I long wondered what the first blatantly, undeniably unconstitutional act of President Trump would be. Perhaps many of his actions in his first week could be argued to be unlawful, but today we have something that stands out clearly and cannot be debated. Media from the right (WSJ) and the left (Vice News) are both reporting that the enforcement of his Friday evening Executive Order restricting refugee and other immigrant entries into the country is resulting in dual passport holders – United States citizens – being denied entry into their own country.
Make no mistake: There is no circumstance under which an American citizen can be refused entry into the United States. Period. Every such person denied entry who files a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights claim against the government will win their case. It’s not just a manifestly unlawful act on the part of the executive branch, its profoundly stupid. Profoundly. Any second year law student knows you can’t refuse American citizens entry into their own country, and that the result of doing so will be the federal government paying significant money to the victim. How hundreds of White House attorneys, DOJ attorneys, and Customs & Border Patrol attorneys failed to prevent this from happening is practically astounding.
But those dual citizens will be fine. They will eventually be made whole through the legal process. But it’s not so for everyone.
Those truly damaged by this EO are the refugees who were turned away at the airport today after Trump cut off all refugee admissions for 120 days and for an effectively indefinite time period from seven specific countries. The White House calls the ban “temporary,” which is probably most reasonably read as “soon to be renewed for another ‘temporary’ period.” The primary thrust of the order is to ban refugees from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan from entry into the U.S., but only if they are not from a minority religion – that is, only if they are Muslim.
The ignorance behind this order is staggering, and well-illustrated by the fact that one of the first refugees detained at JFK was someone who had served the U.S. government in his home country for a decade, at manifest risk to his and his family’s safety. The message to others who would work as translators, guides, or fixers for the U.S. military and diplomatic corps is clear: You can’t count on the Americans to be there for you when the chips are down – if you choose to help them out, you’re on your own when the radicals in your own country come for you. And what of the foreign nationals that CIA officers look to persuade to betray their country and help ours? Will today’s events make them more or less likely to risk their lives by turning over information beneficial to our national security? I mean, the answer is so obvious it’s painful.
If you think that somehow, this refugee ban makes us safer, you’re living in a fantasy world. As The Economist noted a year and a half ago, over 750,000 refugees have been admitted since 9/11, without one arrested on domestic terrorism charges. Add to that the many studies showing that immigrants comply with our laws at a higher rate than native-born Americans do. The President’s repeated insistence that we have “no idea” who we are letting into the country as refugees is complete factual garbage and a slander on those who work in federal refugee admission programs. A minute or two of Googling will reveal countless detailed articles on how the refugee vetting process is the most rigorous of any undertaken for a U.S. visa, how it takes about two years, and how refugees don’t get to choose where they are resettled. The President is a demonstrable liar and cannot be trusted to tell you the truth about refugees. Don’t believe the hype. Get the facts. Then learn from your own experience.
Do you fear refugees? Do you wonder whether Muslims are a danger? Well, do you know any? I have said for a long time and will say it again: If you fear a people group, but you haven’t developed the kind of relationship with any of them that finds you eating a meal in their house, and them eating one in yours, then you don’t have sufficient grounds to make that kind of determination.
NOTE: During the time I wrote this, my feed started showing that a federal judge in Brooklyn has issued an injunction staying the enforcement of the EO as it pertains to the prohibition of entry of Muslims from the seven nations noted above. We’ll see what develops.
Good article. I think you might find Ann Voskamp’s blog post of January 26 interesting.