Travel Ban Ruling Will be 'Marker of Shame' in U.S.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) walks down the House steps after the final votes of the week on Jan. 11, 2018. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

One of two Muslim members of Congress said that today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision that upheld the Trump administration's travel ban from several Muslim-majority countries will go down in history as a "marker of shame" from the high court like Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that upheld segregation laws as constitutional.

The case Trump v. Hawaii involved the state's lawsuit to block the ban on travel from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. It was the third iteration of the ban, dropping Iraq and Chad from the list.

Hawaii had argued that the ban, coming after Trump's campaign statement vowing to block Muslims from entering the nation, was motivated by religious discrimination instead of national security.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who penned the opinion for the majority, said the ban is "expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices."

"The text says nothing about religion," he added.

Roberts noted that in reviewing the ban "we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee who is running for Minnesota attorney general instead of seeking another term in Congress, fired off a statement declaring the decision "undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded."

"I am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia," he said. “America holds a unique place in the world as a nation of immigrants. Unlike some other countries, we welcome refugees, asylum seekers, and dreamers fleeing war and instability in other parts of the world. America is and must remain the ‘land of the free’ where the family escaping persecution in North Korea or civil war in Syria can seek shelter and thrive.”

Ellison called the ruling "unjust" like "the Korematsu decision that upheld Japanese internment camps or Plessy v. Ferguson that established ‘separate but equal.’"

Like those rulings, he said, "this decision will someday serve as a marker of shame."

"Until then, we must keep fighting for an America that recognizes that every human life has value and reflects our values of generosity and inclusion for all," he added.

The other Muslim member of Congress, Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), tweeted, "This decision is about presidential authority, NOT an affirmation of the President’s bigoted policy or history of targeting immigrants. His policy continues to hurt countless families across our country. Congress must vote to strike down this affront to our values as Americans."

Neil Katyal, the former acting solicitor general of the United States who led the arguments against the travel ban, echoed the call for a legislative fix.

“Over the past year, a suit brought by ordinary Americans has made its way through the federal courts, and at every step the judiciary forced the White House to amend their travel bans to bring them more in line with our Constitution,” Katyal posted on Twitter. “While we continue to believe that this third version fails that test, there is no question that by striking down the first two travel bans, the judiciary forced a recalcitrant administration to at least give its order the veil of constitutionality.”

“The final chapter has not yet been written, and the president would be mistaken to interpret today’s decision as a greenlight to continue his unwise and un-American policies. The travel ban is atrocious policy and makes us less safe and undermines our American ideals," he added. “Now that the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump’s unilateral and unwise travel ban."

The White House issued a statement from Trump calling the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American people and the Constitution" as "the Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the United States."

"In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country," Trump said. "This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. As long as I am president, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American people, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens. Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch."

( Source: PJ Media )


Related posts from similar topics:


Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

No Comments