Leadership and integrity are never validated in safe times with easy choices. After all, our entire nation was founded with significant pockets of once-persecuted people under the notion of majority rule but never at the expense of divergent minority rights. It took a while to eliminate the scourge of slavery (with the Thirteenth Amendment), and it was the Fourteenth Amendment that made civil rights for all American residents a most fundamental right.
And while there may be political-short cuts pandering to populist emotional reactions – which have resulted in disgusting discrimination like Democratic-President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of ethnic Japanese-Americans during WWII – strong leaders, sound judges, all military personnel and honorable elected legislators are bound, by their oaths of office, to support the Constitution of the United States of America as their most essential commitment. It appears, however, that the United States Constitution and its strongest mandates can be “waived” by simply following the easy path of popular expediency, often varying depending on political affiliation.
In addition to those of Middle Eastern ethnicity wishing to travel to the U.S., the current persecuted minorities may well be Muslim Americans, people who were born in designated Muslim-dominated nations (or whose parents were born in such states even if they were born in the U.S., regardless of their actual religious practices), or folks who may have traveled to those designated nations within the last five years. They have U.S. passports, and they are either citizens by birth or by affirmation under the U.S. immigration laws. But unlike the vast majority of Americans, they are definitely not accorded the same rights as their fellow-Americans.
While the Constitution may require a U.S. birth for the President, the balance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions promulgated under that building block have, for the most part, stood for the protection of all Americans, banning discrimination based on religion, race or national origin. We are all entitled to “the equal protection of the laws,” and neither Congress nor the state legislatures can make laws that abridge our religious choices. Congress, however, seems to have repealed those realities on December 18th. As condition to extend funding for federal operations, the GOP majority added an amendment to limit the application of our visa waiver program – where we allow nationals from certain approved other countries to travel visa-free to the United States if they allow our national the same right – to ban travel into the U.S. by categories of persons that fit the limitation noted above. On December 18th, the bill passed, and to keep the government’s door’s open, the President signed it into law. There are a significant number of voters, particularly in the Republican Party, who simply want Muslims to be contained, American or otherwise. The bill catered to these anti-Constitutional sentiments with serious “second class citizenship” consequences for a whole lot of Americans.
Those voter sentiments? “Americans support barring Syrian refugees from the U.S., 51 percent to 43 percent, according to Quinnipiac polling released [December 23rd]… More from this … Q poll: Americans oppose Donald Trump’s plan to ban all Muslims from coming to the country by a more than 2:1 margin (66 percent to 27 percent). The partisan divide on the issue, however, is sharp. Democrats would accept Syrian refugees (74-22) while Republicans (82-13) and independents (51-42) would ban them. All three groups oppose barring all Muslims: Dems (79-18); Republicans (51-41) and independents (67-22). A majority (55 percent) of Americans believe domestic extremists are a bigger threat than foreign radicals, while 55 percent think Islam is a peaceful religion. Americans also support (50-42) sending ground troops to fight ISIS.” The Washington Post (Daily 202), December 23rd.
The consequence of implementing those sentiments? “For more than 25 years, the Visa Waiver Program has allowed people from a select list of countries, currently 38 nations long, to travel to the U.S. without a visa. Those countries, in turn, must reciprocate, allowing Americans the same privilege on their own soil. [On December 18th], Congress voted to change the deal: People coming from countries covered under the Visa Waiver Program, including people who are citizens of those countries, will now need to get a visa if they are determined to be nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria, or if they have visited those countries since 2011.
“This is worse than it sounds, because at least two of those countries, Iran and Syria, deem people to be nationals, regardless of where they were born or live, if their fathers are citizens. So it’s possible that someone who is a citizen of one of the countries on the visa-free travel list — the United Kingdom, say — and who lives there and grew up there and has never visited another country, could end up denied entry to the U.S. because of a parent born in Iran or Syria.
“It gets even worse still, because there is a strong likelihood that countries party to the newly altered Visa Waiver Program, including European Union member states, will institute reciprocal restrictions on Americans, meaning that many Iranian-Americans, Syrian-Americans, and others in the U.S. would see their ability to travel the world seriously degraded based on ancestry or dual citizenship. Potentially facing similar reciprocal restrictions are any aid workers, journalists, or other Americans who simply visited at some point since 2011 the countries targeted in the new legislation.
“An open letter published by the European Union’s ambassador to the United States has already said that passage of the bill ‘could trigger legally mandated reciprocal measures’ against American citizens, in this case, specifically those whose national origin is from Iran, Sudan, Syria, or Iraq, effectively placing them into a lower category of citizenship when attempting to travel abroad.” Murtaza Hussain writing for theIntercept.com, December 18th. Iran feigned anger, saying that the terms of this legislation contracted the terms of their nuclear settlement with the West, but rather openly jumped for joy at its nemesis’ obvious slam at the Muslim world and its seeming breach of its obligations under that accord. It justified Iran’s rather clear anti-American rhetoric. Oh, and remember how many Iranian Jews settled here, and more than a few Christians. And think of the mass of Muslim Americans who remain the exemplary citizens they have always been, more a part of the solution than the problem.
For Washington policy-makers, trying to enlist Middle Eastern nations to join in the fight against ISIS, this new law is simple confirmation that the United States is anti-Muslim. So why should regional powers care about our goals and our needs. But worse, those who sponsored the are simply constitution-defying American Congress-people who have rather openly decided to repeal some of our Constitution’s most significant provisions because of an emotional response among the majority of their basic constituency. They are spineless sheep who have violated their oaths of office.
No matter how fearful we may be, the fact remains that we are one of the safest nations on earth. And to the extent we are willing to suspend constitutional protections for minority groups within the United States, not only are those religious fanatics who wish to destroy us enjoying how they are forcing us to violate our most basic principles, but we are in fact becoming increasingly like them. We are Americans! We are better than that! Leaders lead! Followers follow.
I’m Peter Dekom, and if our enemies can redefine our most basic American values, exactly who is winning this terrorism war?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment