by JENNIE LAU
Terrorism is a word that America knows all too well. Some Americans shame others for being a certain religion due to the fact that they fit the ideal image of a terrorist. Despite fighting for decades to gain racial equality, it only brought along more victims. Trump’s declaration to ban some, but strictly seven, Muslim countries aroused controversies; some even going as far as proclaiming it as unconstitutional.
Lawyers from Washington and Minnesota appealed for Trump to eliminate his restrictions on seven Muslim countries. Instead of preserving safety and defense of Americans, it will only create spite and hatred from these countries. In other words, the politicians believe that it will only escalate the chaos. The appeals court challenges the administration’s claim that Trump’s ban on those seven countries was not out of safety, but instead by the thought of terrorism and fear.
Not only did Trump’s order advise the banning of the seven countries, he also advocated to suspend the nation’s refugee program and immigration from these seven Muslim countries that seem to be under the suspicion of where terrorists reside. The hearing began on Tuesday and it captivated a wide audience since it is conducted on mobile. Judge Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush nominee, requested a Washington and Minnesota state representative attorney to present evidence against the ban that they have assumed was based on religion. The two states who are suing the ban are expected to present the evidence that the government’s ban on those seven nations correlates to terrorism.
The case is escalating, yet the government has not included any evidence concerning the ban. Some evidence supports Trump’s motive, believing that the President is given the power to decide for the United States who enters or stays in the country. However, others believe that it is considered unconstitutional. The travel ban expires within ninety days unless there is an unexpected shift that may change the course of the case.