics have pledged to boycott conferences based in the U.S.[143]
Scientists doing work in the United States who are from the targeted countries have been affected as well, stranding some scientists in other countries or away from loved ones and their research.[147]Nature interviewed more than 20 researchers and scientists who have been affected.[148] Some scientists in other countries have "vowed to stop reviewing scientific articles in US-based journals as a way to oppose the policy."[143]
According to experts, Trump's order "is unlikely to significantly reduce the terrorist threat in the United States", and "many experts believe the order's unintended consequences will make the threat worse".[149] Professor Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina said that since the September 11 attacks in 2001, "no one has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from" the seven countries targeted by the order.[149] Some experts also said that "there was a random quality" in the selection of countries affected by the order; for example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not listed although many jihadist groups were established there, and Pakistan and Afghanistan were also not listed despite longstanding histories of extremism in those countries;[149] while others, including two former White House chief ethics lawyers, found a possible correlation between exclusions from the order and the Trump Organization's business interests.[150][151]
Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan said that six of the seven countries named in the order (with the exception of Yemen) were suggested as targets for regime change in an alleged classified paper produced by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the autumn of 2001 following 9/11. The allegation was made by former General Wesley Clark in his 2007 memoir A Time to Lead.[152] Cole suggested that "the actual situation is the opposite from the one advertised by Trump. These are not countries that pose a danger to the U.S. They are countries to which the U.S poses the risk, of instability and millions of displaced".[153]
Regarding the legality of the order, Peter Spiro indicated in an interview that there's a possibility that even if the courts accept the plenary power of the president, they will strike down the executive order on an equal protection basis. Although the Trump administration argues that the executive order serves some kind of counterterrorism purpose, the courts, according to Spiro, will see this argument as irrational. He cites the "more than a thousand foreign service officers" that say that the order does "not advance any counter-terror objective [and that] it actually detracts from national security values."[154] Furthermore, the heartbreaking human stories of immigrants and refugees affected by the order will play a role in the courts' rulings. In the same interview, Anil Kalhan of the Thomas R. Kline School of Law agreed with Spiro's reasoning and added, "It is so clear that the order was not appropriately vetted within the executive branch before it was issued, and I think that will offend judicial sensibilities." Kalhan also said that he thinks that the protests against the order may convince the courts that they are acting in concert with public support and will therefore not have to worry about risking the court's legitimacy by not deferring to the executive branch. Both Spiro and Kalhan view the executive order as unconstitutional.
The executive order left American colleges and universities scrambling amidst confusion over the full scope and extent of the order. Several universities, including Johns Hopkins University, the University of Virginia and George Washington University, told affected students and faculty members affected to avoid traveling abroad because of fears that they would be barred from reentering the country.[155][156] The Association of American Universities's associate vice president for federal relations said that the ban was "very, very disruptive", particularly to graduate students engaging in research.[156]University presidents and other higher education leaders "said the order could ultimately hurt the country's competitiveness if the best and brightest research scholars no longer want to study or work in the United States",[156] weakening American preeminence in higher education.[155]
Many academics were barred entry and unable to present their work: Iranian neuroscientist Leila Akbari was barred from attending the Society for Neuroscience's annual conference and presenting her research, neurophysiologist Matthew Leavitt tweeted that his Iranian labmate was unable to attend the conference as well.[157]
Think tanks
Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution described the order as "malevolence tempered by incompetence", saying that it "will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do".[158] Law professor and libertarian blogger Ilya Somin termed the order "cruel and counterproductive", saying "It inflicts great harm on many thousands of people while simultaneously endangering national security".[159]Jonathan H. Adler declared that "the degree of administrative incompetence in [the order's] execution is jaw-dropping", criticizing "the cavalier and reckless manner in which this specific EO was developed and implemented".[160]
In a 2016 risk analysis paper by Alex Nowrasteh for the Cato Institute, Nowrasteh states, "the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year".[161] Citing Nowrasteh's paper, The Economist said this makes death by cows, fireworks and malfunctioning elevators much likelier and described Trump's order as "almost worthless".[162]
