Controversy and protests began immediately as Donald Trump was appointed president elect. Why was this? People were scared. Scared of the changes and things he claimed he would do as President of The United States. On January 29, 2017 President Donald Trump, just days after his inauguration, implemented a controversial executive order; his travel ban disallows “refugees, migrants, and foreign nationals from 7 different countries.” After a variety of news stations released articles about the executive order, a wide range of confusion and conflict regarding what is and isn’t true about the ban has emerged.
The Unites States of America centers itself on its core values, one of which is calling ourselves the land of the free; however, how can we claim that we are the land of the free if we aren’t allowing people to be a part of that freedom? In the Washington Post article, two different senior administration officials from The White House attempt to defend the travel ban after an incredible amount of backlash was received as soon as it was announced. The two senior officials who are quoted in the article work for The White House and therefore are biased towards leaning on President Trumps side, regardless of their actual convictions. In addition, both men disallow their names to be mentioned; there lack of ability to disclose who they are adds to the dis-credibility of what they are saying. On the other hand, the writer of the article, Jenna Johnson, names herself, proving that she is willing to take accountability for anything she writes in this news piece.
The article quotes at least two men for the travel ban and at least two men against it; although this may seem adequate for getting across a fair claim, I would have gone further and attempted to hear an opinion from someone more personal who would directly be affected by the law and with that, someone who is not in politics but still has an opinion regarding it. In addition, the article spends a decent amount of time discussing green cards and how they would be affected from this bill; I would have preferred a greater amount of evidence regarding a variety of impacts that would occur from this travel ban.
The article provides defensive arguments from the government officials regarding the ban that appear to make sense; however, with almost every defense made, there is a reporter or political figure that either refutes their claim or makes a better argument.
Although many United States Citizens will feel safer as a result of Trump’s first, of I’m sure many, largely controversial executive order, it does not justify it according to this article. The article proved that even though the people representing trump and the travel ban attempted to provide enough reason as to why the ban was implemented, the facts from the other side shined a greater light of logic. Although the article gave facts from both sides, it appeared to be persuading the reader towards a desired opinion.