It is disgusting to read all of the objections to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban. There were politically staged marches, rallies and press releases from liberal notables who were sucked in by, or took advantage of this movement. The public has not been given a fair opportunity to hear the other side.

It seems that every story has two sides except when liberals go on a rampage. The Sun Journal tends to devote an excess of column inches and inflammatory headlines to the anti-Trump objectors.

Those who disagree with President Trump have given little thought to the possible consequences of this immigration ban not existing. Proper vetting of the immigrants from those countries needs to be established. It is likely that classified information on terrorists’ plans is in hand and cannot be revealed to the public.

The ban is only 120 days, not a lifetime. The ban does not apply to 87 percent of the world’s Muslim population, negating the cry that this is an anti-Muslim ban.

Would the liberals appreciate President Trump if he allows killing and destruction first, then the ban? Or would they prefer that the terror be prevented from ever happening, which is what we rarely hear about or appreciate?

The Democrats have been politically badly stung and the businessman (not a politician) president has not made friends with the media who are now “out to get him.”

The public should weigh those factors when considering the issues.

Thomas Shields, Auburn