Canada – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated Canada would continue to welcome refugees regardless of their faith.[163] At the request of Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Speaker of the House of Commons Geoff Regan called an emergency debate in the Canadian House of Commons about the order on January 31.[164] Canadian civil society groups including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the national branch of Amnesty International issued statements which called for the suspension of the Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement.[165] In July 2020, the Canada's federal court ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement it has with the US does not hold any value since America has been on a spree of violating rights of refugees.[166]
UK – British Prime Minister Theresa May was initially reluctant to condemn the policy, having just met with Trump the day prior, saying that "the United States is responsible for the United States policy on refugees".[167][168] Fellow Conservative Nadhim Zahawi, MP for Stratford-on-Avon, who was born in Iraq, said that he and his (also British Iraqi) wife had been informed would not be able to visit the U.S., despite no longer holding Iraqi citizenship, and called the ban "demeaning and sad".[169] The following day, however, the Prime Minister's Office released a statement that May did "not agree with this kind of approach", and that "it is not one [the United Kingdom] will be taking".[170] Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the stigmatisation generated by such an approach was "divisive and wrong". The Foreign Office additionally stated that they had been received clarification on the policy, and that it would apply to dual nationals only if they were travelling to the United States from one of the listed countries.[171] Other British politicians, including Leader of the OppositionJeremy Corbyn, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, said that Trump should not come to the UK on a state visit, with Corbyn saying "I am not happy with him coming here until that ban is lifted".[172] More than 1.6million signed an official parliamentary petition which said that "Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales."[173][54][174][175]
France – President François Hollande warned against the protectionist approach taken by U.S President Trump and France's Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said, "The reception of refugees fleeing the war, fleeing oppression, is part of our duties".[3]
Germany – German chancellor Angela Merkel said that "the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain origin or a certain religion"[176] and in a phone call with Trump, explained to him America's obligations under the Refugee Convention.[176] German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel stated that "the United States is a country where Christian traditions have an important meaning. Loving your neighbor is a major Christian value, and that includes helping people".[53] Among those affected by the order was the Bundestag member Omid Nouripour, who holds German–Iranian dual citizenship, and is the vice-chair of the German–American Parliamentary Friendship Group; German broadcaster Deutsche Welle reporting on this story said, "Nouripour symbolizes the irrationality of US President Donald Trump's refugee arrival suspension policy and the temporary ban".[177] Nouripour said he was "very happy and proud of all those people at the airport protesting and the voluntary lawyers who have achieved a lot. These are the best reasons to say that no matter what the administration will do, I will always love the United States."[177] In total, around 100,000 Germans were believed to be affected by the law—chiefly German–Iranian dual citizens who are not legally allowed to surrender Iranian citizenship.[177][178] Merkel's spokesperson has said the German government will "represent their interests, if needed, vis-a-vis our US partners".[177] The Green Party of Germany has asked that if the executive order is not lifted, that Trump should be banned from entering Germany and thus prevented from attending the upcoming G20 Summit in Hamburg.[179]
Australia – Some media outlets said Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull avoided public comment on the order, with Turnbull saying it "is not my job" to criticize it.[180][181] The Sydney Morning Herald criticized Turnbull's statement as one that was "positive" toward the policy.[180][181] However, Australian opinion soured after a Tweet by Trump appeared to question a refugee deal already agreed by Turnbull and Obama. The deal, which would have seen the US "take an interest in" up to 1,250 asylum seekers from Australia's offshore detention centers at Manus Island and Nauru, was described on Twitter by Trump as a "dumb deal" which he would "study".[182] In a private phone call with Turnbull, Trump went further and called it "the worst deal ever".[182] In a radio interview, Turnbull denied that the call—which had only lasted 25 minutes instead of the scheduled hour—ended because Trump hung up, but said that he would "expect that the commitment would continue".[182] Sky News Australia journalist Laura Jayes reported that according to government sources, Turnbull now saw Trump as "a bully, and to confront a bully you need to bully back".[183]
Ireland – Enda Kenny, Taoiseach of Ireland, said that he "fundamentally disagrees" with the order.[184] Ireland currently allows US border staff to operate border preclearance at Dublin Airport and Shannon Airport, and several Irish politicians including cabinet member Katherine Zappone noted that implementing the order at these possibly violated Irish and EU human rights law.[185] Kenny announced there would be a "complete review" of these arrangements.[184] As of January 30, one traveler had been prevented from flying at Dublin Airport.[184]
