by James J. Zogby
The Supreme Court decision upholding the Trump Administration’s infamous “Muslim ban” will have consequences far beyond its restriction on visas for nationals from the affected countries.
Of the greatest concern is the validation it has given to the president’s virulent anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric. It was Trump’s inflammatory language against Muslims that caused lower courts to strike down his first iteration of the ban. Although the administration claimed to hold no anti-Muslim animus, the courts noted that during his campaign for the White House, Trump had said “I think Islam hates us…we can’t allow people coming into this country who have hatred of the United States.” And that he had called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
In an effort to deflect criticism and save face, the administration attempted a second and third version of the ban, adding Venezuela and North Korea to the list of banned countries and repackaging the effort as a national security “travel ban.” The Supreme Court upheld this third version.
In upholding Trump’s ban, the court recognized the president’s absolute right to “suspend entry of aliens into the United States,” regardless of whether or not his intention was to discriminate against Muslims. It is frightening to think of the consequences of handing such power to any president—especially this one.
The decision will also have a direct and hurtful impact on hundreds of thousands of recent immigrant Syrian, Yemeni, and Somali Americans in addition to others from the affected countries. They will no longer be able to have their families visit them. And if they are still Green Card holders, they will now be at risk of being denied reentry if they leave the US to visit their families abroad.
The ban and the decision to uphold it also make a mockery of national-security concerns. Although Trump has repeatedly claimed that this measure was designed to keep “dangerous people out of our country” there is no evidence that immigrants from the targeted countries have engaged in terrorist acts here in the US. And, as for the president’s oft-expressed concern of the dangers posed by refugees from these countries, saying that “we don’t know who these people are,” this ignores the rigorous 12-stage security vetting process already in place to screen them. In fact, we know more about refugees than we do about any other group of immigrants coming to the US.
Finally, coming on the heels of the Trump administration’s horrific behavior in separating refugee and asylum-seeking families and putting them in long-term detention camps without recourse to judicial review, this Supreme Court decision will only serve to embolden the White House to commit new outrages in the name of national security. Whether this is a “Muslim ban” or a “travel ban” is, on one level, irrelevant. What it is, in either case, is a cruel and arbitrary act motivated by bigotry.
Trump fueled his campaign with hostility toward selected groups of foreigners—Muslims, Mexicans, and other “people of color.” They were, he has said, an “infestation” that was threatening our culture and our society. His behavior since taking office and the individuals he has appointed to senior posts in his administration have only served to amplify this inflammatory stance.
The Supreme Court has now validated his behavior and from the supportive comments of some of his key supporters we can only expect more, not less, of this dangerous appeal to xenophobia. We can expect his base to be empowered, hate to increase, and targeted communities to live in fear and dread.
This may be what the president wants, but it’s not the country we want to leave to future generations.
A final thought: it is clear that Trump’s rhetoric and actions are political in intent. He is firing up his supporters in the hopes that they will insure continued Republican control of Congress. A GOP victory, he feels, will protect him from accountability and possible impeachment.
This is reason enough to consider that the 2018 mid-term elections may be the most important election in the recent history of our country. They present a challenge for both parties. Republicans who initially rejected Trump and saw him as a danger to their party and the country became cowards in the face of “Trump’s base.” They decided to swallow their pride and their principles and tagged along for the ride. They got what they wanted: tax cuts and deregulation, a conservative Supreme Court justice, and the gutting of Obamacare. All the while, they privately recoiled in horror at his inflammatory rhetoric and his courting of “hate groups” but did nothing to challenge him. As a result, they have become complicit in Trump’s corrupting abuse of presidential power.
Republicans can no longer be allowed to turn a blind eye to this president’s degrading of American political culture.
Democrats too must face down this challenge. They can no longer play “business as usual” by fielding comfortable candidates who hold on to the power and privilege of high office and once there do little or nothing to challenge the status quo.
This moment in our history and this election is too important. At stake is our very democracy.
James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.
That’s what happens when judges are appointed according to their political affiliations rather than their knowledge of the law.
We are at a desperate point in maintaining democracy in America. There is nothing automatic about it. There is no guarantee that democracy will survive. There has been a lot of criticism about Trump opponents using analogies with past dictators, but it is no exaggeration that the Trump supporters are like the people who allowed the Nazis to take power. Then, too, most people were passive and foolishly thought the excesses will be controlled. The truth is Trump and his crowd care nothing about democracy, rule of law, or decency. Is there anything they wouldn’t do?
No, John O., that’s the GOOD that happens when . . .
Good, let’s get rid of “democracy” and go back to being a Constitutional Republic as the Founders intended. Think about it: a democracy on works in very small populations of homogeneous people.
Must we still have a continuation of the tedious, almost theological discussion of whether the nation – not just its President – is turning ‘Fascist’? I’d settle for ‘authoritarian’ – if that were sufficient. It isn’t.The upper echelons of both major parties are apparently indifferent to this. Russian meddling in elections – which undobtedly occurred, and not just in the US – is a pinprick to the body politic compared with the recent grievous wounds inflicted by Trump and the Supreme Court.
I think Trump will do rather well in November. And 2020. Russians aren’t the only ones who can fiddle digitally gathered election results.
Comments are closed.