ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase

Rate this Entry
Earlier this month, after Donald Trump unleashed a "tweetstorm" in an attempt to defend both his original seven Muslim country entry ban order and what he himself called the "watered-down" six Muslim country version, the media were full of statements by legal experts, such as law professor Josh Blackman of the University of Houston, warning that the president was undermining his own legal argument to the effect that the order was a national security measure, not motivated by "animus" toward Muslims as members of a religion or a desire to discriminate against them.

For one of many press reports dealing with this subject, see the New York Times June 5 article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/u...ravel-ban.html

However, remarkably, Trump abstained from Twitter entirely and issued no personal statement when Muslims were the victims of an attack, such as the one on June 19 in Finsbury Park in London. (The US State Department did issue an official response condemning the attack.)

The president's uncharacteristic decision to stay away from Twitter and not to issue any personal statement about the latest London attack, has, however, set off a storm of criticism against him in the press for being ready to condemn Muslims in general whenever a Muslim is the perpetrator of a terrorist attack, but remaining silent when Muslims are the victims of one.

A June 20 article by Christian Christensen in The Guardian, for example, states as follows:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...speaks-volumes

"Donald Trump didn't send out a tweet after the terrorist attack in Finsbury Park in London that killed one and injured many more. His silence after this attack was markedly different from his immediate, fevered, tweeting after numerous other terrorist attacks in Europe - and that matters.

For Trump, it's clear that this wasn't the right kind of attacker and these weren't the right kind of victims."

Just in case that there could be any possible doubt as to what the author meant by the above comment, he continues:

"In the case of Finsbury Park, Muslims injured by a white Christian man are not 'worthy' of attention because they do not serve Trump's larger project of the demonization of Muslims, refugees and immigrants...Nor do they serve the interests of portraying white Christian Europe (and by association, white Christian America) as the bastion of all that is decent and good."


Strong and eloquent words, but what do they have to do with Trump's Muslim country entry ban executive order, affecting almost 200 million people, more than 99 percent of whom are Muslims, who, according to its terms, are barred from even applying for visas to enter the United States without any showing or reason to suspect that they might have terrorist sympathies or connections?

At the heart of Trump's legal defense of this order, and its now withdrawn seven Muslim country predecessor, before various federal courts, has been the contention that his numerous, openly Islamophobic campaign statements, such as his December 2015 call for a worldwide ban on entry to the US by Muslims from every country (including originally US citizens as well), and his statements such as the one that Islam allegedly hates America, should be ignored for litigation purposes because they were supposedly only pre-election talk.

According to this argument, Trump deserves to be treated as a leopard who suddenly changed its spots from the day that he took over the office of the presidency, and that none of his previous statements (which a 4th Circuit judge found to be "dripping" with "animus" and religious intolerance against Muslims) count any more.

To the contrary, according to the arguments which Trump's Justice Department has been making before various lower federal courts and the Supreme Court, these statements should be consigned to an Orwellian "Memory Hole" as described in the famous, and all too prescient novel 1984.

Aside from the fact that many of Trump's actions as president, including his appointment to top positions of two of America's leading Islamophobes, Michael Flynn, who has called Islam a "cancer" rather than a religion, and Stephen Bannon, who regards the Christian West as being locked in a "War of Civilizations" with the Muslim world, not to mention Trump's aforesaid "Tweetstorm" over his Muslim ban orders, show the utter meretriciousness of this legal argument (from the Latin meretrix - look it up in the dictionary), the president's studied silence in the face of a brutal terrorist attack directed against Muslims, not by them, gives the lie to any possible contention that his Muslim ban orders were motivated by anything other than hostility toward Muslims as members of a religion in general.

Whether the Supreme Court will take note of this self-evident reality, or whether it will choose to let itself be blinded to the obvious truth by some concocted legal fiction, is something that America may be finding out shortly, with enormous potential implications for the survival of our democracy.
___________________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer who has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world, without regard to ethnicity, religion or national origin, and in the true spirit of America, receive work visas and green cards for more than 35 years. Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com


Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Could Trump's Silence on Twitter in Response to Attack Against London Mosque Worshippers Hurt His Muslim Ban Case in the Supreme Court? Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 06-21-2017 at 03:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: