Fear, in one form or the other, has been a major characteristic of American society. Fear largely helps the powers that be command the ‘bewildered herd’ — to borrow Walter Lippmann’s term. Immigration and xenophobia have crossed paths several times in American history.
In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by president Chester A. Arthur. This act banned the immigration of Chinese labour into the United States for ten years. The ban was revised for another ten years in 1892. In 1902, it became permanent.
The law was repealed in 1943 by the Magnuson Act. China also became a US ally against imperial Japan. President Roosevelt, less than a year earlier, had issued Executive Order 9066, which allowed for the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans. The threat of a Japanese invasion was looming, which created suspicion that the Japanese living in the West coast would aid the invasion. The media played an impeccable role in creating a negative image of the Japanese living in the United States.
President Trump issued an executive order to ban refugees from countries that have suffered from destruction caused by US actions. The order stirred controversy around the world, especially in the Middle East.
Many Pakistanis feared Pakistan would make it to the list, because White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus hinted at this. Many Pakistanis holding US green cards, who were on a visit to Pakistan at the time, wondered if they might be banned as well. Many of them rescheduled flights back to the states, cutting short their vacation, to avoid any undesirable situation.
Pakistanis are no strangers to being detained at US airports for hours. So, the fear was familiar to them. They even anticipated it. That is why many Pakistanis with US green cards flew back to the states before the inauguration of Trump.
Many brave American lawyers and human rights activists set up shop at American airports to help arriving passengers who were affected by the ban. More importantly, the defiance of some fearless judges bore fruit and the ban was blocked.
The ban was later revised with Iraq no more on the list. This revised ban limited travel from six Muslim nations for 90 days and suspended the country’s refugee program for 120 days.
The debate in America, especially post-9/11, has been between protecting the nation against terrorists and protecting American values of freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness
The Fourth Circuit blocked the ban on constitutional grounds, claiming the ban violated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit blocked the ban on statutory grounds, meaning the president exceeded the authority Congress had granted him.
The recent Middle East crisis-ignited by KSA, UAE, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, and others cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar-finds a parallel with the ban. Trump took credit for the Saudi led move. The allegation against Qatar is that it is supporting terrorist groups and is providing shelter to terrorists.
Let us look at the language of the travel ban: The countries included are allegedly supporting terrorism and are fertile grounds for terrorism. The languages are identical except Qatar is not included in the travel ban. KSA, which is the main sponsor of the Sunni Wahhabi radical ideology, is also not on the list of banned countries.
As is widely believed, Trump only banned those countries where he has no personal business. In Turkey, Trump has business interests including two luxury towers. In Indonesia, home to the largest number of Muslims, two Trump branded resorts are under construction. Trump owns a golf course and luxury homes in UAE.
The US Supreme Court has decided to hear the case in October, allowing for a partial ban to take place till then. The banallows those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States” to enter.
On Thursday, a federal judge in Hawaii, Derrick K. Watson, denied a motion seeking the explanation of ‘bona fide’, saying the Supreme Court will do that. Judge Watson let the ban stay until then.
The US Supreme Court will basically decide on the dichotomy between the President having the powers to ban certain people from entering the country and the issue of discrimination based on religion and country of origin.
The clash is between the Establishment of Religion clause in the US Constitution and the manner Trump chose to make America safe. The debate in America, especially post-9/11, has been between protecting the nation against terrorists and protecting American values of freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sadly, national defence has come at the cost of values. Values are the real casualty due to the manner of defence Trump has adopted.
Somehow, powerful American elites sharea common distaste for liberty with the Jihadists. Remember, President Bush said, “They hate our freedoms.”
Jihadists want to attack tall buildings, while US policymakers like attacking American liberties. My question is: What is more important, identity or pretence of safety in a manner that might kill the identity?
The writer is political science professor at Lonestar College and also at the San Jacinto College in Houston, Texas. He is also a PhD candidate at University of Houston. Tweets @imran_jan
Published in Daily Times, July 12th , 2017.