New leadership often brings a new set of policies that seek to improve the conditions of the nation. One of the most recent controversies that arose from the policies under the Trump administration in our country is regarding the travel ban against Muslims with origins in certain nations, who supposedly present a threat to our national security. This policy reflects the increasingly outrageous hostility toward immigrants and foreigners present in the national atmosphere that makes me worry whether such policies may benefit us overall.
Even though, as of Feb. 4, the Department of Homeland Security suspended the implementation of the rather controversial immigration order, there is still a chance of further executive or lawmaking actions that could take place to enforce it. I think it would be wise for us to take a moment to consider the underlying intentions of these actions.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Jan. 27 to keep refugees from entering the country for 120 days and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations out for three months according to a CNN report Jan. 30.
What is more interesting is that while he signed the order to halt the flow of Muslim refugees and immigrants from entering the country, he stated that he may issue an exception to those who adhere to different religions. According to a Washington Post article Jan. 30, he plans to prioritize persecuted Christians in the Middle East for admission as refugees.
It is an undeniable truth that many Christian minorities in regions conquered by ISIS’ influence are highly persecuted. Although Christians are still allowed to inhabit the region, they are charged extra tax than Muslims unless they convert to Islam. We have seen other instances, such as the massacre of 88 Eritrean Christians in Libya in 2015, where Christians have been victimized as a result for religious, cultural, political or social differences. That being said, Christians are far from the only group that has been victimized. The US government has previously recognized that a huge variety of groups have been persecuted by ISIS, not only Christians—showing that no one group should be given priority when it comes to aid and refugee admissions.
Another important issue persists: The list of countries enumerated in the travel ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorists originated from: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon. As a result, the claim that this executive order is a protective measure loses its legitimacy. Maybe some revisions or additional explanations could be added to further assuage doubts, but this trend of confusion about the issue doesn’t end there.
There seems to be little regard for the Constitution in this controversial action. The president does have the ability on short notice to suspend visas if it’s an emergency in the case of Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
However, the First Amendment also states that Congress and the president are not allowed to favor one religion over another. This action, in the name of national security, also threatens the rule of law established by the Constitution.
The administration needs to consider more carefully the the law of the land to come up with a solution that is in everyone’s best interests.
What I find the most contradictory about this policy is that we are marking a group of people as potential criminals for their ethnic origins or religious beliefs, which is what ISIS itself does in persecuting their own enemies (albeit in a much more extreme manner). And we could in fact be helping ISIS to reach their goal of convincing Muslims worldwide that the U.S. is their enemy.
And what’s even more troubling is that we may repeat shameful mistakes from the past. The U.S. is a country founded on differences, where people come for the chance to cherish their heritages and resources that in turn lead to a profound enhancement of the nation. ISIS and its political organization is based on the fundamentalist doctrine that upholds belief in strict and literal interpretation of certain parts of the scripture to justify the killing of innocent and others. The reason why many nations worldwide have ceased allowing religion to meddle in governance is that it sometimes destroys the diversity that could have otherwise contributed to better society.
Intolerance toward those who don’t fit in to the majority in situations such as these has shown to be dangerous. The Salem Witch Trials, the Jim Crow laws, the Crusades, the Japanese internment camps, ethnic genocides around the world and myriad other examples of persecution all result from following ideas that ignore the benefits of acceptance and diversity.
I understand we need strong security, but I am curious as to whether it would be a good idea to make a decision without considering all the possible scenarios that could ensue, especially when so many people’s lives are likely to change.
Am I asking too much if I say that we should all take some time to think carefully in order to forge a real solution that doesn’t discriminate against large groups of humans? Let’s solve the problem by considering all problems and benefits of the situation, for the good of us all.
Hae Rin is a junior majoring in history. What are your thoughts on the travel ban? Do you think it plays into ISIS’ overall strategy? Please send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
