Many Washington, D.C. residents and students interviewed in the days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parts of Donald Trump’s travel ban can remain intact, believed it would create a negative impact on the United States.
According to the ACLU, the revised travel ban forbids the residents of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States unless they fit certain criteria.
Trump issued his original travel ban on Jan. 27, which, after much debate, was eventually blocked. While the original travel ban was in effect, thousands protested the ban nationwide, especially in airports.
Even after the revisions, which allows people in special circumstances to be exempt from the ban, many citizens of the United States have strong emotions concerning the travel ban.
“America is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity and I very disagree with the travel ban. I don’t think that all Muslims are bad people, I have friends who are Muslims, I work with people who are Muslims, they are not all terrorists,” said April Spence, 34, of Woodbridge, Virginia.
Other arguments for why the revised travel ban will negatively affect the United States also included that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and so the citizens of the United States cannot discriminate against and ban people solely based on their religion.
Furthermore, people argued that people of most religions are part of terrorist groups and many Muslims are not part of a terrorist group. In fact, the FBI found that 94 percent of terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States from 1980 to 2005 were not by Muslims.
Everyone interviewed June 29 and June 30 in the Tenleytown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. and the American University campus believed that this travel ban was discriminatory, but one person was also in favor of the revised travel ban for security.
Often, the people in favor of the travel ban argued that terrorism does exist in the countries that fall under the ban. So, by banning residents from those countries inherently, they say, security will improve.
“I am sure that there is good reason to put it into place, and I’m sure there will be, as a side effect of the whole thing, a certain amount of discrimination that takes place, and that is unfortunate,” said Beth Cash, 54, of Cleveland, Ohio.
“But if that’s what needs to happen to keep us safe, then I think some of us are just going to have to live with that,” said Cash. According to a recent POLITICO/Morning poll, Beth Cash is one of many supporters of this revised travel ban, as the poll found that 60% of Americans support it.
Many people interviewed also believe that this travel ban will go beyond just damaging the United States domestically, but will also affect its international relations.
“I think it’s already had a very negative impact,” said David Sarokin, 65, of Washington, D.C. “The mere fact of even proposing a ban like that, based on religion and based on no good national security reason, has done a lot of damage to our reputation as a free and open country.”