Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional.

1. My opponent concedes that Former President Obama included those 7 countries because they were of concern, which in turn, proves that this is not a "Muslim" Ban, and therefore isn't unconstitutional. a) Obama took chances by allowing people from these terror plagued countries to come here in the first place. Instead of potentially risking American lives, which the President has an obligation to protect, Trump put a temporary ban on people coming from those countries regardless of who they are. The Paris and Nice terrorist attacks were committed by terrorists that were radicalized in Syria. Not to mention that Salah Abdesalam, the Paris attack mastermind was a Belgian national. [1] Unless we want the terrorist attacks that have occurred in Europe to happen here because of open borders like Obama and other liberals propose, I suggest, like Trump, we stop all immigration, until we know a safe way to vet the people. b) These countries have been the most exposed to terrorism. I will explain why with regards to each individual country 1. ) Somalia- This nation has been chaotic ever since its independence. If you have ever seen the movie Blackhawk Down, you could see the chaos. After the Battle of Mogadishu where 18 Americans lost their life, America pulled all troops out of the war-torn nation. [2] Now, the terrorist organization of Al-Shabaab rules this territory, not to mention countless pirates in the Horn of Africa. [3] We don't want these people here. 2. ) Libya- As you may know, Hillary Clinton was the one who destabilized Libya after the assasination of dictator Muammer Gaddafi. Gaddafi, kept all the terrorist organizations in check because that's the defenition of dictators. This event eventually lead to ISIS to take over the power vacuum in Syria. [4] 3. ) Syria- As I'm sure everyone knows, ISIS has its stronghold in Syria in the city of Raqqa 4. ) Iraq- ISIS also holds major territory in Iraq. 5. ) Sudan- This nation is a State Sponser of Terrorism. Major terrorist organizations include Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, and Al- Shabaab. Even our federal govt recommends to not travel there, especially in Khartoum, the capital. [5] 6. ) Iran- Iran itself is a disaster for America. The Iran Deal was a disaster and not even a deal as it wasn't approved by Congress, not mention Iran is the worlds largest sponser of terrorism. [6] Along with this, thousands of Iranians chant "Death to America. " Do you really want these people coming here? [7] 7. ) Yemen- This nation who's govt. is controlled by Houthi Rebels that are funded and supported by Iran is extremely dangerous. AQAP, also known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operated in, along with countless other terrorists. These people wouldn't hesitate to kill us. Do you really want them here? 2. The temporary ban is perfectly legal as defined by the law I provided. It has nothing to do with religion. 3. My opponent only cites Indonesia as being beneficial to Trump. Extend India and Pakistan. My opponent suggests that Mr, Trump has some type of conflict of interest with Indonesia. Trump has renounced his ownership in his businesses and gave it to his children. [8] Not to mention there is also an ethics panel set up just in case Trump has a conflict of interest. Your own source says Ivanka's dresses are made in China and Vietnam. And how does a dress have anything to do with a ban? Ivanka could make the dresses in China and Vietnam. This argument is totally unrelated. 4. Extension of 7 countries a) My opponent seems to be using outdated information. A Somali Refugee, just recently, committed an attack at Ohio State University. There was also another terrorist attack at a Minnesota shopping mall and at the University of North Carolina. One was committed by an Iranian, and 2 by Somalis. [9] In short, my opponent uses outdated information. b) 40 years ago, there was hardly any conflict in the Middle East, and instead there was the Cold War. Again, my opponent uses outdated information. c) Again, we have only just started accepting refugees from Syria, and we have accepted very little. We can still stop the refugee population to prevent further damage. Why gamble with American lives? 5. I knew this argument would come up. Saudia Arabia is our largest ally in the fight against ISIS and has a strong stable govt. unlike the 7 countries. My opponent mentioned Al-Qaeda, but at this point, they are hardly a threat. After the death of Osama Bin Laden, they have virtually collapsed and some militants have joined with ISIS. AQAP is different. UAE is also a key ally in the region and one of the most rich along with Saudi Arabia. Their govt. is also stable. Egypt has a strong leader in President el-Sisi, who is also fighting ISIS along with us. Stable governments are incredibly important, as they have a functional military that can aid us and can fight back against terrorism within their own countries. We need allies within that region to help us combat ISIS 6. The law gives the President power to use that law when he needs it. He used it now via the executive order. My opponent concedes that the ban is constitutional by disregarding this. Good Luck! Sources: [1]. https://www.nytimes.com... [2]. http://www.npr.org... [3]. http://www.nbcnews.com... [4]. http://www.npr.org... [5]. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org... [6]. http://www.cnn.com... [7]. http://www.nbcnews.com... [8]. http://money.cnn.com... [9]. http://www.politifact.com...