President Donald J. Trump, during his presidential campaign, mentioned introducing a policy that would ban all Muslims from entering the United States by creating a task force to extradite immigrants without all the necessary legal documents. The ban categorically prevents members of a particular religion from entering the United States, which violates the First Amendment by clearly disliking one religion and indirectly preferring others.
The travel ban shows the irrationality of President Trump’s policy because it shows that he assumes an individual is perilous on account of their ethnicity or religion. The possibility that any individual who is a Muslim is a terrorist is inconsiderate as it violates the freedom of an individual to exercise his or her religious beliefs. The travel ban prompted by the thought that all of the immigrants are dangerous is unethical and portrays America as a nation being deprived of liberty. The paper will argue that President Trump’s travel ban violates the first amendment and other constitutional amendments.
The United States’ Constitution gives a right to travel which has applicable standards of equal protection to non-residents as well as residents. The United States law governs primarily the privileges and immunities that administers and entitles citizens as well as noncitizens to enter into other states and move out freely. The constitution gives the freedom of movement, which does not inhibit people from leaving a state by taxing them. Article 13 of the international bill of human rights states that everybody has the privilege to move out of any nation, including his country, and come back to the nation. The rights have no restrictions except those provided by the law, which aims at protecting national security, public health, morals, and freedom of others.
On 27th January 2017, President Donald Trump’s travel ban policy focused mainly on seven nations (Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somali, and Iraq). The citizens from the mentioned countries are the most affected. The travel ban requires the US administration to revise immigration-screening procedures to ensure that their citizens are not a threat to the public safety. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that individuals from the listed countries are identified because of their previous history of ties with terror groups.
The ban stops the individuals from entering the United States to make sure there is no repeat of the September 11 which saw many dead and properties worth billions of dollars destroyed. President Trump implemented the ban because the seven countries were deemed a threat to the national security of the United States. The ban additionally suspended refugee resettlement to ensure that the approved refuge admission does not pose a threat to the welfare of the United States.
The United States immigration law is exceptional and litters to constitutional norms of protecting every American. Rubenstein, David, and Pratheepan (583) state that the exceptional immigration law warrants treatment of individuals to exhibit adherence to rights, federalism, and separation of powers.
National security threats, however, has prompted presidents, states, and cities to take the matter into their own hands. For example, Trump generated a new cut on institutional conflict across the levels of the government by temporarily banning the admission of immigrants from certain geographical areas which are predominantly Muslim countries. The constitutional amendment upholds equal protection mainstream to individuals. Therefore, discrimination on account of nationality and religion is unconstitutional (Rubenstein, David, and Pratheepan 583).
President Trump violated the rights of people and the doctrine of the constitution by issuing a travel ban to the targeted individuals. As a result, Trump takes the mater into his own hands by discriminating the nationality and religion of an individual. The discrimination is an outright violation of the right to travel as well as religion (Rubenstein, David, and Pratheepan, 584). Trump, therefore, do not uphold the constitution but, violates it by depriving people of freedom of movement and religion despite originating from countries associated with terrorism.
We can do it today.
The prevention of Muslim from entering the United States is a desecration of equal protection right under the Fifth Amendment. The primary responsibility of the government is not to evict citizens or prohibit their entry into the United States. The travel ban is unconstitutional as it indicates that Trump has a desire to discriminate against Muslims. The executive order shows discrimination of religion which is not a facially valid groundwork for encumbering the rights of citizens as well as a violation of the constitution.
The order creates a religious bar which indicates that President Trump violates the U.S. obligations concerning individual cases of travel as documented in the international law and refugee convention on cruelty, inhuman or degradation of treatment and punishment. The travel ban, therefore, conflicts with the U.S. statutes that is concerned with refugee protection.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution states that the principle of equality forbids an official to disapprove a particular religion. The amendment is deeply woven into the constitution is of the view that all people deserve equal protection. The clause prohibits the government from making any law contrary by respecting the establishment of religion.
Trump seemingly violates the equal protection clause as his order signals disfavor of Muslim. Implementing a travel ban for the citizens of the seven countries is a violation of anti-animus principle as the order illustrates trump’s intentions on denigrating a particular religion in the United States. It is wrong to presume that a person is dangerous because of his or her religious background or nationality (McCarthy 356). Trump, therefore, violates the constitutional equal protection of individuals clause as engrained in the constitution as it taints with animus towards Islam.
The prevention of Muslims from entering the United States is against the constitutional because the country itself has Muslims citizens. The deportation and restrictions of entry of individuals from the listed countries erode civil liberties and indicate a methodical dependence on racial profiling and illicit confinements. The disrespect to basic constitutional rights is reflected by the ban of Muslim community from the country.
The subjection of the order shows that the American Muslims are illegal citizens or are segregated as an ethnic group. The motive creates a rhetorical manipulation, which indicates the denial of law by extension the equal protection of the law. The executive order exposes Trump exercising his authority which causes statutory problems and show impartiality while ruling the American people (Havercroft 5). The denial of entry into the state indicates a restraining order, which violates the immigration and nationalization act of the American constitution.
