"According to a review by the CATO Institute, the chances of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner in the US stands at about one in 3.6 million." Does that mean I am denying that terrorism exists and is a serious issue? Not at all.

The ban of Syrian refugees and a halt on the admission of people from Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya does not necessarily constitute a Muslim ban. However, when we take a deeper look we see that the Executive Order targets countries in which the majority of the population are Muslims. In addition to the fact that President Trump had previously pushed for a Muslim ban and stated that he would find ways to make it legal, in my personal opinion it doesn't seem too far-fetched to call it a Muslim ban.

Now in terms of wanting America to be safe. I simply fail to see how we are protected by the ban. And if it was a ban of countries "infiltrated" by terrorists, then why was Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt not included? When they account for a large majority of American deaths on US soil by foreigners. The objective of the order seems questionable due to the exclusion of some countries. Lastly not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslims. If the latter seems to be true then maybe we need to redefine terrorists or change its connotation with the Muslim people.

For the people stating the fact that the Obama administration did the same thing with Iraqi refugees. Well, in that case, there was a correlation and causation. The Act by Obama revised the Visa waiver program after evidence of two Iraqi refugees plotting an attack surfaced. A similar policy was adopted after 9/11 attack were refugee admissions were also suspended for further vetting. The difference between the three is that Trump's Executive order is not a response to a direct threat. It is a response to a future threat that may or may not exists, if we are only looking at the 7 countries on the list.

Do I want America to be safe? Yes but I simply fail to see how this "temporary freeze" makes us safe. My family moved here for " a better life." A lot of people do simply come here as it is the "land of opportunity" and to escape persecution and whatever else. These people are dying and we should just turn our backs on them? I am not naive enough to believe that the World is only full of good people nor to think everyone is evil. I want to think that we can at least agree on the fact that not all these refugees are bad, there may be a few bad people amongst the mix but the same apply to anything you do in life. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? or All lives matter?

If we say no to accepting refugees, then what are our alternatives? Should we have safe zones? And how would these safe zones be protected? By whom?

Would you not eat a turkey cheddar bacon sandwich because of the potential of choking yet eat all other sandwiches? Or even let's take the Skittles cyanide analogy for example. We are assuming that we are all skittles but that is not the case. It would be more like having a bowl mixed with skittles and M&M's. We take out the Skittles because some contain cyanide but are we forgetting that some of those M&M's contain cyanide as well. Did removing the Skittles really make us safe? To me, this statement seems to be the equivalent to the executive order. But at the end of the day, these people are human beings and not food.