Donald Trump was publicizing his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.- and he was standing on stage at an event honoring Pearl Harbor. Trump and his supporters came together this week on the deck of the USS Yorktown, and the occasion was the 74th anniversary of the “date which will live in infamy.” On December 7, 1941, the air and naval forces of Japan struck the U.S. naval base in Hawaii, killing more than 2,400 U.S. service personnel and sinking eight battleships. The post-Pearl panic in America prompted the White House decision to remove Japanese-American families from their homes and detain them in makeshift camps for years (a decision the U.S. has been apologizing for ever since).
Now, I know that trump was born after World War II, but he knows the basic story of this period. He even referred to it with APPROVAL this week in his speech about barring Muslims, saying that Franklin D. Roosevelt had done the right thing at the time. Trump used The Supreme Court’s decision NOT to interfere when reviewing Roosevelt’s for his internment policy as good precedent for his ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
This lashing out on Trump’s end has created a raw edge for the debate over immigration and terrorism in our time and for his followers, it was another instance of “common sense” and Trump playing on people’s fears than concerns of about being “politically correct.” Trump, had previously called for surveillance against mosques and said that he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the U.S. (cnn.com). His message comes in the wake of the deadly mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, by suspected ISIS sympathizers and the day after President Barack Obama asked the country not to “turn against one another” out of fear.
But isn’t that EXACTLY what Trump is telling us to do? Well it is working, and it showed at his rally on Monday night where you will see in this video below many of his supporters being enthusiastic about his proposal.
The Muslim travel ban will most likely do a small dent to Trump’s popularity amongst Republican primary voters. Despite repeated controversies, the billionaire businessman has dominated the GOP contest for months. What does this say about the American people?
“Without looking at various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” – Donald Trump
THE RESPONSE
Obama’s administration condemned Trump’s proposal as being completely contrary to our values as Americans. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, pointed to the Bill of Rights’ protection of freedom of religion and emphasized the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S. Trump’s proposal contradicts U.S. security. Rhodes stated that, “ISIL wants to frame this as a war between the United States and Islam, and if we look like we’re applying religious tests to who comes into this country, we’re sending a message that essentially we’re embracing that frame and that is going to make it very difficult to partner with Muslim communities here in the United States and around the world to prevent the scourge of radicalization that we should be focused on” (cnn.com).
In London, there is a petition calling for Donald Trump to be banned from entering the UK and has attracted more than a quarter of a million signatures (which is more than enough for a committee to consider sending the motion for a parliamentary debate). To ban Trump from the UK would allow British residents the opportunity to stand up against hate speech.
Donald Trump’s proposal is unhinged and offensive, but the worst part is that there is a way for it to be legal. Trump has yet to release many details regarding his policy, but if elected president, President Trump would have to persuade Congress to take up his cause and Congress could pass a law barring foreign Muslims from entering the country and it would be constitutional. This may be true, however barring Muslims who are American citizens from re-entering the country would violate the Constitution. Scholar and constitutional expert, Michael C. Dorf states that “Odious discrimination in immigration law is unconstitutional, as the House of Representatives itself tacitly recognized when just three years ago passed a resolution expressing regret for Chinese exclusion laws, which were based on ethnic prejudice. Immigration policy based on religious prejudice would be equally odious, and thus unconstitutional.” Almost all of what Trump is saying is stupid, and a majority of it is un-American, but some of it is constitutional, which is a very scary thing.
- How does Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. further militarization in the U.S.?
- Is Donald Trump’s call for a ban appropriate?
- Is Trump playing on peoples fears or is Obama administration acting out of fear?
- Would you vote for a Muslim President?
- Will Trump remove himself from the presidential race?
- What do you think will happen to America if Trump is elected?
- How would you compare the U.S. and U.K. reactions to Trump’s proposal?
References
Diamond, Jeremy (2015). Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. Retrieved December 8,2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/
Elving, Ron (2015). Trump’s Call to Bar Muslims Echoes Crisis From The Past. Retrieved December 7,2015. http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459037108/trumps-call-to-bar-muslims-echoes-crises-from-the-past#
Mazza, Ed (2015). Petition Seeks To Ban Donald Trump From U.K. Over Hate Speech. Retrieved December 8,2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-hate-speech-ban-uk_566631fee4b079b2818fe0eb
Peralta, Eyder (2015). Trump’s Muslims Plan. Retrieved December 9, 2015. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/08/458919219/trumps-muslims-plan-inflammatory-definitely-unconstitutional-maybe