The travel ban violates religious freedom restoration act and administrative procedure act. Religiously, people are different but have the freedom to express their faith. Despite the highly rated statistics of the link of Muslims to terrorist attacks, it does not mean that all the Muslims pose a threat to the security and lives of Americans (Aziz 798). The residents express their Islam believes and participate in fighting domestic terrorism by signing up with security and defence departments.
The citizens signed are still Muslim and show patriotism and willingness to defending the national interests. As a result, Trump’s travel ban indicates that the religious restoration act is irrelevant. The ban shows that the Muslims from the seven listed countries are a threat without clearly indicating their relation to terror groups (Aziz 798). Trump, therefore, violates the constitutional rights of such individuals as the ban inducts a negative perception of Muslim and the freedom of worship.
Refugees and travelers possess constitutional rights and implementing a travel ban sparks confusion among citizens and protests in various locations. The travel ban is complicated, but the constitution permits the president to execute an order (Christenson and Douglas 488). Every executive order is subjected to a judicial review, and if it opposes the constitution, it is overturned.
The president has the eligibility to permit and put out an executive order if it is concerned with war, policy changes or extreme emergencies. However, for Donald Trump, the order comes at a time when there is peace and limited security threat. The order shows Trump’s inability to exercise power conferred upon him by the constitution (Christenson and Douglas 488). As a result, the executive ban shows the possibility of Trump’s violating his powers hence a violation of the constitutional amendments. The order has to do with terrorist activities but, restricting travel for certain individuals based on their nationality and religion is a violation of the constitution.
The United States Constitution permits president Trump to use the powers of appointing members of the cabinet and using the individuals to implement foreign policies. The President is expected to ensure that the welfare of the country comes first (Barrow 712). The president’s is policy is detrimental to the interests of the United States when it comes to the entry of any aliens of any class to the country.
He has the powers to impose restrictions on all the aliens of different classes be it immigrants or non-immigrants as he may deem appropriate. In the case of Donald Trump’s executive order, the restrictions focus on one group. Trump order aims at restricting Muslims from the seven countries from entering the United States, which shows his hatred towards the individuals (Barrow 712). The ban violates the constitution as the executed order has not gone through a foreign policy review by the members of the judiciary because Trump said he would implement the order during his campaign.
The travel ban, which is an executive order by Donald Trump, obtained a title known as “Muslim Ban.” Historically, immigrants founded the United States, and due to the fact that its establishment was made possible by the immigrants, there should be a fight for the rights of citizens of the dominantly Muslim countries (Christenson and Douglas 472). The United States, therefore, show a bad image as it creates a legal fiasco, social miasma, and economic downturn. The obsession with terrorism and the main threat coming from Muslim does not mean that shutting the flow solves the problem.
We can do it today.
The policy was not formulated based on animus toward Muslim, again under the equal protection clause, every religious gathering ought to want to ensure and take after the constitution values. The policy pronounces that the United States cannot and ought not oversee to people who do not bolster the constitution (Christenson and Douglas 472). The travel ban demonstrates a total and complete move to shut out Muslim, which is an infringement of the established since there is no obvious reason that Muslims pose a security risk or any danger to the welfare of the U.S.
Muslims may be refugees, green card holders, citizens, visa holders, or non-citizens who ought not be denied to hone and appreciate the equal protection of laws. The equal protection clause does not preclude any individual inside its jurisdictions and ensuring non-citizens are safe is as yet an objective of the national government (Barrow 693). The denial of entry or disproval of a group because of race, ethnicity, religion or nationality is a violation of the equal protection clause.
The provision expresses that the legislature and its specialists should ensure equality among people. The level of the prohibition demonstrates segregation while upholding the lawful aspects. The policy breaches the constitutional amendment as it demonstrates that the move by President Trump is whole and outright (Lileks 41). Banning people of certain religion from entering the U.S is a violation of religious liberty and discrimination of the equal protection clause.
Trump’s order violates the two sources of religious protection and the establishment clause of the first amendment and the statute passed by the Congress known as Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The clause prohibits the formulation of policies that seem to favour one religion over another. The government should not prefer one religion to the other and discriminate the others (Crocker and Michael 26).
Seemingly, Trump expresses the order as neutral and strains to avoid mentioning the religion, which is indicated clearly. Trump mentioned that Christian from Syrian should receive special treatment (Crocker and Michael 26). Despite the specifics of the said special treatments not being clear, Trump’s response illustrates that he violated the Establishment Clause and both his policy and statement indicates religious favoritism, which is against the law.
The protection of religion, equal protection and due process of practicing the religion emerge as a central and fundamental principle violated by President Donald Trump. Under the First Amendment, it is stated that there should be no laws, which discriminate a religion or prohibit the freedom of worship. The 14th Amendment additionally commands the government on not execute orders or enforce laws that deny a person equal protection of the laws (Heidi and Today USA 8). The Fifth Amendment, on the other hand, indicates that an individual has protection by virtue of rights without sufficient process and even denial of some fundamental process no matter the process.
