On January 27, the newly inaugurated President Trump made one of the boldest moves concerning immigration in recent history, barring citizens from seven predominantly Islamic countries, including Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Somalia. Though this ban does not apply to all citizens (allowing the entry of those who are dual-citizens, possess green cards, obtain a special immigrant visa, or those serving in certain diplomatic positions), the majority of the citizens of these countries are barred from entry for a period of 90 days. On top of this, refugees from any nation have been denied entry for period of 120 days, with Syrian refugees being blocked indefinitely.

President Trump’s ban can find its roots late in 2015, during the primaries, shortly after the terrorist attacks at San Bernardino, where he called for a complete barring of entry for all Muslims. Soon after this announcement, a Trump spokesperson stated the ban would be put in place “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” According to the President, the current ban will allow for the opportunity to restructure and reinforce the immigration system, which had been a subject of debate during the campaign. This restructuring would create more efficacious vetting procedures for immigrants. “We have to give you the weapons that you need,” the president said to officials at the Major Cities Chiefs Association, “and this is a weapon that you need and they’re trying to take it away from you… we can’t let that happen.” Trump’s legal justification for the order comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a Democrat-proposed bill allowing for the per-country limits Trump has set on the specified nations. President Trump has also referenced sections of United States Code to legally justify the bill, including 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3.

Since its initiation, the ban has produced several notable proponents, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis), former rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex), and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex). “President Trump is right to make sure we are doing everything possible to know exactly who is entering our country,” said the Speaker of House, who despite having spoken out against Trump during the campaign, has come fully behind him to support his executive order. Sen. Cruz, also having a rough relation with Trump during their presidential campaigns, claims that much of the dissent concerning the ban has been the cause of “hysteria and mistruths being pushed by the liberal media,” a grievance often made by the President, whose has been in an unprecedented standoff with the media for his outspoken criticism. Cruz goes on to say that the executive order is a “commonsense step that the American people overwhelmingly support.” Rep. Sessions also spoke out on the issue, comparing it to a similar action taken by former President Barack Obama in 2011, where there was a six month halt in the admission of Iraqi refugees to the United States, due to concern in the vetting procedures used. “Just as President Obama suspended the refugee program in 2011 for six months,” said Sessions, “the Trump Administration is working to protect national security by making adjustments in the refugee vetting process.”

Despite the amount of support Trump has received on the issue, there has been a significant amount of opposition. Many people believe that the ban goes against the very essence of the American spirit and its ideals, including the ideal that this land has been one of immigrants, a nation serving as a beacon of hope to all those who suffer from tyranny. Many opponents on this issue attempting to prove the law’s unconstitutionality in order for its repeal often site U.S. Code as well. They claim the executive order infringes statutes including anti-discrimination, due process and equal protection, and the separation of church and state. All of these statutes are broken, critics claim, because they see the law not as an opportunity for immigration and safety reform, but as a ban discriminating Muslims, and an attempt to prevent their entry into the country. But the most prominent act of opposition could be seen when James Robart, a U.S. District judge in Seattle, ruled on the unconstitutionality of the ban, temporarily blocking it until the case can be brought to the Supreme Court. This allowed for the continued entry of immigrants from the once blocked countries, and has caused increased tensions on the subject.

Opposition against the immigration ban has found a notable following across both the private and public sectors. CEO of Ford Mark Fields, CEO of Google Sundar Pichai, and CEO of Starbucks Howard Schultz are all against the President’s executive order, claiming it goes against the ideals that they and their respective companies hold. On top of this, there has been resistance from the world of politics, and interestingly enough, from former President Barak Obama, who at the end of his administration promised to refrain from criticizing Trump until he had had enough time to show his capabilities and direction as president. But after 10 days out of office, Obama has gone on the record to say he, “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.” This goes on to continue the argument from the opposition that the ban has an anti-Islamic stance.

Beyond the opinions and beliefs of notable individuals on the issue, the topic has enjoyed an immense amount of popular reaction, mainly from the opposing side. Shortly after signing the order, protests broke out in several major cities throughout the country, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Washington, D.C. Many of these protests occurred at airports, where immigrants were being held in a limbo state, unable to enter or leave the country. Many of the protests also were attended by lawyers, offering free legal advice to those affected. The protests were relatively peaceful, although there was a significant amount of people arrested throughout the country, including 15 in Seattle.

Clearly, one can see the international response the immigration ban has received in the weeks following its creation. But aside from the big city protests and political attention it has received, the debate on this topic can be seen right here at SBRHS. After conducting an interview with some students, it can be patently seen that this issue is divisive at school as well. “The intent on the ban is kind of racist,” said Kyle Cardoso, “he basically wants to ban an entire religion from entering the United States.” Kyle went on to explain how he found the ban to have problems “constitutionally…morally and ethically.” Furthermore, he explained that he found the ban’s provisions to be ineffective in dealing with the immigration crisis, because the excluded countries “have never had any connection to terrorism in the United States.” But other students had a more middle of the road opinion on the issue. “In some ways, it allows for the general public to feel safer by instating policies such as extreme vetting,” said Cam Sousa. He continued saying that, “on the other hand refugees could have their American Dream ripped from their fingertips at a time where hope is most needed.” But overall, he said he sided with Trump and his extreme vetting, because despite the high importance and faith he places in the American Dream for all those who desire it, “keeping our nation safe so that another tragic attack like the Boston Bombing will never happen again takes top priority.”

It is the least to say that the issue at hand is a divisive one. It has led to a polarization amongst the American people, and has forced all to question the ideals that we as a nation represent and seek to defend in the name of preserving the American spirit. Moral or immoral, constitutional or unconstitutional, American or un-American, these are but a few of the many debates that have formed around the present immigration ban. And though I will not pick a side on the subject, this much I will say: as an American, whose ardent and vehement love and admiration for this great land that I am proud to call home, I can only wish that the present situation be resolved with the cooperation and unity of all Americans, but that the virtues and Constitutional principles that serve as the cornerstone of the American spirit, a spirit that has defined this great nation and its people, may never be compromised.