The questions surrounding President Trump’s executive order continue unabated.
This is the executive order that is at issue:
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.
Under fire from various critics, President Trump used Twitter, his favorite platform, to defend the order:
“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!”
If the executive order is intended to target terrorists, why does it harm innocent citizens? His words don’t match his actions.
Moreover, the BBC has raised questions about the legitimacy of the choice of seven countries named as targets for the temporary ban on entry. According to a report released on January 30th, none of the criminals who perpetrated indiscriminate mass killings in the United States in recent years were citizens of these seven countries. In addition, the report reveals that 82% of terrorist incidents in the United States since 2001 were perpetrated by citizens or those with permanent residency status. And there’s more. Research conducted by the Cato Institute, an American think tank, shows that it is 253 times more likely for a US citizen to die in a non-terrorism related murder in the United States than to die in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a foreign national.
The Obama Administration deserves blame for choosing the seven countries, but the Trump Administration carried out an even greater sin through its broad interpretation of that precedent.
Yet we must seriously accept the results of a Reuters poll showing that 49% of the public supports this executive order.
If Trump’s administration policies were considered a way of “expelling emigrants,” how should we express the situation concerning the “deportation measures” taking place in China? Recently in China, the so-called “city registration retailers” are gaining strength. These people’s job is to bring together “those who want to buy their city registration in Beijing” with “those who would not mind selling their registration in Beijing,” a transaction whose market price is around 800 000 yuan (approximately 115 000 US dollars). Certainly, even now there is still a contemporary version of apartheid. And in this case, it is not about immigrants; it is rather a case of Chinese citizens abusing each other, a situation that becomes all the more inexcusable.
The same thing happens to foreigners. It has been made public that, as of April this year, all resident aliens in China will be classified into a three-category system—A (high-level personnel), B (specialized personnel), and C (general personnel). From now on, category A aliens will be encouraged, category B aliens will be controlled, and category C aliens will be progressively excluded. In other words, from now on, those resident aliens who can be replaced by Chinese citizens will be expelled in a quick and legal fashion, and considered dispensable individuals, being unable to re-enter the country. In a sense, these “deportation measures” in China—seemingly a continual trend—are much more terrifying than what is happening in the West.
The problem is not whether immigrants are terrorists or not; rather, it is whether an individual with a criminal record is entering the country, adding a new security risk to the American population, therefore calling for increased control measures during inspections at this country’s ports of entry. This is not the same as taking for granted that all immigrants are drug dealers or terrorists. There are many states that are benefitting economically, thanks to immigrants. The vast majority of them are honest workers who want to have the chance to work in the United States.