NOW AS WELL AS THEN - Refugees, immigration and the ban

IT may not be popular to admit this, but most of the people of the USA are, or are descended from refugees.

 

They were either fleeing from religious persecution like the Pilgrim Fathers or hunger, an equally vicious foe. The African American was an unwilling immigrant and the genocidally attacked Native American was the only genuinely American of the group. Even early African explorers were immigrants. However, the US likes to refer to itself as a nation of immigrants. To wit, Donald Trump’s grandfather was a refugee/immigrant seeking a living in the USA.

 

This brings us to the most controversial of President Trump’s tweets turned into executive orders – the ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries. He made a campaign promise to ban Muslims and he set about to do it in the manner he thought Obama and Iraq should have conducted the attack on Mosul – in total surprise. As the White House explained it, it was necessary to make the ban immediate so that some hundreds could not sneak in before the ban came into effect. This meant, as Sean Spicer, the Press Secretary explained, only letting those who had to know, know.

 

This meant not letting Homeland Security, Defence or the State Department become involved in the drafting of the tweet turned executive order. However, it was possible to ask Rudy Giuliani how to phrase the order in a manner not to have it seen as an effort to ban Muslims. Giuliani suggested that one should target countries rather than religion.

 

The White House therefore took seven countries that Obama had deemed unsafe for Americans to visit and for Europeans who had visited those countries to be specially vetted and not granted an immediate visa exemption. Obama was not out to ban Muslims. The message was then that this was to avoid any attack on US soil. Oddly the seven countries involved – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya – have never been involved in any attack on US soil. Of the forty-plus countries ignored were Saudi Arabia, from which nine of the 15 9/11 attackers came, Egypt, the UAE or Azerbaijan inter alia. No satisfactory answer for these omissions have emerged other than that the seven were a beginning. Clearly Saudi Arabia and Egypt are US allies and President Trump has already spoken to the leaders of these two countries. But is it not also possible that the issue here is that Trump investments in the three countries mentioned preclude his banning anyone from these nations? Turkey would in that case also be exempt.

 

The executive order has caused an uproar both in the USA and abroad, most spectacularly in the UK, where some 25 000 persons demonstrated against the order and where 1.5 million signatures have been compiled seeking to prevent Trump from  making an official visit to London. This means that the British Parliament has to revisit the invitation. (Oh that we had a mechanism like that here in Barbados!) The White House has suggested that all the order has done is to inconvenience some 109 persons at US airports, where there have also been popular protests both by human rights lawyers as well as by ordinary Americans.

 

The argument is that the order is unconstitutional. It is offensive to Article 1 of the Constitution, which disallows favouring one group over another and also it discriminates on the basis of religion.

 

The White House insists that the order is not a Muslim ban. It does not specifically mention Muslims. However, the order excludes those of minority religions, meaning in this case Christians and Jews – I wonder if the Yazidi would be included. It is clear that in predominantly Muslim countries the majority religion against which the ban is targeted is Islam. Given the conversation with Giuliani as well, the White House argument falls flat on its face. A series of lawsuits have already been filed. One judgement from a New York court to impose a temporary halt to the ban has so far been ignored and cases like a five-year old boy was stuck in an airport for several hours while his parents waited outside, and immigration officials declined to give the names of those refused entry to lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf. One interpreter who had worked with the US troops in Iraq for years and had undergone vetting for 30 months was en route to the USA. He and his wife had sold their house and given up their jobs before taking off with their legal permits for the USA. On arrival in Egypt, they were prevented from continuing their journey and deported to Iraq.

 

The Trump White House considers all of this acceptable collateral damage. The problem here is that the order has created a new platform for the so-called Islamic State who have already taken to social media. It creates serious doubt among people who have for years worked with the US. It also creates potential danger for US soldiers in battle zones in Iraq and Syria. How will locals fighting or working with them consider US personnel? 

 

The local fallout is also daunting. A Texas mosque was burnt to the ground. In Quebec, in what Prime Minister Trudeau calls a terrorist act, an attack on a mosque there left six dead and eight wounded. Anti-Muslim attacks have increased since the Trump campaign began. How much worse will it get?