Netherlands – The Dutch government, which was in negotiations to introduce preclearance at Schiphol Airport, announced that these talks were suspended as a result of the order.[186]
Sweden – Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström tweeted that she was "deeply concerned" about the order, and worried it might create "mistrust between people".[187]
Italy – Foreign Minister of ItalyAngelino Alfano said that Trump was "not doing anything other than implementing his promises" and that Europeans should not criticize him as "we too erect walls in Europe".[180]
Poland – Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski defended the ban, stating that every sovereign nation had the right to decide its own immigration policy. He stated that no state had a duty to accept immigrants, adding that Trump was elected president and had the right to impose the ban.[189]
Leaders in the Islamic world
Iran – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterized Trump's order as insulting to the Islamic world and counter-productive in the attempt to combat extremism. It announced that Iran would take "reciprocal measures in order to safeguard the rights of its citizens".[190][191] Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted by Fars News Agency on January 31 stating that the government will not issue visas to Americans, except in some cases which will be referred to a new committee set up at the Foreign Ministry.[192] Akbar Ranjbarzadeh, an MP from the Principalist faction noted that as a government, they "had promised to bring back honor to the Iranian passport, not only has that not happened but America is treating Iranians as a colonized nation".[193] In a reciprocal measure carried out on February 3, the Iranian government initially banned American wrestlers from participating in 2017 Wrestling World Cup - Men's freestyle.[194] The ban was however revoked a short time later as an American court put travel restrictions of Trump's executive order on hold.[195] Seventy-two professors of the Sharif University of Technology asked the Iranian government in a letter to respond to the Trump ban by passing a law facilitating the entry of the United States citizens to Iran and allowing their entrance simply via the Iranian Airport Visa within the coming ninety days, so that they would "experience the hospitality and peacefulness of the Iranian nation firsthand".[196]
UAE – On February 1, the United Arab Emirates became the first Muslim-majority nation to back the order.[197] Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said that most of the world's Muslim-majority nations were not covered by the order, which he characterized as temporary and a "sovereign decision" of the United States.[197][198]
Syria – On February 16, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has expressed support to President Trump's executive order.[199] During his interview with French media outlets, he explained "that the executive order isn't against the Syrian people, but it's against the terrorists that could infiltrate some of the immigrants and refugees to the Western world. It happened in Europe, mainly in Germany and could happen in the United States in the future."[200]
Iraq – The response from the Iraqi government has been mixed. The Iraqi government said it understood the security concerns behind Trump's decision to ban Iraqi citizens from entering the US, but underlined that the country's "special relationship" should be taken into consideration. However, the response from the Iraqi parliaments foreign affairs parliament committee called on the Iraqi government to reciprocate the ban and remove all U.S nationals from the country. The predominately Shia Popular Mobilization Forces also condemned the ban and called for the removal of U.S nationals as did popular Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.[201][202]
Sudan – Sudan released a statement which labeled the decision as "very unfortunate". The statement read: "It is particularly unfortunate that this decision coincides with the two countries' historic move to lift economic and trade sanctions … and just as economic and financial institutions as well as businessmen in the country were set to continue developing their investment projects."[201]
Yemen – The Yemeni government did not respond but the Yemen embassy in Washington posted a warning on Facebook to citizens regarding the travel restrictions, and advising them not to travel to or from America.[201]
Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia defended the decision following a meeting between Trump and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, issuing a statement saying: "Saudi Arabia does not believe that this measure is targeting Muslim countries or the religion of Islam. This measure is a sovereign decision aimed at preventing terrorists from entering the United States of America."[203]
Turkey – Turkey criticized the decision, with Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek tweeting that refugees not permitted in the United States were welcome in Turkey.[204]
Christians of the Middle East
Christian leaders in the Middle East have denounced the executive order. Louis Raphaël I Sako, the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylon and head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, stated: "Discriminating among those who are persecuted and who suffer based on religion ends up harming the Christians of the East. It provides arguments for all the propaganda and the prejudices that attack Christian communities." Father Rifaat Bader, head of the Catholic Center for Studies and Media in Jordan, said: "Christians are part of the Middle East and they don't accept being treated separately from their co-citizens the Muslims."[205]
