Peter Singer
Peter Singer is Professor of
Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the
University of Melbourne. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), Rethinking Life and Death, The Point of View of the Universe, co-authored with Kata… read more
PRINCETON
– When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, I did
not join those who took to the streets in protest. I thought it
important to respect the democratic process, no matter how dismaying its
outcome may be, and wait until the Trump administration had given us
something to protest about.
It didn’t take long.
Eight days after Trump took office, the first identifiable victims of
his presidency were on all the major news outlets. Trump’s executive
order suspending resettlement of Syrian refugees, temporarily barring
new refugees regardless of where they are from, and banning all
immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
caused immediate harm to people already on their way to the US. The
order has also prevented many more people from leaving for the US.
In justifying his
policy, Trump said that he would “never forget the lessons of 9/11.” But
that is exactly what he seems to have done. The 9/11 hijackers came
from Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all
countries unaffected by the new rules. In contrast, a study by Alex Nowrasteh,
an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
concludes that in the 40 years up to the end of 2015, no one has been
killed in the US in terrorist attacks by foreigners from any of the
seven countries singled out in Trump’s executive order.
Iranians, many of
whom are legally resident in the US, are especially aggrieved. According
to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the
US itself
has produced more Islamic State (ISIS) fighters than Iran – not
surprising, given that ISIS is a Sunni organization, and regards Shia,
who comprise at least 90% of Iran’s people, as apostates who can
justifiably be killed.
The ban on immigrants
from the seven countries makes for dramatic television, because the
people it has harmed are able to talk to the media about it. That is not
the case with the cut in the total 2017 intake of all refugees from
110,000 to 50,000, and the suspension of the entire refugee resettlement
program for four months. In a global refugee crisis, President Barack
Obama argued, the US should, in the spirit of Emma Lazarus’s words
inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, do its fair share in providing a new
home for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Trump has
turned his back on that vision.
The executive order
will provide an early test of the extent to which US courts can restrain
the Trump presidency. Judges have temporarily blocked some aspects of
the executive order – for example, those detained on arrival in the US
under the order may not be deported; but it will be some time before the
courts resolve all the questions the new prohibitions raise.
Among those
questions, discrimination on the basis of religion will be prominent.
The order says that when the refugee program resumes, the Secretary of
State shall, “to the extent permitted by law,” give priority to refugee
claims on the basis of membership of a persecuted religious minority.
Although the order itself does not mention any specific religion, Trump
said in a television interview that he wanted to give priority to
Christians. Given that the US Constitution prohibits the government from
establishing any religion, it remains to be seen whether this provision
of the order will withstand judicial scrutiny.
Of equal concern is
the threat posed to freedom of expression by a provision stipulating
that the US “cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the
Constitution.” In speaking about the order, Trump said, “We only want to
admit those into our country who will support our country and deeply
love our people.”
I
am myself a green card holder – that is, a legal permanent resident of
the US without citizenship. I have written about flaws in the US
Constitution, and, much as I admire many Americans, I could not go so
far as to say that I “deeply love” Americans as a whole. Does that mean
that I could be barred from the US? Would that be consistent with belief
in freedom of thought?
According to
Nowrasteh, Trump’s executive order will have virtually no effect on
improving US security. Trump has repeatedly said that he will always put
the interests of Americans first. But will he give infinitely
more weight to Americans’ interests than he does to the interests of
anyone else? Given the suffering that his executive order is causing, it
is beginning to look as if he might just be that unethical – or, what
in this case amounts to the same thing, that crazy
No comments:
Post a Comment