The Fine Line between Protection of National Security and Unjust Profiling

By Jonathan Schnaars

This case that will be resumed before the Supreme Court of the United States during its October Term in 2017 has been headline news since the beginning. President Trump executed this Executive Order to which he wished to protect the Nation from foreign terror. The restrictions this Executive Order enacted pertained to the countries Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. This is a nation-wide ban into the United States for 90 days while other policies are discussed.

The lower courts rejected the Executive Order and petitioners were granted a preliminary injunction of the lower court’s decision the Order was invalid, and therefore the case was stayed until the next term. Trump and his backers argue that this Order is necessary to prevent entry of foreign terrorists that may bring harm to the national security of the United States. Trump further states that this list came from President Obama’s list of countries that he believed should have a higher scrutiny. Respondents argued that this order would violate the First Amendment because of the implicit animus toward Islamic countries. Further, they argue the Order does not comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In my opinion, I think that the outcome for this Executive Order should be that it be denied. I do however believe that the Government and President Trump can continue their research and work towards implementing simply a stricter policy towards foreign immigrants. It is not right to single out a religion when doing so would be an over and under-inclusive ban. What I mean by this is that not every person from these countries that follows Islam threatens our national security, and there are many people that would threaten our national security that are not even remotely involved with the Islamic religion.

I understand the stance that national security should be one of the forefront issues we need to resolve, however there must be better ways to go about doing this. Limiting the chance that a foreign immigrant, that wishes to do evil to our country, is what we should be trying to achieve, not trying to ban a whole religion from our country. This is the land of opportunity and those nations in the ban are subject to persecution already. Simply denying them the chance to escape and possibly immigrate the right way should be allowed; otherwise it is as though we are signing off on their death sentence. Like members of the Supreme Court have stated, this term will be extremely monumental as far as possible changes to our laws, and I hope when this issue comes to the forefront there will be the “meeting of the minds” of our great country and we will develop a plan that upholds national security but does not show blatant animus towards a certain group of people.

I see what the Supreme Court did however, as they granted the injunction which would allow the Executive Order to run out (90 days) and they may rule on what to do next. From the actions of the Supreme Court I believe it to be leaning more towards accepting such a ban, however, there will be a discussion and we will have our answer soon enough.


Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s