Others
In India Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath has praised the US President Donald Trump's decision to enact a ban on citizens from 7 Muslim-majority countries entering the United States and has called for India to adopt similar policies to tackle terrorism. The order by Trump was met with no comment by Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after the Japanese Democratic Party leader asked him.[206][207] No remarks were forthcoming while other nations leaders remarked on it.[208] No actions were taken by Abe in response.[209] Human Rights Watch asked for Trump to be pressured by Abe.[210][211]
Iranian actress Taraneh Alidoosti, whose film The Salesman is nominated for an Academy Award, said she would boycott the ceremony to protest the visa ban.[222]Asghar Farhadi, the film's director, may be blocked from attending the ceremony under the terms of Trump's program.[223] The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which holds the ceremony, issued a statement denouncing the travel ban.[224] Comedian Dave Chappelle also spoke against the executive order in Dayton, Ohio.[225]Ellie Goulding wrote that the order was "terrifying."[226]Ewan McGregor called on fellow Britons to "make a stand."[226]Caitlin Moran urged people to subscribe to newspapers that question Trump.[226]Nadiya Hussain expressed sadness over the order.[226] Black-Iranian Actress Yara Shahidi noted that "I have family that’s already in the states, and I have family in Iran. That was my early birthday present,".[227]
Criticism of the executive order was rampant at the 23rd Screen Actors Guild Awards. Dev Patel called it "horrible [and] divisive."[228]Riz Ahmed said, "Now is not a time for escapism."[228]John Legend said, "I believe our country should be open and inclusive, particularly for refugees fleeing war-torn areas."[228] As he walked the red carpet, Simon Helberg held a sign which read, "Refugees welcome."[228] His wife, Jocelyn Towne, had the words "let them in" written across her chest.[228]Julia Louis-Dreyfus said, "This immigrant ban is a blemish and it is un-American."[229]Ashton Kutcher, whose wife Mila Kunis came to the United States on a refugee visa, wrote, "My blood is boiling right now!"[230]Kerry Washington wrote she was "sick to [her] stomach" about the ban.[231]
British long-distance runner Sir Mo Farah, who was born in Somalia but holds only a British passport and lives and trains in Oregon, said that "Trump seems to have made me an alien" and that it was "deeply troubling" that he would be unable to train in Oregon or reunite with his family under the terms of the executive order; he also called attention to the difference between Trump's actions and those of Queen Elizabeth II, who had knighted Farah earlier in the year.[233][234] After clarification, Farah said he was "relieved" he would be able to return to his family in the US[235]
Sami Zayn, a Syrian Canadian professional wrestler, wrote on Twitter, "I can't articulate how truly disgusted I am right now."[236] American fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad wrote, "Our diversity makes our country strong."[236]Dale Earnhardt Jr., a professional stock car racing driver, wrote, "My family emigrated from Germany in 1700s escaping religious persecution. America is created by immigrants."[237] Mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey quoted "The New Colossus" with the hashtag: resist.[237] American football offensive tackle Ryan Harris said the order is "from the playbook of hatred."[238] The widow of Pat Tillman, who left his career in football to serve in the Army after the September 11 attacks, wrote on Facebook, "This is not the country [Pat] dreamed of, not what he served for, and not what he died for."[238]Lebanese Canadianice hockey player, Nazem Kadri, called the ban "unfortunate."[239]
The soccer community spoke out with Michael Bradley, the captain of the United States men's national soccer team, writing that he was "sad and embarrassed" by the executive order, adding that "the Muslim ban is just the latest example of someone who couldn't be more out of touch with our country and the right way to move forward,"[240] while Becky Sauerbrunn, the co-captain of the United States women's national soccer team, called the executive order "un-American."[241]Alejandro Bedoya, Darlington Nagbe, and Sacha Kljestan supported Bradley's sentiments, with Bedoya saying, "[Our national team] is the epitome of diversity in America and what America's all about."[242] Unlike his teammates, Geoff Cameron spoke out in support of the executive order, saying, "A temporary pause on immigration for the purpose of evaluating and improving vetting procedures makes sense."[242]
Members of the basketball community also spoke out to condemn the executive order. Basketball Hall of FamerHakeem Olajuwon, who is Nigerian American, said, "I can't believe it's actually happening that he's trying to implement that."[243]Magic Johnson called the order "un-American" and said, "[Trump] must stop acting like a dictator."[244]Steve Nash wrote, "Freedom and liberty [are] packing up their things."[236]Nazr Mohammed wrote, "It's a tough day when you find out that so many people that you thought were fans or friends really hate you and everything you believe in."[236]Enes Kanter, who is Turkish, wrote, "I am still in disbelief about the [Muslim ban]."[245]Jeremy Lin, who is Chinese American, apologized to people affected by the executive order, then added, "This is for real getting out of control."[246]Rondae Hollis-Jefferson called the executive order "BS."[247]Luol Deng, who is British Sudanese, said, "Refugees are productive members of society. It's important we humanize the experience of others."[248]Kyle Lowry said, "Our country is the land of the free and for that to happen, I think is bullshit."[237]
