Anyone who knows me knows that despite my leftist political views, I try to be fair and objective to all sides of the spectrum. Obviously, my views can't make me 100% objective, but I put in a substantial amount of time and effort all the same.
When the Muslim ban was announced with the detention of green card and visa holders in airports all over the country, I shared in the hysteric outrage at President Trump and Republicans for enabling and approving this behavior, especially since Paul Ryan and Mike Pence had both previously called a Muslim ban "unconstitutional", yet put the full weight of their support behind Trump's policy.
But then I wanted to write this article, and then I realized there was a fundamental flaw in my objectivity: I hadn't actually read Trump's executive order. I bet a lot of my friends with outrage against it haven't completely read it ever, because we just assume that CNN and NY Times, or even our friends on Facebook can give us a fair and comprehensive assessment.
After reading, however, I realize that there should be some credence given to Trump "prioritizing" religious minorities in countries where we accept refugees in Section 5, part b of the executive order. In 2016, only 0.5 percent of Syrian refugees we accepted were Christian, despite Christians comprising approximately 10 percent of the Syrian population. But that's the only credence I'll give to the order that has temporarily banned foreign nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Overall, we've still accepted almost as many Christian refugees worldwide as Muslim refugees.
Conservatives across the nation have decried the mislabeling of Trump's executive order as a "Muslim ban", claiming that it's not a Muslim ban. They say that "Obama was responsible for this," pointing to his signing of the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act in December 2015 that made it more difficult for foreign nationals of the seven countries that Trump banned from obtaining 90-day visas.
They say that "we're not banning Muslims" based on the fact that Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, is not on the list. They point to Obama's 2011 suspension of visa applications for Iraqi refugees, as if that's justification for denying existing visa and green card holders into the country. Despite the fact that all seven countries are Muslim-majority, conservatives will say, "well, we're not banning Muslim countries, just terrorist countries," again using the justification of all the Muslim countries that haven't had temporary bans.
According to Trump himself, "this is not a Muslim ban... this is about terror and keeping out country safe."
Hence, my biggest gripe with Trump's Muslim ban isn't even that I think it's incredibly unjust and inhumane, but that it fails in its plan to truly fight terrorism. A large part of the justification for the ban in Section 1, part a, referred to attacks on United States nationals on 9/11. None of the foreign nationals in 9/11 were from the seven countries banned. The 9/11 attackers were predominantly from Saudi Arabia, although some were from Egypt, Lebanon, and UAE. None of those countries are on the list. Terror anywhere should never be tolerated, but only 11 of the 191 terror attacks in the U.S. the past sixteen years have been from the seven countries listed.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump's infamous campaign manager, claimed that "President Obama identified these seven countries." However, the Obama administration did not place a ban on visa or green card holders. And even so, simply taking the leavings of countries that Obama identified is sheer negligence and laziness, and using that as an excuse is a poor attempt at deflection. Liberals point out Trump has business ties in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon, three countries with foreign nationals involved in 9/11 but not on the ban list. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt and say this is a mere "coincidence", that our President couldn't possibly let conflicts of interest get in the way of his role as Commander-in-Chief, right?
What about the donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, who have funded ISIS? The countries that have repressive regimes with human rights atrocities. Just because they're our allies, can they not be linked with terrorism? Can we not do anything since we rely on the Saudis for oil? Are we just going to ignore radicalization at home?
I love this country, but I have no illusions of our moral grandeur. In the last 50 years, we helped replace Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist in Chile, with Pinochet, a dictator that killed almost 3,200 people. And we supported Manuel Noriega in Panama. And Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire. But this was the Cold War era. Maybe we should put it in the past, since almost all strong, imperialist nations are guilty of horrendous atrocities in foreign policy, it should be okay that we support repressive regimes now, right?
But, Mr. Trump, you marketed yourself as a candidate for change, and in your bullshit proclamation that "this is about terror and keeping our country safe," you prove yourself not helping the cause you claim to serve. You claimed to "drain the swamp," and you prove yourself not any better if not worse than the establishment figures you relentlessly attack (I don't know why I might have expected differently from your cabinet selections). If this isn't actually fighting terror, then what is this? How can you criticize liberals for calling it a Muslim ban, when it's not even a real terror ban?
President Trump, this is hypocrisy.
