By Meghna Padmanabhan ’17, Section Editor

Our nation was built by immigrants. Some of the greatest men and women to have walked on our lands and influenced our people consists of those who came to America looking for ways to have their voices heard and their knowledge spread. Through impactful figures like Albert Einstein, Joseph Pulitzer, Alexander Hamilton, and Yoko Ono to those who used the arts to spread our country’s values like Bob Marley, Jackie Chan, and Audrey Hepburn, we have developed such a substantial part of our culture and our values from those who were born outside of our borders. Immigration to the United States has been catalyst for change, whether it be positive or negative, and has opened the doors for a multitude of people. Recent events have highlighted the possibility of these doors being slammed in the faces of those seeking refuge, freedom, and new beginnings. The horrific truth is that this possibility has already become a reality to countless Middle-eastern citizens and immigrants and has torn apart families in and out of the country. Though many have protested, the immigration ban that has been put into place has indiscriminately ruined the lives of people whose only faults are their ethnicities. In a land of freedom, choice, and diversity, the irony of this situation stands out way too clearly.

This isn’t only a case against Donald Trump. While his immigration ban has barred people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering or reentering the country for 90 days, refugees for 120 days, and Syrian refugees indefinitely, he isn’t the only president to have taken such an extreme course of action. Six days before leaving office, President Obama reversed the “wet foot/dry foot policy” that had governed U.S. relations with Cuba since 1995, taking away the amnesty granted to Cubans who set foot upon American soil. This act went unnoticed to many, and Cuban-Americans everywhere question the lack of mutual indignation after its repeal as compared to the nationwide stir of discontent after Trump’s ban. Mr. Romay, or Profe, as he is better known, a highly-respected member of our NA community as someone who has overcome severe adversity and always treated everyone with equal courtesy, commented on the unsettling feeling of having his people’s plight pushed aside for better news stories about Trump’s latest tweets.

“I feel very strongly about the immigration ban as well as the policy Obama took away, because immigration is for people to flee what I fled, and it bothers me that this is being taken away from them. For refugees, it’s the idea of having a place to go, just as I had a place to go, and the feeling of having this beacon closed… the ban disturbs me as much as it did when Obama did the same,” Profé explained as he emphasized the fact that Obama had actually deported many immigrants himself during his eight years – 2.5 million to be exact. Trump’s ban is not only aiming to continue this trend, but is doing so unconstitutionally. Profé cited Article 13 of the Declaration of Human Rights, that states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.” and “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” It is completely valid that situations like war and terrorism prevent this article from always being put into place, but the United States has traditionally provided the means of escaping  horrific circumstances to those who have needed them. Taking this protocol  away is setting a frightening precedent with ominous implications.

The immigration ban is put into place to prevent terrorism from pervading the United States, primarily from Islamic countries, according to President Trump. While it arguably may not be intended to target a single religion, it definitely targets one group of people more than others. When speaking to Greg Gilbert ‘18 about what insight his position at the School for Ethics and Global Leadership in Washington D.C. has given him about the ban, he brought up having a chance to speak with Paul Wolfowitz, a conservative American political scientist and diplomat. Wolfowitz believes that the ban is presumably based on the fact that much of the terrorist activity that occurs in the United States is related to radical Islam, yet pointed out that the majority of Islamic terrorism is actually from U.S. citizens. He further insisted that the best way to really stop terrorism is not to block out refugees and Muslims, but to integrate the new immigrants into American culture and show the world, and Muslims around the world, that Islam and the United States can be compatible.

Overall, the effects of this ban have been disastrous to families who have relatives visiting other countries and foreign students who are unable to go home to their loved ones. While the intentions of the ban are to reduce Islamic terrorism within the United States, we are adopting an extremely isolationist policy similar to the one that proved itself to be catastrophic when instituted during World War II. The ban has serious flaws, from its unconstitutionality to the way it has separated people within our own country and has given rise to fear and hysteria among the millions of immigrants who have helped build this country. As a world superpower that prides itself on having the common ideal of liberty and justice for all, we cannot determine who “all” encompasses.