In recent media, the Trump Administration’s executive order to half the immigration of muslim immigrants have stirred the world. President Trump signed an order that bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days and suspends the country’s refugee system for a 120 days period. His reasoning: “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the country”. Many citizens are angered with the President’s ban while others believe it will make the country safer. Nevertheless, the executive order marks a pivotal event in American history.
Very Liberal Media: “White House Press Secretary believes small children are dangers to us all” Steve Benen
In the MSNBC article “Trump’s Muslim ban causes turmoil within the administration”, author Steve Benen examines President Trump’s ban. MSNBC, a notoriously liberal media outlet, makes it apparent that they do not agree with the ban. Throughout the article, Benen continuously mocks the new administration especially White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer. Spicer stated: “To assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be wrong” when asked about a five-year-old Iranian boy’s detainment. Benen then went on to write “He wasn’t kidding; Spicer believes the strongest nation on the planet has reason to be suspicious of small children”, clearly twisting Spicer’s words against him. Additionally, the article includes two reference sources by the Associated Press, a liberal media outlet, and the Wall Street Journal, a conservative media outlet that implies both liberal and conservative supporters believe Trump’s actions are concerning. The article concludes with a list of insults and essentially declares the policy is actually making America less safe.
Liberal Media: “A Muslim ban is not a ban” Christina Wilkle
The Huffington Post article “Sean Spicer Insists Muslim Ban is not a ‘Ban,’ but He and Trump Both Called it One” by Christina Wilkle further criticizes President Trump’s Muslim ban. The Huffington Post also promotes liberal media and painfully detests the decision. Throughout the work, Wilkle uses very negative vocabulary associated with the Trump administration. Like, the MSNBC article, Wilkle’s also rips into Sean Spicer. The article described a Spicer debrief as “testy” and believed that during an interview he was “barking” answers back which showcases the negative rhetoric used while describing Spicer. The main object of the text was to parade that their opinion that the administration is inconsistent. Spicer openly stated that the executive order was not a ‘ban’ because thousands of people have still entered the country; however, Spicer and President Trump continuously use the word ‘ban’ when talking about the action. Wilkle highlights the discrepancy hoping to discredit the words of the administration. The article also includes a President Trump tweet about the sudden implementation of the ban and how if he announced it “bad dudes” would rush into the country. This tweet only amplifies the obscurity of the President. Wilkle ends the article with the President’s decision to fire Sally Yates, the interim attorney general, for announcing her displeasure with the ban. By concluding with this defiance and eventual dismissal, it exposes Trump’s inability to accept a difference of opinion.
Neutral: “Celebrating immigration bans” Daniel Burke
The CNN article “Why ISIS is celebrating Trump’s immigration ban” by Daniel Burke expands on President Trumps Muslim ban. CNN, a relatively neutral news outlet, takes a different stance than Huffington Post and MSNBC. The article states facts instead of opinions. Burke explains how ISIS, a known terrorist organization, is benefiting from the ban. The group will entice Western Muslims to join by reiterating that the U.S. won’t take them so the immigrants don’t belong there. The article adds a picture of a Trump supporter holding an anti-Muslim sign which signifies the fact there are people around the country who are concerned with terrorism and believe Muslim immigrants are dangerous. Additionally, Burke incorporates statistics into the piece for and against the ban. He adds that more than 8 in 10 American Muslims are citizens with nearly 90% speaking English fluently showing that the immigrants can be a devout Muslim and continue to live in modern society. However, Burke also adds the statistic that 81 Muslim-Americans were associated with violent plots in 2015, the highest annual total since 9/11. Both the conservative and liberal view present a very neutral stance on the ban.
Conservative: “All Muslims? Or just a few?” Michael Patrick Leahy
Breitbart’s article, “Claimed ‘Muslim Ban’ Exempts Eighty-seven Percent of Muslims” by Michael Patrick Leahy defends President Trump’s order. Breitbart a known moderate news source, further explains the facts of the ban. Eighty-seven percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are not affected by the ban so only one of every eight Muslims worldwide are actually impacted. The article uses many statistics and facts to defend the ban. It then goes on to point out that ex-President Barack Obama also signed a 2015 bill about preventing certain citizens from entering the country. It further points out that other notable presidents like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both democratic and republican, all designated the same countries in the ban as a state sponsor of terrorism during their administration. However, at the end of the article Leahy even goes far enough to include President Obama’s debrief on why they decided to add Libya, Somalia and Yemen to the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Improvement Act of 2015. The article highlights how the Obama administration also had strict immigration laws and passed bills similar to President Trump’s.
Very Conservative: ““The Sting” starring the Democratic National Party” Arthur Herman
The Fox News article “Trump’s travel ban and the Democrats’ big con” by Arthur Herman strongly presents an annoyance of the Democratic party. Fox News, a popular conservative news outlet, describes the Democratic party as ‘grifters’. It is apparent that Herman does not appreciate the Democratic party trying to con people into believing their cause. The article then proceeds to explain that the “Muslim ban” is, in fact, a temporary ban that affects countries that the Obama administration already placed travel limits on. This claim asserts that the only reason the executive order has gotten so much backlash is because it was signed by President Trump and not by a much popular previous President Barack Obama. The article also attacks many known democrats such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer clearly affirming its conservative beliefs. Herman wraps up the article by quoting the movie “The Sting” again by providing a metaphor for the quote “He’s not as tough as he looks.” The other replies sheepishly, “Neither are we.” and Herman goes on to say neither are the Democrats once people catch on to their big con.