The Trump’s order intentionally targets Muslims, which is a portrayal of unequal hand in the execution of the constitution. The travel ban tends to discriminate the impartial law of equal protection because of its target of the Muslims (Heidi and Today USA 8). The government, therefore, fails to consider the sects of Islam for a claim of religious-based persecution, which is a violation of the constitutional amendments.
The president acts as an executive branch and therefore has to consult the leaders prior to passing an order (Havercroft 7). The idea of travel ban started during the campaign period and showed that Trump declined to involve congressional leaders before executing an order. The leaders remained in the dark about the order which truly violates the American constitutional amendments.
Rather, an individual from Trump’s administration contacted members of the congress without passing by the leader of the ruling party. The consenting to of a nondisclosure arrangement and implementing the travel ban policy demonstrates non-compliance with the correct procedure (Havercroft 7). The failure to pass the policy through the members of the congress is against the law, and this demonstrates that it breaches the constructional amendments.
According to the constitution, an executive order should be taken to the office of the administration and budget committee for assessment. The head of administration and budget committee sends the order to the relevant agencies, the state division, homeland security and the department of justice for remarks (Havercroft 10). The remarks are sent back in report frame to the president. The inclusion of the agencies is on the grounds that they are the one that in the long run implements the policy.
The agencies include workers and specialists in their field to guarantee the viability and authenticity of execution. There is no confirmation that President Donald Trump followed the procedure to demonstrate the subtle elements of the policy. Thus, Donald Trump’s travel ban implementation breaches standard procedure for set for executive orders (Havercroft 10). The procedure is lawfully required for an executive order, and for this situation, Donald Trump is actually disregarding the constitutional amendments.
The presence of an executive order calls for the input from the legal counsel. The legal counsel is expected to investigate and assesses the legal issues surrounding the order. The travel ban order segregates the equal protection clause for reasons mentioned earlier. Again, its implementation process violated the lawfully accepted procedure (Crocker and Michael, 34). The discrimination based on the religion boundaries shows injustice and a narrow sense of the said order.
Trump failed to follow the lawful guidelines while effecting and implementing the order. Trump actualized the order quickly within a short period for the relevant agencies, for example, customs and Border protection to be prepared for the ensuing tasks. The chaos witnessed when boarding flights shows that the order was illegal, as such an order must be approved by the Congress (Crocker and Michael, 34). Trump, therefore, violated the constitutional amendments concerning immigration as the policy does not comply with lawful judicial actions of executing an order.
In conclusion, the United States Constitution gives a right to travel which however has relative standards of equal protection to non-residents as well as residents. The travel ban policy does not comply with the constitution thus, violates it by depriving from people the freedom of travel and discrimination based on religion on the grounds that Muslims originate from terrorism prone countries. The deportation and restrictions of entry of individuals from the listed countries erode civil liberties and indicate a methodical dependence on racial profiling and illicit confinements. The travel ban violates religious freedom restoration act and administrative procedure act. Trump’s order violates the two sources of religious protection, the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the statue passed by the Congress known as Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The denial of entry or disproval of a group because of race, ethnicity, religion or nationality is a violation of the equal protection clause. The order shows Trump’s inability to lawfully exercise power conferred upon him by the constitution. As a result, the executive ban shows misuse of power by President Trump. Again, it is clear that he violated the constitutional amendments.
- Aziz, Sahar F. “A Muslim Registry: The Precursor to Internment?” Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 4 2017, pp. 779-838.
- Barrow, Jennifer Lee. “Trump’s Travel Ban: Lawful but Ill-Advised.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 41, no. 2, 2018, pp. 691-717.
- Christenson, Dino P., and Douglas L. Kriner. “The Specter of Supreme Court Criticism: Public Opinion and Unilateral Action.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 47 no. 3, 2017, pp. 471-94.
- Crocker, Thomas P., and Michael P. Hodges. “Constitutions, Rule Following, and The Crisis of Constraint.” Legal Theory, vo. 24 no. 1, 2018, pp. 3-39.
- Havercroft, Jonathan. “Editorial: Donald Trump as Global Constitutional Breaching Experiment.” Global Constitutionalism, vol. 7 no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-13.
- Heidi, M., Przybyla and TODAY USA. “Trump’s Foreign Deals Risk Constitutional Clash.” USA Today, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=J0E252274566316&site=ehost-live
- Lileks, James. “Executive Disorder.” National Review, vol. 69, no. 3, 2017, pp. 41.
- McCarthy, Michael. “Appeal Court Upholds Stay on Trump’s Travel Ban.” British Medical Journal (Online), pp. 356.
- Rubenstein, David S., and Pratheepan Gulasekaram. “Immigration Exceptionalism.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 111 no. 3, 2017, pp. 583-654.