Ban This
On the popular reactions to executive orders and the bigotry of soft expectations
To be blunt: President Trump’s executive order restricting immigration is a sop to suspicion and hatred of Islam in this country and undermines the already thin veneer of compassion for the war-torn world that is US refugee policy. Putting a halt to all arrivals from Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Sudan means slamming the door on people who have been on the wrong end of US sanctions, armed interventions, bombing campaigns, and weapons sales for decades.
The executive order stands to rip apart families, cause the departure of hundreds of students and professionals, spur further fear-mongering and bigotry inside the country, and even threaten the arrival of Iraqi translators who risked their lives to support US troops and diplomats during the protracted American occupation. (This is just another chapter in an ongoing and shameful saga.)
As many on the right bitterly claim in the face of protests, this order does not come from out of the blue; the aforementioned countries come straight from the combined efforts of bipartisan congressional action in 2015 and amendments by the Obama-era Department of Homeland Security in 2016 to limit visa access in a bid to mollify Americans’ security concerns. That List of Seven made for an easy mark, as the Trump administration can now claim they’re only sharing in pre-existing, bipartisan concerns over security threats posed by these countries.
The Obama administration itself only allowed in a meager trickle of Syrian refugees until 2015 and American history writ large is no stranger to xenophobic immigration bans.
Yet though the order may not be surprising and may have its roots in Obama-era policy, it is still an alarming development.
It sends a bleak and dark message to a region of the world that, for all that American foreign policy has done in years past, still thinks quite highly of the ideals and opportunities that the United States claims to represent. The protests that quickly sprang up in response are a clear sign that the shock-and-awe tactics of the Trump administration will not be taken lying down. Nor should they be.
On Saturday night in Boston, as the import of the order dawned on people, hundreds poured into Logan Airport’s Terminal E in an emergency protest organized by Movimiento Cosecha. They joined protest efforts around the country to back up lawyers and officials as they sought to extricate detained refugees from confused and reactionary Customs and Border Patrol officers.
In contrast to the raucous carnival atmosphere of the Women’s March at the Boston Common, the gathering in Copley Square on the following Sunday seethed with a darker energy of outrage and anxiety over what this executive order represents. Chants bounced back and forth across a packed square: “No ban, no wall” . . . “Refugees are welcome here” . . . “The people united will never be divided.” Fewer puns or attempts at humor on the signs this time —but plenty of Bible quotes, snippets from “The New Colossus,” good-faith attempts at Arabic by complete non-speakers.
As a Catholic, I recall that people of my faith were once the demonized “other” of America’s religious communities. As somebody also with Eastern European ancestors, I recall that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — which the Trump administration claims to be acting under — was passed in no small part to keep out immigrants from that corner of the world. And as an American, I strongly believe that the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty still make for a worthy ideal, no matter how far we fall short.
Beyond that, years of studying Arabic and the politics of the Middle East and North Africa mean that I’m personally connected in some way or another to nearly every country on the list. On Saturday, I wrote to extend my concerns and apologies to Iranian grad student friends whose future studies in this country now seem in doubt. I messaged an Iraqi author I’ve translated for who is now even less likely to make it to this country to talk about his work. I reached out to Syrian friends trapped between the war-ravaged site of carnage that is their homeland and their present, precarious existence in the involuntary diaspora abroad. I can picture dozens upon dozens of friends and colleagues who will be directly affected by this executive order.
The challenge then is figuring out how to make this issue personal for the people who seem to be okay with this executive order. Without that connection, too many Americans would probably opt to close off our borders to any number of Muslim-majority countries if it was sold as making us safer, and no amount of Bible verses will do much to change this.
Of course, the apologists are coming out of the woodwork, cautioning us to be patient, or exhorting us to be thankful that this measure falls short of the far darker phantom policies alluded to in the course of the Trump campaign. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell quickly proved as spineless as we might expect. David French at the National Review (somebody viciously harassed on social media for being a “Never Trump” conservative), while a touch more nuanced, decried the “hysteria” over “moderate restrictions” and “temporary provisions.”
Don’t fall for the bigotry of soft expectations.
The manner in which this order was issued betrays the intent behind the act.
