My family came to the United States when I was just 9 years old. We traveled from England way back when in the winter of 1980, just after President Ronald Reagan was elected. It was also right after Mount St. Helens erupted, two powerful events that rocked America.
We weren’t fleeing political persecution. We weren’t fleeing a particularly oppressive government in the United Kingdom, though Maggie Thatcher — the Iron Lady — had just come into power.
No, we were simply seeking adventure and opportunity. And by “we” I mean my parents, of course, because as a 9-year-old I wasn’t seeking much of anything except food, sleep, friends and fun. We came in on tourist visas, but as things turned out we just stayed. And stayed. And stayed. Yes, we were, for a number of years, illegal aliens from England, the same country that provided the original colonists that created the amazing social experiment we now call the United States of America.
My parents found work and enjoyed the U.S. more than they had enjoyed rainy old England. My two siblings and I all ended up going to college, two of us even going on to graduate school, finding good jobs, paying taxes and contributing to our communities. A fourth child was born in the U.S. and also finished college and has carved out a nice life for herself with her own family.
It is no small irony, then, that our family, once illegal aliens who overstayed their visas, eventually all gained legitimacy under Reagan’s broad amnesty program that began in 1986. I completed the naturalization process and became a U.S. citizen in 2001. We all became either permanent residents or citizens of the U.S. I still have roots in England, but almost all of my immediate family is still in the U.S. I am more American than I am English, having spent the large majority of my life in the U.S.
I served in the U.S. Army for four years after the Cold War ended and witnessed firsthand the post-Cold War “peace dividend” that Americans enjoyed as the huge number of troops we had deployed in Europe during the Cold War was reduced dramatically. My Army unit in southern Germany was disbanded while I was serving there, as were most American bases in Germany, and I was re-deployed to Hawaii, where I live now, more than 20 years after leaving the Army. It’s been an interesting journey.
All of this is meant as an introduction to why I am particularly concerned about President Trump’s unconstitutional assault on immigration and refugee programs. Becoming a lawyer, and having a keen interest in particular in constitutional law in law school, I’ve tracked these issues for some time now.
At the time of this writing, a legal challenge to Trump’s executive order denying immigration to seven Muslim-majority nations and suspending refugee programs from all countries indefinitely has been suspended by a federal judge in Washington state. That suspension has been upheld for the time being by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the suspension is still being challenged by the Trump White House.
I was heartened to read that Judge Robart, a Bush-appointed conservative judge who suspended the immigration ban, cited “no evidence” offered by the White House in support of the ban as the reason for his suspension of the ban. It is outrageous, and should be offensive to all Americans, that no immigrants from these seven countries have caused any deaths to Americans in terrorist attacks since at least 1975. Zero.
And countries that have sent immigrants to the U.S. that have harmed Americans, including, of course, Saudi Arabia (where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from), Egypt, United Arab Emirates and others, were not included in the ban.
Accordingly, Trump overturned what is a foundational principle of America, with no rational argument whatsoever. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” is literally written in stone on the Statue of Liberty. Trump and his allies are now saying “not anymore, not if you’re Muslim.”
If we believe that facts and reason should be part of national policymaking, the arguments for the Trump immigration ban aren’t remotely good. It became obvious immediately that the real agenda behind the immigration ban was purely political — to provide “red meat” to his political base who won’t know or believe that there have been literally zero deaths from immigrants from these countries. And that countries that have sent immigrants that have actually engaged in terrorist attacks here in the U.S. were for some unknown reason excluded from the ban.
Trump made his agenda even more clear when he insulted the judge who suspended his unconstitutional ban, calling him a “so-called judge,” as though he’s somehow not an actual judge, and calling the judge’s courageous decision “outrageous.” Trump’s agenda is quite obviously to cow the third branch of government, the only branch in our three-part system that can now stand up to him, on his way to gaining for himself almost complete control of our political system.
My fear is that when the next terrorist attack in the U.S. does occur — and it surely will happen before long — Trump will engage in a massive over-reaction and blame all of those who have been opposed to his extremist immigration policies for letting the attack happen. Worse yet, he may well seize on any attacks that happen as a reason for imposing far harsher policies, including perhaps even martial law.
It is imperative that all of us push back against this incredibly dangerous president in any way we can.
A concrete action that any person can do is to reach out to your senators and urge a no vote on Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch is by all accounts well-qualified and a decent human being. He is, however, also extremely conservative and to the right of Justice Scalia, who he would replace. In normal times, I would not urge opposition to Gorsuch’s appointment. But these are not normal times.
This seat on the highest court in the land was literally stolen by the Republicans because of their unprecedented decision to not even hold hearings on President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia, letting the seat remain empty for almost a year now. The Republicans simply refused to do their constitutionally required job, and stonewalled the former president, betting on a presidential win by a Republican.
The Republicans’ bet paid off, but it is now entirely fair game for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch’s appointment indefinitely. If the Republicans choose to invoke the “nuclear option” and change the required vote for Gorsuch’s confirmation to a simple majority vote, so be it, and let them live with the consequences of that vote in future years when the tables turn yet again.
If the appeal to the suspension of the immigration ban makes it to the Supreme Court before Gorsuch is appointed, it is likely that it will be either a 4-4 vote, and there will be no change to the 9th Circuit’s ruling, or it could be a 5-3 vote in favor of the ruling, if Justice Kennedy votes in favor of the suspension. Either way, the immigration ban would be permanently deemed unconstitutional and Trump would have to find other ways to implement his bigoted immigration policies.
If, however, Gorsuch is confirmed before the appeal reaches the court, a 5-4 vote overturning the 9th Circuit ruling is possible.
These facts should make it clear how important it is to prevent Gorsuch from being confirmed.
I will mention one more possibility that is particularly scary. If Democrats do filibuster Gorsuch indefinitely, we may see a number of different rulings on various Trump policies come out of different circuit courts (there are 13 circuit courts of appeal). The Supreme Court’s job is to make final rulings to reconcile differences between circuits, but it can’t do this job very well if it’s deadlocked at 4-4 on many issues.
Trump could use this inability of the Supreme Court to perform one of its core responsibilities as a reason to step in with even broader claims of presidential power, leading potentially to a true constitutional crisis like perhaps we’ve never seen.
While immigration issues are near and dear to my heart, since mine is a family of immigrants — like the vast majority of American families are — I worry even more about what Trump may do soon on environmental policy, on financial policy and in particular on foreign policy. He’s already made many outrageous statements about seizing Iraq’s oil, and even hinted that we’d have a second chance to do so soon. This should send a chill down the spine of any American who believes in the rule of law and simple common decency. It is not OK to invade a country and steal its oil. That truth should be pretty axiomatic.
We don’t live in a dictatorship yet, but unless good people around the country stand up and take action, we may well soon.
— Tam Hunt is a lawyer and a writer who lives in Hawaii and California.