Over the past several weeks dozens of terrorist attacks occurred throughout the United States. While they occurred in many places, each one involved a suicide bomber who wore a burqa. With thousands of people injured and/or killed, local law enforcement and intelligence agencies started an investigation. The agency found that all suicide bombers were non-citizens of the United States, and were originally from Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Canada. Section 1 of the new PROTECT-US Act 2017 states that any person from Syria or Saudi Arabia is prohibited from entering the United States unless the President personally approves of their entry in writing. This should be deemed constitutional based on the action of President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter,
…show more content…
This should be ruled constitutional because there were many cases historically in the U.S. that supported the banning of burqas or other historically, religiously, mandated clothing. In Michigan in 2009, a young woman who was a plaintiff in a court case, was required by the judge to remove the niqab so the face of the accuser could be seen. This case applies to life as well as the courtroom, because being able to see one’s face at all times can be very important for trials. In 2015, a young Muslim woman faced a trial in the case of EEOC vs. Abercrombie and Finch in regards to her head scarf. The case ruled in favor of Abercrombie and Finch in the end. The case itself was about a woman was not hired partly based on her clothing choice of wearing a head scarf. Abercrombie and Finch was unaware she wore it for religious reasons and she was not hired because it was in “bad taste” to the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abercrombie and Finch because the young woman never told them that it was part of a religious belief. Being able to see the face of fellow Americans and society members is a very crucial part of life. It allows for those they interact with to gain trust and hold each other accountable. In addition, in other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, it is expected that foreigners wear what is deemed to be appropriate for the local people. …show more content…
It states that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will locate all non-citizens from Syria and Saudi Arabia currently residing in the U.S. and indefinitely detain each alien in a secure facility. They would reside there until the President determines that they are of no risk to public safety. This section has a precedent in history. On February 19, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which forced all Japanese-Americans, regardless of loyalty or citizenship, to evacuate the West Coast. Ten internment camps were established across seven states. The Japanese people were held in the camps until deemed safe by investigators and then were released back into society. Some, however, were not considered safe and were kept in camps or put into jail after investigators found they had connections to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This is just one case where the U.S. has made it’s citizens safe by using internment camps. Using section three of the PROTECT-US Act would be no different than the action taken in 1942 act and it would help the intelligence agencies determine who is harmful to the United
This should be ruled constitutional because there were many cases historically in the U.S. that supported the banning of burqas or other historically, religiously, mandated clothing. In Michigan in 2009, a young woman who was a plaintiff in a court case, was required by the judge to remove the niqab so the face of the accuser could be seen. This case applies to life as well as the courtroom, because being able to see one’s face at all times can be very important for trials. In 2015, a young Muslim woman faced a trial in the case of EEOC vs. Abercrombie and Finch in regards to her head scarf. The case ruled in favor of Abercrombie and Finch in the end. The case itself was about a woman was not hired partly based on her clothing choice of wearing a head scarf. Abercrombie and Finch was unaware she wore it for religious reasons and she was not hired because it was in “bad taste” to the company. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abercrombie and Finch because the young woman never told them that it was part of a religious belief. Being able to see the face of fellow Americans and society members is a very crucial part of life. It allows for those they interact with to gain trust and hold each other accountable. In addition, in other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, it is expected that foreigners wear what is deemed to be appropriate for the local people. …show more content…
It states that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will locate all non-citizens from Syria and Saudi Arabia currently residing in the U.S. and indefinitely detain each alien in a secure facility. They would reside there until the President determines that they are of no risk to public safety. This section has a precedent in history. On February 19, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which forced all Japanese-Americans, regardless of loyalty or citizenship, to evacuate the West Coast. Ten internment camps were established across seven states. The Japanese people were held in the camps until deemed safe by investigators and then were released back into society. Some, however, were not considered safe and were kept in camps or put into jail after investigators found they had connections to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This is just one case where the U.S. has made it’s citizens safe by using internment camps. Using section three of the PROTECT-US Act would be no different than the action taken in 1942 act and it would help the intelligence agencies determine who is harmful to the United