This is what sneering commentators on the right fail to grasp while they mock protestors for doing nothing when Obama planned for similar restrictions.
Had the Trump administration wanted to convey a sense of “moderate, temporary measures,” they would have telegraphed the executive order far in advance, or at least coordinated privately with the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure semi-competent implementation.
I strongly believe that the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty still make for a worthy ideal, no matter how far we fall short.
Instead, Trump and company let rumors swirl for days before dropping the order on a Friday afternoon. Dozens if not hundreds of airline passengers had their entry visas revoked in mid-air, while many more — students, family, refugees, scholars — were abruptly barred from boarding flights. The White House and DHS gave conflicting accounts over whether green-card holders would be affected, despite the fact that barring legal permanent residents from entering the United States (no matter what country of origin) is flatly unconstitutional.
Border protection agents at LAX were still trying to deport people deep into Sunday afternoon, despite a federal court order.
All of this points to an administration either bent on deliberately sowing confusion, woefully incompetent at handling the machinery of government, or uninterested in the global ramifications of no longer even paying lip service to the “give us your tired and poor” part of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Possibly all three.
And temporary measures? The Trump administration has done precious little to give assurances on that score, instead spending the weekend shoving the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of the National Security Council (similar to W. Bush) and shuffling Steve Bannon in (not similar to W. Bush).
The executive order was never about whether restricting immigration from certain countries would actually make America a safer place to be. It is entirely about making Americans feel safer (and never mind that a decade and a half of ever-heightening security measures has helped little on this score).
Regardless, appeals on the basis that banning refugees “helps the terrorists win,” though well-intentioned and important, sidesteps the debate over what kind of country we want this to be.
At the extreme, I’ve seen and talked to a fair number of people who view any European efforts to welcome any refugees as a cautionary tale — keep out the Muslim hordes at all costs, since they’ve already started to dismantle Christendom/Western civilization. While I don’t hold out much hope for these folks, I believe that a significant number can be still be persuaded that American ideals should not be sold so cheaply.
For the interim, though, as decent people do their best to struggle for the soul of the country, there’s little for it but digging in, turning out when you can, and figuring out what kind of actions can truly effect change. Rallying behind lawyers as they argued with CBP officers succeeded in getting a few dozen freed from the jaws of bureaucracy (for now); Sunday’s demonstrations and rallies send the message that a sizable chunk of America will not condone tone-deaf orders barring entry on the basis of religion.
Give money where it goes to paying specialists who fight battles not everyone can (e.g. ACLU lawyers), or to building the sense of community that we will need in the years ahead. Beyond that, it’s up to you — there’s plenty of time before the mid-terms roll around to build the kind of network that will get you out the door when the next shoe drops.
Two final thoughts for everybody now feeling good about themselves:
First, for everybody newly engaged and excited about saving the Republic, remember that an awful lot of people have been fighting that battle without glamour or Facebook likes for an awfully long time. Respect them, speak to them, learn from them, even if you disagree.
Second, and on a related point, ask yourself the question every conservative on Facebook is going to lob at you: Would you have gone out to protest if a Clinton administration had tried something similar, albeit in a more organized fashion, dressed up in the language of “regrettable concessions for our national security” and carried out slowly, further down the line?
The first point is critical if we aim at inclusive solidarity. The second reminds us that “the bigotry of soft expectations” can all too easily apply to us and those we lionize politically as well.
Finally, here’s some crucial further reading on what’s going on from a range of sources and points of view.
- Benjamin Wittes, Lawfareblog: The order will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.
- What your senators and governors are up to: A rundown of who opposes, who supports, who is silent, and who went to the airport.
- Steve Vladek, Just Security: It’s useful to start the week with a brief recap of the work of the courts (and the lawyers) on Saturday and Sunday.
- Eliot Cohen, The Atlantic: About as neocon as you can get, even Cohen argues that Trump will do much more damage before he departs the scene, becoming the subject of horrified wonder in our grandchildren’s history books.
- New York Times, “Global Chaos”: The global confusion that has since erupted is the story of a White House that rushed to enact, with little regard for basic governing, a core campaign promise that Mr. Trump made to his most fervent supporters.
Andrew Leber is a Ph.D. student at Harvard University’s Department of Government. He’s based in Boston.