American wrestling champion Jordan Burroughs—who had just participated in 2017 Wrestling World Cup in Iran—voiced his opposition of the order, saying that he never felt any ill will towards him in Iran, "the opposite actually".[251]
Business community
Protests at the headquarters of Google in Mountain View, January 30, 2017. 2,000 Google workers from campuses around the world staged a walkout
However, several executives & analysts, including Steve Odland former CEO of Office Depot and Autozone commented that the order won't lead to significant changes in IT hiring practices among US companies since the countries affected are not the primary source of foreign talent.[266]
Small businesses and bodegas in New York City owned by Yemeni immigrants closed from noon to 8pm on February 2 in protest against the executive order. New York Mayor, Bill De Blasio expressed his support to the protest on Twitter.[267]
Religious groups
Muslim Community
Extensive protests and activism has emerged in the Muslim community as a result of the order. Hesitation and fear of leaving the United States and not being able to return home has been a widespread reaction.[268] Kashif Abul Karim, imam at Muhammad Islamic Center in Hartford has drawn parallels between the order and the ruling of Korematsu v. United States.[269]
The Economist noted that the order was signed on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, "a time when many Americans recall with anguish the hundreds of German Jewish refugees denied entry to American ports".[162] This fact, as well as Trump's omission of any reference to Jews or Anti-Semitism in his concurrent address for Holocaust Remembrance Day[278] and the ban's possible effect on Muslim refugees, led to condemnation from Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the HIAS, and J Street,[279] as well as Holocaust survivors.[280] Some of these organizations were involved in the protests against the immigration ban at the JFK International airport[281] and in Manhattan,[282] with groups of Jews, on the Sabbath, joining interfaith protests with Muslims against the immigration ban.
Jihadists
Jihadist and Islamic extremist organizations celebrated the executive order as a victory, saying that "the new policy validates their claim that the United States is at war with Islam."[283] ISIL-linked social media postings "compared the executive order to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Islamic militant leaders at the time hailed as a 'blessed invasion' that ignited anti-Western fervor across the Islamic world."[283] Terrorism analyst Rita Katz, founder of the SITE Intelligence Group, stated that: "Jihadists would have to argue to lengths that Obama, Bush, and others held anti-Islam agendas and hated the religion — not just radical terrorists. Trump, however, makes that argument a lot easier for them to sell to their followers."[283]
Financial markets
The stock market had its biggest drop in 2017 as investors reacted to the curb on immigration.[284] As uncertainty about the executive order continued, investors began to "dump stocks and the dollar" causing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall below 20,000.[285] European and Asian markets also closed at lower rates because of the uncertainty surrounding the executive order.[286]
Public opinion
On January 28, FiveThirtyEight discussed the ban, saying "the scope of Trump's executive order is such that we're largely in uncharted waters. Past polls are only so useful, as most of them did not ask about actions as broad as the ones Trump undertook." Summarizing past polls, they found that Americans generally support reductions in immigration and refugee intake numbers, but oppose a religion-based immigration ban and blanket bans.[287]
Polls taken after the executive order was issued demonstrated a split in U.S. public opinion on the order.[2] Different polls yielded different results, based on how the question was asked and the specific phrasing of the question.[2] Additionally, some parts of the order were more popular than others; a particularity that according to The Washington Post reflected "complicated attitudes" on the part of the American public.[2]
A number of national surveys taken in the days following the order's issuance yielded contradictory findings:[2]
Rasmussen Reports conducted a poll before the Executive order was issued (Jan 25–26), asking likely U.S. voters whether they "favor or oppose a temporary ban on refugees from [the seven listed countries] until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?"[2] That survey found that 57% supported, 33% are opposed, and 10% are undecided.[288]The Washington Post notes that Rasmussen "typically generates poll results that are friendlier to Republicans than other pollsters."[2]
