"Muslim Ban" Causes Controversy
Global tempers flared over the “Muslim ban” after President Trump signed an executive order concerning immigration on Jan. 27 that prevents citizens of seven different Muslim-majority countries from gaining entry into the United States for 90 days following the order.
Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen have been named as the seven countries referenced to in the executive order.
Protests also took place inside airports across America where many travelers from the seven countries named were prevented from entering the US after the executive order went into effect, despite some having received visas.
London, Newcastle, Leeds and Edinburgh each had thousands of people come out to publicly protest the executive order. People walked the streets holding signs that expressed their views on President Trump and asking British Prime Minister Theresa May to cancel President Trump’s state visit according to The Sun.
The Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif took to social media on to comment on the executive order. He said that the “Muslim ban” would benefit extremists and their supporters by “deepening fault-lines exploited by extremist demagogues.”
Part of the executive order is a 120 day suspension on the Refugee Admissions Program. When resumed the number of refugees accepted into the country will be capped at 50,000 for 2017’s fiscal year.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also used social media to make a statement. He welcomed anyone “fleeing persecution, terror & war.”
“Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith,” said Trudeau.
President Trump released a statement explaining that temporarily suspending travel from these countries is not related to religion, but to keeping the United States safe from terror.
“We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” said Trump.
On Feb. 7 three federal judges will rule if the ban is constitutional. Attorney Generals from two states put forward the legal arguements that the ban violates the first amendment.
