(Revised) Trump’s Immigration Ban 川普的移民禁令

There are total five paragraphs, including introduction, supporters, opponents, impact on international politics and impact on business. One paragraph in English and one in Chinese. The blog is a personal note to help me understand the issue better. Happy to discuss!


Introduction of Trump’s Immigration Ban

Trump signed the executive order (EO) to temporarily bar Syrian refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen from entering the U.S. Around 60,000 U.S. VISA holders were affected, and protests against the EO broke out in airports and cities in the States. Although some regions have judicial orders to temporarily block the EO and let people detained at airports enter the U.S., it is unclear whether Trump administration will enforce and expand the ban or not.



Supporters (slightly more than 50% Americans support the ban)

  • This is a security issue. Terrorist organizations are active and receiving funding and training in these countries. America should cut the connection between terrorist organizations in these countries and in the States to avoid terrorist attacks.
  • This is a temporary ban. It is good to pause for a while and have thorough investigation on the refugee program and screening process to improve national security.
  • This is not a Muslim ban. Only 8% Muslim in the world are affected by this EO, so there is no discrimination on religion.
  • American is prioritized. After we are sure that our beloved friends and families are safe, we can have compassion for refugees and support people in need. In addition, though most refugees are good people, only a few bad people can threaten Americans’ safety.
  • Bad execution on a good idea. There is a huge gap between the language Trump used and the words in the EO. We support the idea to improve security, but we also agree that the execution is poor, like the abrupt implementation without good communication in advance and random insulting comments on Muslim.
  • It is possible to expand. Trump administration mentioned the possibility to expand the list, and the States does feel the threats from other countries, including Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and so on.

支持方意見 (些微高於50%的美國人支持禁令)

  • 這是安全問題。恐怖組織長期在這七個國家境內接受訓練與取得資金援助,美國應切斷美國境內與這些國家境內的恐怖組織聯繫,避免恐怖攻擊。
  • 這是暫時禁令。暫時停止移民進入美國、徹底檢視難民計劃與檢驗流程,對提昇美國國家安全是有利的。
  • 這不是穆斯林禁令。全球僅有8%的穆斯林人口受到禁止,所以並不存在宗教歧視的問題。
  • 美國人優先。在我們確定親愛的家人與朋友都安全後,我們可以同情難民、協助有需要的人;雖然大量難民都是好人,但只要有一點壞人就會對美國造成巨大威脅。
  • 好點子、爛執行。川普的言論與禁令中使用的文字有巨大的落差。我們支持提昇國土安全的想法,但我們也同意執行得很差,像是突然執行而沒有事先溝通、隨機發表侮辱穆斯林的言論等。
  • 確實有可能擴張計劃。川普政府提到擴張禁令名單的可能性,而美國確實也感受到來自其他國家的威脅,包含俄國、沙烏地阿拉伯、巴基斯坦等國家。

Opponents (slightly less than 50% Americans oppose the ban)

  • This is an ethical issue. Improving the safety level of Americans by barring refugees to enter the States means that Americans are more important than refugees. Are we?
  • This is fear mongering of Islamophobia. Since 911, 13k people are killed by guns while only 9 people are killed by terrorists annually in the States. If we do not ban guns, why are we so terrified by Muslim? In addition, for the past 40 years, no one from these countries has killed any American in a terror attack in the States.
  • This cannot improve national security. For 911, all the terrorists were not from these countries. In addition, the ban might increase hate and help terrorist organizations recruit more people.
  • American values are in danger. Inclusiveness and humanity are the basic values in America, and without immigrants, we would have not been able to achieve so much in past centuries. In addition, America exports its culture to the world a lot, and the ban will increase the Islamophobia around the world without enough communication and fact-based analysis.
  • Trump has personal preference in the selection of countries. It is suspected that Trump avoids putting Muslim countries he personally invests in on the list (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.)