An Ipsos/Reuters poll from January 30–31 asked respondents whether they "agree or disagree with the Executive Order that President Trump signed blocking refugees and banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S."[2][289] The poll showed that 26% "strongly agree"; 22% "somewhat agree"; 14% "somewhat disagree"; and 27% "strongly disagree" (for total of 48% agree to 41% disagree).[2] The same poll found that a majority agreed that "the U.S. should limit the number of refugees allowed into the country (66% agree, 26% disagree); that the U.S. should welcome refugees from all conflicts, not just certain ones (56% agree, 31% disagree), and that the U.S. should open the borders to those fleeing ISIS (49% agree to 40% disagree). A majority of Americans disagreed that the U.S. should prioritize Christian refugees over Muslim ones (57% disagree, 28% agree). Americans agree that all countries should open their borders to refugees of foreign conflicts (48% agree, 42% disagree), and that singling out a group based on religion violates American principles (44% agree, 39% disagree).[290] Support for the travel ban split along party lines. A majority of Democrats strongly disagreed with Trump's ban, while a majority of Republicans strongly agreed. The poll also found that Republicans were three times more likely than Democrats to believe that "banning people from Muslim countries is necessary to prevent terrorism."[290] The Ipsos/Reuters poll also found that 31% of Americans believed that the ban made them more safe; 26% felt less safe after the executive order, and 33% said that it would not make a difference.[290] 72% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans, disagreed that the country should "welcome Christian refugees, but not Muslim ones."[290]
A Gallup poll taken on January 30 asked U.S. adults whether they approved of Trump's ordering of "a temporary ban on entry into U.S. for most people from seven predominantly Muslim countries."[2] 55% disapproved, while 42% approved and 3% had no opinion.[291] The majority of American opposed the indefinite suspension of the U.S.'s Syrian refugee program (36% approve, 58% disapprove).[291] There was a major partisan split; 71% of Republicans approved of barring Syrian refugees, while only 35% of independents and 10% of Democrats did.[291]
A CNN/ORC poll of U.S. adults taken from January 31 to February 2 showed that overall, 47% support the executive order and 53% oppose it. A majority agreed that the ban makes the U.S. less safe from terrorism (46%) as opposed to more safe (41%). More Americans believe that the order harms American values (49%) rather than protects American values (43%). As with the other polls, there was a deep partisan divide; 88% of Democrats oppose the order and 88% of Republicans support the order. (Independents lean against the order, with 54% opposing it.)[292]
A Politico/Morning Consult poll of U.S. registered voters conducted from February 2 through February 4, showed that 54% of those surveyed said they approved of "Trump's new immigration restrictions" while only 38% opposed them.[293]
Related Research Articles
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
Derrick Kahala Watson is an American lawyer who serves as the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Sally Quillian Yates is an American lawyer. From 2010 to 2015, she was United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. In 2015, she was appointed United States Deputy Attorney General by President Barack Obama. Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump and the departure of Attorney General Loretta Lynch on January 20, 2017, Yates served as Acting Attorney General for 10 days.
Protests against Donald Trump have occurred in the United States, Europe and elsewhere from his entry into the 2016 presidential campaign to his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Protests have expressed opposition to Trump's campaign rhetoric, his electoral win, his inauguration, his alleged history of sexual misconduct and various presidential actions, most notably his travel ban in 2017 and his aggressive family separation policy in 2018. Some protests have taken the form of walk-outs, business closures, and petitions as well as rallies, demonstrations, and marches. While most protests have been peaceful, actionable conduct such as vandalism and assaults on Trump supporters has occurred. Some protesters have been criminally charged with rioting. The largest organized protest against Trump was the day after his inauguration; millions protested on January 21, 2017, during the Women's March, with each individual city's protest taken into consideration, makes it the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States.
The first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency began on January 20, 2017, the day Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States. The first 100 days of a presidential term took on symbolic significance during Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term in office, and the period is considered a benchmark to measure the early success of a president. The 100th day of his presidency ended at noon on April 30, 2017.
The following is a timeline of the protests against Donald Trump, the former president of the United States of America, businessman, and television personality.
Immigration policy, including illegal immigration to the United States, was a signature issue of former U.S. president Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue generated much publicity. Trump has repeatedly said that illegal immigrants are criminals.
The social policy of the Donald Trump administration was generally socially conservative. As of 2016, Donald Trump described himself as pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and circumstances endangering the life of the mother. He said he was committed to appointing justices who may overturn the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his presidency. All of them later went on to vote in the majority opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade and ending federal abortion rights nationwide.
Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, labeled the "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his supporters and critics, and commonly known as such, or commonly referred to as the Trump travel ban, or Trump Muslim travel ban, was an executive order by President Trump. Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780, a second order sharing the title "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".
