President Trump's immigration order is a disgrace. But not for the reasons you think.
It lays the groundwork for a vicious betrayal of the nation's highest ideals and aspirations
President Trump's executive order banning nationals of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days is a moral travesty, but not for the reasons so many journalists, activists, and protesters appear to believe.
It isn't terrible because Jesus said to love the poor and the needy most of all. Or because a plaque at the Statute of Liberty displays a moving poem about huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Or because it's un-American to make hard decisions about who the country will accept as immigrants or refugees. The U.S. is not — and never has been — a Red Cross encampment on the edge of an active war zone with its doors held open indiscriminately to all comers.
In fact, no country can be described this way. All political communities have borders and distinguish between citizens, resident aliens, and noncitizens; all communities accept some outsiders and reject others. This has been true even for the United States, which through long stretches of its history has admitted large numbers of immigrants. It was certainly true during the just-completed presidency of Barack Obama.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
No, this executive order is abhorrent because the United States does not face a serious threat from terrorists originating in the seven singled-out countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan. How do we know that? Because there have thus far been no fatal terrorist attacks committed by people from those countries. None. Not one. Which means that the executive order isn't justified. At all. Not because such an order is inherently unacceptable, but because it isn't necessary under the present circumstances.
If the United States faced a sufficiently elevated threat of terrorist attacks committed by nationals originating from these countries, the executive order might well be justified, and I might well support it. But it doesn't, and I don't.
In certain respects, the order transgresses bedrock American principles that should be considered inviolable, especially the original (now partially walked-back) inclusion in the ban of foreign nationals in possession of green cards. These are lawful permanent residents of the United States, not outsiders we may feel the need to exclude in a time of extreme national threat. They have already endured and come through an arduous, time-consuming vetting process run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (One might even describe it as "extreme vetting.")
So, why insist on originally including lawful permanent residents in the ban (as senior White House staffers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller apparently went out of their way to do)?
Leaving aside demagogic motives (which may well be at play), the inclusion of green card holders in the ban implies that even those who've been through this lengthy and rigorous screening are a threat to the nation. But if that's true, why wouldn't fully naturalized citizens who originated from those suspect countries also be considered a threat?
When that implication is combined with the President Trump's remarks about eventually giving preference to Christian refugees from the Middle East, what we appear to be left with is an order that lays the groundwork for something far more sweeping than a restriction on visas for foreigners from a select group of countries. We have the groundwork for treating American citizens who originated from those countries (or perhaps who just happen to be Muslim) as a uniquely threatening class of citizen — a class subject to special scrutiny, surveillance, and harassment. But of course, when a class of citizen is subject to special scrutiny, surveillance, and harassment, its members are no longer full citizens. They are second-class citizens, with more limited rights than all other, "normal" citizens.
To judge by the rabid reader comments attached to the article on Breitbart announcing the executive order, at least some of Trump's most passionate supporters crave precisely such an arrangement for Muslims in the United States.
Would it be un-American to relegate Muslim Americans to the category of second-class citizens? Given the long history of the U.S. treating certain classes of people as less than full citizens (African-Americans, Native Americans, Japanese Americans), it would be difficult to call such a move un-American, at least in purely empirical terms. But morally, it's a no-brainer: Treating Muslim Americans as second-class citizens would indisputably be a vicious betrayal of the nation's highest ideals and aspirations — a betrayal that the threat posed by radical Islam does not even remotely justify.
That's why the Trump administration's executive order is an outrage, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also a former contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test.
-
Nigeria's worsening rate of maternal mortality
Under the radar Economic crisis is making hospitals unaffordable, with women increasingly not receiving the care they need
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Elevating Earth Day into a national holiday is not radical — it's practical'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
UAW scores historic win in South at VW plant
Speed Read Volkswagen workers in Tennessee have voted to join the United Auto Workers union
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published