By: Riley Killian
In the past year all that has been filling our news feeds, television screens, and pretty much everything that we are surrounded by is the United States Presidential Election. Now that it has been about 3 months since we elected Donald Trump to the white house, and as of about 2 weeks ago he is officially our President. Now all that surrounds us in the media is what is he is doing or not doing for our country. In the past three weeks since his inauguration Trump has signed fifteen executive actions. Many have tried to criticize Trump for the number of orders he has signed, but in reality, it is not uncommon for newly appointed presidents to sign a lot of both executive actions and orders in their first couple of weeks of presidency. Trump’s most recent executive order on immigration has created an uproar on the internet. On January 27th Trump signed an order regarding immigration, many countries immigrants/refugees have halted for 90 days while refugees from Syria have been suspended indefinitely.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent titles his article on the matter “Trump’s refugee ban could get much, much worse. That’s why it must be stopped – now.”. Going into the article it is known where the author stands on the executive order, meaning you know the rest of the article will follow much of the same diction. Sargent begins his piece by explaining what the executive order is and its major points. The article goes on to discuss the reproductions that could occur due to the executive order. According to the article the American Civil Liberties Union is going to file a lawsuit in hopes of overturning the executive order on the grounds that the executive order is unconstitutional. While the lawsuit may not completely overturn the executive order, the hope is to stop Trump from creating similar laws that are just as, if not more, extreme. Sargent ends his piece with the same diction he started with “Everything is about protecting Trump from ridicule. Tough job!”. Throughout the article Sargent is clearly not in support of Trump’s new ban so everything stated in the article is most likely spun in a way that agrees with the liberal side of politics.
The New York Times
The New York Times brings the United Nations into the debate on the Refugee ban by titling their article “U.N. Leader Says Trump Visa Bans ‘Violate Our Basic Principles’”. According to Somini Sengupta, the United Nations said that Syrian refugees are in immediate need for protection. With the United States cutting off refugees from Syria many citizens will not have the best protection that they really need. Many people, including the secretary general and the United Nations, believe that banning Syrian refugees will not be effective in preventing terrorism. The article goes on to talk about legal retributions that the United States government could face with in the United States judicial system and the international justice system. The U.N. says that the United States could be in violation of an the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a treaty that does not allow the discrimination, based on religion or country of origin for people entering a country. This article does nothing to support Trump’s new refugee ban and only works to criticize the ban meaning that it is most likely on the left end of the spectrum politically.
NPR brings to the debate facts about the feelings of the lawmakers, they title their article “Congress Tracker: Trump’s Refugee And Immigration Executive Order”. Brett Neely discusses the differences in options between Democrats and Republican in congress and even has a poll from the general public. According to Neely’s findings 49% of Americans back the ban, 41% oppose the ban, leaving 10% unaccounted for . He then goes into congress to find that 150 congressman are in favor of the ban, 252 opposed, 52 no statement, and 72 unclear. Neely’s goal was to bring to light the facts of how our lawmakers in Washington DC are feeling about Trump’s new ban. This article goes into no personal opinions about the executive order making the piece very neutral.
BBC News brings to the debate a neutral opinion, because BBC is not based in the United States it can more easily give a non bias opinion on the debate on the refugee ban. Starting with the title “Trump’s Executive Order: Who Does the Ban Affect?”. The article goes on to discuss what the executive order is doing, who will be impacted, Trump’s opinion, the legality, and terrorism statistics. When focusing specifically on refugees from Syria and how it will impact them, it was stated that Syrain’s who came to the United States comprised of 20,000 people while not all of them stayed in the United States about 20% of them did. The statistics that BBC news did give show that a lot of people not just from Syria but from the other banned countries would be impacted by this ban. The article goes on to discuss the legality of the ban and says that the ban has some issues in regards to the law but Trump so far has denied these allegations so at this point it is unknown what will come of the ban. This piece is written by a British news source keeping the piece less bias than U.S. news sources because BBC has no affiliation with the U.S. it allows them to write pieces without basis.
Howard Kurtz adds his voice into the debate in a video discussing the issue of the ban. Kurtz discusses how he believes that this executive order could have been rushed and not well thought out. He then continues on to say that “if no one protests what you’re doing then you haven’t accomplished very much”. Kurtz believes that we should have known this was coming it was no surprise Trump said during his campaign that there needed to be regulations on immigration and that is exactly what he is doing. Kurtz believes that there needs to be separation between the implementation of the order and the order itself. The implementation he believes did not go well because it was rushed but the executive order did have the right ideas. Fox new’s Kurtz allows his voice to be heard bringing to the debate a right winged view on this new executive order.
Breitbart also comes into this debate about the ban titling their article “Seventeen Muslim Refugees have legally entered the U.S. Since Trump Signed Executive Order”. Michael Patrick Leahy breaks down the numbers of refugees entering the country legally. The article goes through the numbers of how many people have entered from the seven banned countries since October 1st, 2016 and when Trump signed the executive order. These seven countries before the order accounted for 49% of the refugees and since the order zero refugees from those countries have entered. Leahy does not delve too much in to the controversy of the Syrian refugee ban he uses only utilizes numbers to discuss the ban, and only brings a little bit of his own voice to the debate. Due the title of this article you can tell that this is a right leaning article because it is putting a positive spin on the banning of immigrants about how many people are getting in and how absurd the numbers have been previously.
So what exactly are we supposed to believe about this executive order? Well, that is up to the interpreter. Allowing yourself to hear all sides of the debate is probably the best way for you to decide just how you feel about this executive order. Do not allow yourself to follow what everyone else is saying because then you may never hear the other side of the argument.