In late January and early February 2017, during protests against Executive Order 13769, thousands of people gathered at various airports in the United States and around the world to prevent the returning of refugees and other visitors from seven countries considered to be unsafe. According to various sources, more than two thousand people were at the protest at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York City with other protests appearing at significant international airports and other important sites around the United States. Protests continued daily and internationally through February 6. Protests also continued after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against parts of the travel ban.
A Muslim immigration ban is a ban, either absolute or from specific nations, on the immigration of Muslims to a specific nation.
Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.
The Trump travel ban denotes a series of executive actions taken by Donald Trump as President of the United States, beginning with Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.
Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.
Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
Joe Biden's immigration policy is primarily based on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration. During his first day in office, Biden reversed many of Trump's policies on immigration, such as halting the construction of the Mexican border wall, ending Trump's travel ban restricting travel from 14 countries, and an executive order to reaffirm protections for DACA recipients. The Biden administration and Department of Homeland Security, under leadership of Alejandro Mayorkas, dramatically reined in deportation practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), prioritizing national security and violent crime concerns over petty and nonviolent offenses. However, Biden has also faced criticism for extending Title 42, a Trump administration border restriction that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as restarting the use of expediting families in Central America, which can cause families to be sent back in weeks, compared to years for an average immigration case. In the fiscal year 2021, the US Border Patrol confirmed more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the US-Mexico border, more than quadruple the number in the previous fiscal year and the largest annual total on record. In January 2023, Biden announced a program to strengthen the admission of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, while at the same time his administration will crack down on those who fail to use the plan's legal pathway and strengthen border security. In May 2023, the Biden Administration approved sending 1,500 more troops to the U.S.-Mexico border following Title 42's expiration.
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 was a legislative bill that was proposed by President Joe Biden on his first day in office. It was formally introduced in the House by Representative Linda Sánchez. It died with the ending of the 117th Congress.
1 2 Chmaytelli, Maher; Noueihed, Lin. "Global backlash grows against Trump's immigration order". Reuters. A global backlash against U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration curbs gathered strength on Sunday as several countries including long-standing American allies criticized the measures as discriminatory and divisive.
1 2 Hjelmgaard, Kim (January 29, 2017). "World weighs in on Trump ban with rebukes and praise". USA Today. President Trump's suspension of all refugee admissions and temporary ban on millions of Muslims entering the United States drew broad international condemnation Sunday — but also some support.
↑ Fox, Maggie (February 1, 2017). "Doctors and Scientists Denounce Trump's Immigration Order". NBC News. Dozens of medical and scientific groups, universities and advocacy organizations have piled on to protest President Donald Trump's immigration order.
↑ Trump, Donald J. (January 28, 2017). A look at Trump's executive order on refugees, immigration. Boston Globe (Posted Video). Retrieved January 30, 2017. Secondly, I'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. We don't want 'em here… We will never forget the lessons of 9/11…{{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
↑ "Theresa May fails to condemn Donald Trump on refugees". BBC News. January 28, 2017. Retrieved January 28, 2017. Prime Minister Theresa May has been criticised for refusing to condemn President Donald Trump's ban on refugees entering the US ... But when pressed for an answer on Donald Trump's controversial refugee ban she first of all, uncomfortably, avoided the question. Then on the third time of asking she would only say that on the United States policy on refugees it was for the US
↑ YAROSLAV TROFIMOV (January 2, 2017). "Middle East Christians Fear Trump Ban Will Backfire". The Wall Street Journal. That is one of the reasons why the region's Christian leaders have denounced Mr. Trump's move. "Christians are part of the Middle East and they don't accept being treated separately from their co-citizens the Muslims," said Father Rifaat Bader, head of the Catholic Center for Studies and Media in Jordan. [...] Babylon Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako, the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq, agreed. [...] "Discriminating among those who are persecuted and who suffer based on religion ends up harming the Christians of the East," he added. "It provides arguments for all the propaganda and the prejudices that attack Christian communities."
1 2 3 4 "Ipsos Poll Conducted for Reuters Immigration Ban 1.31.2017". IPSOS. January 31, 2017. p.3. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017. TM1140Y17—Do you agree or disagree with the Executive Order that President Trump signed blocking refugees and banning people from seven Muslim majority countries from entering the U.S.?… TOTAL AGREE 48%
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
