Opinion: With Trump travel ban, is it better to err on the side of safety? | SierraSun.com

Opinion: With Trump travel ban, is it better to err on the side of safety?

Is safety an important issue? Is terrorism a thing of the past? Most people remember November 2016; there was a terrorist attack at Ohio State University. A young man drove a rented car into a group of students on campus, then he started attacking students with a knife and a total of 13 were injured (12 students and one professor).

According to Wikipedia, that young man, Abdul Artan, was a Somali refugee who came into our country in 2014. Since Somalia is one of the 7 countries President Obama identified as lacking the intelligence to adequately vet their people, why didn’t he initiate a travel ban? It could have prevented the attack.

Are people concerned about appearing racist or xenophobic, or are they concerned about safety? Have we already forgotten 9/11, Boston, Orlando, San Bernadino and the other terrorist attacks?

I understand that initially there were glitches in President Trump’s executive order for a temporary travel ban — it didn’t exempt green card holders and others who were preapproved. That was unfortunate, and I feel bad due to the fact it was a big inconvenience to those travelers.

Thereafter, the temporary ban was blocked by a Federal Judge and on appeal, the State Appeals Court also blocked it. Unfortunately, the State Appeals Court was looking at the original order, not the revised one exempting green card holders and others who were preapproved. Trump is planning a new temporary travel ban, which at the time of this writing, has not yet been announced.

So is it better to let people come in from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, knowing that the refugees haven’t been adequately vetted, with the understanding that terrorist attacks may occur? Or is it better to err on the side of safety?

Yolanda Knaak

Incline Village