反對方意見 (些微低於50%的美國人反對禁令)

  • 這是道德問題。通過拒絕難民進入美國以提昇國家安全,代表美國人比難民更重要。我們有嗎?
  • 這是兜售穆斯林恐懼症。911之後,每年美國有3萬人死於槍枝槍擊事件、僅9個人死於恐怖攻擊。如果我們不禁止槍枝,為什麼要那麼害怕穆斯林?此外,在過去40年內,美國本土發生的恐怖攻擊事件中,完全沒有人是受到來自這七個國家的公民攻擊而死亡的。
  • 這無法提昇國家安全。911恐怖份子都來自其他中東國家,且這項禁令只會增加仇恨、協助恐怖組織招募更多成員。
  • 美國價值危機。包容與人道為美國基本價值。如果沒有移民,美國不可能在過去幾個世紀達成這樣的成就。此外,美國做為文化輸出大國,這樣的禁令會在其他事實與數據溝通不足的情況下,強化世界各國對於穆斯林與恐怖主義之間的聯想。
  • 川普在挑選國家時有私心。部分人懷疑川普有意避開個人有投資的中東國家,包含沙烏地阿拉伯、土耳其、埃及等

Impact on International Politics

  • Presidential elections in Europe: after several terrorist attacks in Europe, the ban might further strengthen the xenophobia and help far-right candidates gain more support in the upcoming presidential elections (e.g. France.)
  • Global ripple effect of Islamophobia: though several countries condemned the ban immediately, the ripple effect might be more serious than people expected. For example, a far-right Canadian killed 6 Muslims in an attack to a mosque in Quebec.
  • Other travel bans: since Trump’s immigration ban, Kuwait also announced a travel ban to bar citizens from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to enter Kuwait. It is possible to be a serious chain effect and increase the tension among the middle east and the western world.


  • 歐洲總統大選:歐洲自接受難民開始已發生多起恐怖攻擊事件,保護歐洲人的想法逐漸擴散,各國的總統大選中極右翼候選人的支持度持續提昇;在美國頒佈移民禁令後,可能強化歐洲人的排外情結。
  • 全球反穆斯林的漣漪效應:雖然數個國家都在第一時間譴責禁令,但不久就發生加拿大的清真寺遭到極右翼加拿大人攻擊導致六位穆斯林死亡的事件,故全球反穆斯林的漣漪效應可能會比預期強烈
  • 其他移民禁令:科威特於本週發佈移民禁令,禁止敘利亞、伊拉克、伊朗、巴基斯坦和阿富汗公民進入。未來不排除世界各國陸續發佈移民禁令的可能性,導致中東與西方世界的關係更加緊張。

Impact of Business

  • Uber: while the taxi companies supported the protest in New York, Uber announced to temporarily shut down surge pricing to avoid making profits from the protest. However, some people perceived it as a way to get more deals during the protest and started the #DeleteUber action. Soon after, Uber apologized for the confusion, and the CEO resigned from Trump’s advisory council. (Personal comment: once a company’s brand image is damaged, it would be criticized more easily than other companies. In addition, resignation from Trump’s advisory council means losing the power to help the president make right choices. I am not sure if it is a good move for people who want to make a good impact.)
  • Tech companies: As the industry hiring the most immigrants, the tech industry has an active role in the protest, and big techs like Facebook, Google and Airbnb all condemned the ban and supported immigrants in public.
  • Starbucks: since the ban, Starbucks announced to hire 10k more refugees internationally in next 5 years. While some republicans boycotted Starbucks, there is no evidence that this has a notable impact on its revenue.


  • Uber:當紐約計程車公司以行動支持抗議時,Uber宣佈暫時關閉浮動價格機制以避免賺災難財。然而,有些人將此舉動視為Uber爭取訂單的手段,故發起刪除Uber的行動(#DeleteUber)。不久之後,Uber為造成混淆道歉,且CEO也從川普的顧問團隊辭職。(個人意見:當一家公司的品牌形象受損之後,無論做什麼都很容易被罵。此外,從川普的顧問團隊辭職就代表失去幫助總統做正確決定的機會,我不確定這對希望產生正面影響力的人而言,是否是正確的選擇。)
  • 科技公司:一向為移民的主要就業產業的科技業,在這次抗議中扮演相當積極的角色,例如Facebook, Google, Airbnb等都陸續發表聲明譴責禁令、支持難民
  • Starbucks:宣佈將於未來五年在世界各地增加招募難民的計劃,當然公佈後支持、抵制的聲浪都有

Source 資料來源


1 Comment

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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