On the Muslim ban: it’s not over
After the spectacular failure of Executive Order 13769: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, or more colloquially known as the “Muslim ban,” the Trump administration has decided to rethink some of its more blatantly racist methods.
Despite his viral “SEE YOU IN COURT” tweet, the President intends to keep the Muslim ban in place and out of the courts — for now. This backtracking is presumably due to the understanding that the executive order is legally flawed and cannot hold up against the Constitution. However, the administration aims to release another order in the coming week, building off the critiques given by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Immigration advocates now fear that a new order may be drafted that can withstand judicial scrutiny whilst maintaining the same discriminatory effects. This is due to the wide range of powers held by the executive office with matters relating to national security.
The original executive order, insidiously referred to as a “travel ban,” was signed into law January 27, 2017 denying entry to all nationals from seven Muslim-dominant countries and suspending the refugee resettlement program for 120 days. Syrian refugees were specifically singled out to be suspended indefinitely. All this, effective immediately.
Angry protests appeared spontaneously outside the arrival gates at many United States airports the following morning. Signs and chants of “no ban” and “not today” replaced happy reunions and hugs and welcomes. Family members waited anxiously and fearfully as they realized their loved ones would not arrive. Only 7 days into his presidency, Donald Trump had already thrust the country into a flurry of chaos and confusion. Finally, the horrifying vision of America he had promised was gradually being put into place.
The move, ill-advised and ill-informed, blocked entry to almost 1,000 individuals and revoked almost 100,000 visas in the name of national security. It was supposed to be a show of American strength against radical Islamic terrorism, a strategic move in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). But it was just the fulfillment of an incendiary campaign promise pandering to the worse fears of xenophobic America. In reality, it was a cruel law that separated families and unfairly targeted Muslims as suspicious aliens.
As news spread, lawyers flocked to airports to challenge detentions and scheduled deportations. The ban was immediately taken to court by various organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as individual states and cities. Washington State became the first to sue the administration, resulting in a stay issued by Judge James Robart, thus putting a hold on the enforcement of the contents of the ban. Oral arguments made by state attorneys and the Department of Justice were heard Tuesday, February 7th. After a day or so of deliberation, the Ninth Circuit upheld the stay on Trump’s inhumane Muslim Ban in a 29-page per curiam decision.
While the court’s opinion was indeed a victory, the fight is far from over.
The decision raised important questions about the necessity and constitutionality of the executive order, but it did not actually rule on whether or not the ban itself was unlawful or discriminatory. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to deny that the intent of the “travel ban” was to block Muslims, despite almost all the evidence points to the contrary. They have argued that the order is simply an enforcement of “extreme vetting” in the interests of U.S. national security. However, it is glaringly evident in the subsequent chaos that the order wasn’t properly vetted itself.
Trump’s original ban was not only intended to target refugees, visitors and other temporary visa-holders, but the language was so broad that it was also applied to permanent residents. The subsequent uproar forced officials to come out and declare changes to the parameters of the ban without any written amendments — this was a clear red flag to judges and attorneys, in that, the administration believed it could go above and beyond the law and make changes at any time with a simple spoken statement to the press. Allowing that would have set a dangerous precedent of power for the President.
But this was just one of many legal flaws of the executive order. Instead of directly addressing such issues, Trump has questioned the credibility and facility of the judicial system. His statements, blaming the courts if a terror attack were to happen on American soil, are dangerous and undermine the years of experience that appointed federal judges have in considering what is and isn’t constitutional. He has shown over and over again that he has no qualms in mistreating entire communities for the actions of a few individuals. The way he has framed these issues as though there are bad immigrants, bad refugees, bad Muslims and good ones is an insidious narrative in itself. It projects a subjective binary on people as though they do not deserve human rights on the basis of their humanity.
On the international arena, the ban on refugees especially is a violation of human rights law and specifically the Refugee Convention, one of the many international agreements that resulted from the genocide of Jews and other ethnic minorities during World War Two. The United States is one of 144 signatories to the Refugee Convention which maintains that countries must provide refugees with basic access to resources and almost the same rights as citizens.
Rejecting refugees at the border is inhumane but it’s also illegal.
Though nations may hide behind the argument of national sovereignty, it is a duty, especially for countries such as United States, on account of our wealth and our foreign intervention, to resettle refugees, and we should be held strictly accountable to those laws.
But the President has long shown a clear lack of compassion for refugees, and he ignores the fact that most refugees themselves are fleeing war and terror in their homelands. His targeting of Syrian refugees is especially troubling with regards to national security, that even the terrorist group ISIS labeled the executive order a “blessed ban.” For one who claims to be the one to defeat ISIS, he is doing wonders for their PR campaigns.
Now, more than ever, we should be vigilant of the various insidious methods being utilized by the executive government to overstep the individual rights of people, whether or not they are American. Refugees waiting years to come to the United States have been separated from their families at the borders, relegated to lives of poverty and in some extreme cases, become vulnerable to death. We need to stand up for populations fleeing war. We need to dispel the myths that conflate immigrants, Muslims, and refugees with terrorism and violence. We need to take action at the polls, in our town halls, and on our campuses.
Follow Syrian Refugee Awareness Week at NYU on Facebook or email us at NYU4refugees@gmail.com.
