The last couple months have, and continue to be, hot spots for political discussion. A topic of current interest divides the country more than ever: President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. The order calls into question a plethora of legal and ethical questions and has sparked protests worldwide. Despite the outrage, Trump’s executive order “is a matter of national security.”

The executive order suspends refugee resettlement into the U.S. for four months, including Syrian re-entry, indefinitely. Additionally, there is a three-month suspension on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen—who currently hold immigrant and nonimmigrant visas.
Trump believes the nation requires immigration reform, and allegedly enacted the suspension until his national security team can improve the vetting procedure.

Initially, the executive order included current visa holders or “green card” residents, but has since been revised by Homeland Security. As written, the order allows current visa holders who choose to leave and re-enter the U.S. to do so. It also restricts the number of refugee resettlements from 110,000 to 50,000, meaning should the suspension be eventually lifted, fewer refugees will be allowed entrance.

But is it a “Muslim ban”? Not exactly; nowhere in the bill is the word “Muslim” mentioned, but Donald Trump’s own words strike a different meaning. Strictly read, the order suspends either U.S. refugee programs (the refugee resettlement program) or the seven countries listed. However, it does state that once refugee resettlement potentially begins again, the U.S. can prioritize members of persecuted religions “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” This has the speculated implication of defending Christians who are being persecuted in Syria, and can also be read to discriminate against Muslims because the ban is in effect in Muslim-majority countries.

Doesn’t this make the suspension seem like a simple way to discriminate? Trump’s administration settled on these seven countries already targeted for extra scrutiny that weren’t allowed to receive visa waivers to visit the U.S. This list was part of legislation that was passed by Congress and ultimately signed by former President Barrack Obama, though the bill was far less strict.

Additionally, the Trump administration has argued that the former president had passed a similar suspension in 2011 when he prohibited Iraqi nationals from entering the U.S. for six months. This enactment was slightly different, however, as it was tied to a specific potential terrorist threat when refugees in Kentucky had been tied to a detonation device, leading to a strengthening of vetting policy.

It has grown clear that immigration has become a growing concern for many Americans. In addition to being reflected most-prominently in the media and news, this year’s Super Bowl featured several immigration-based commercials, the most controversial of which being 84 Lumber’s advertisement.

The complete advertisement, which was barred from television by FOX Sports for being “too controversial” features a mother and daughter’s “symbolic journey toward becoming legal American citizens.” A brilliant form of advertisement, the commercial is very ambiguous. On television, only half the story was told, which shows a mother and daughter hitching rides and hiking all the way to the U.S. border, the daughter all the while collecting scraps of cloth. At the end, the ad shows a link to the complete ending, which crushed Google’s search engine and 84 Lumber’s servers under the weight of curiosity.

When the ending is revealed, the full message becomes clear. The mother and daughter make it to the border to find a wall in their path. The daughter shows her scraps of cloth, which she has made into an American flag. All hope seems lost until they find a door built into the wall. They walk through, and the commercial ends with a statement: “the will to succeed is always welcome here.”

The commercial provides an example of the ideal immigration process. Creating a pathway to legal, safe, well-vetted citizenship is the answer, and hard-working, passionate immigrants, coupled with their will to succeed, should be able to gain entry. Immigration is a wonderful part of American culture, but the welfare of the nation is an important factor to consider. With the implication of a competent vetting process and a pathway paved for legal citizenship, Americans can find a bipartisan solution to the immigration debate.