Stop white supremacy

A lot of black and brown and Muslim people were murdered recently.

Stop white supremacists. Stop anti-blackness. Stop Islamophobia. Stop xenophobia. Stop the police. Don’t stop reading yet —

1. If you’re not an alt-right white supremacist, why are you mad? I wasn’t talking about you.

2. Wait no, I was talking about you. I was talking about all of us. This isn’t just about white people (even though it often is). Anti-blackness is everywhere. The police officer and self-appointed vigilante who killed Philando Castile and Trayvon Martin, respectively, are Hispanic. The police officer who killed Akai Gurley is Asian American. Three of the six police officers who killed Freddie Gray are black. (None of them are in prison.)

3. We are all complicit.

When we talk about “bad/sketchy/ghetto” neighborhoods, but we just mean “not white.” When we “don’t see color” but all of our friends are white or light-skinned. When “some of our best friends” are black/brown/Muslim/gay/bi/trans, but we wouldn’t want to fuck them. When we would want to fuck them, but we wouldn’t want to marry them.

When we smoke pot on the weekends and take molly at Coachella but also think unarmed black men are dangerous for selling pot or cigars. When everything in our IG and Snap is #lit, goals, bae, and YASSSS, but black people who speak African American Vernacular English are “uneducated.”

When we change our Facebook photo to stand with Paris but not with Beirut or Baghdad. When we pull our #DicksOutForHarambe and want #JusticeforCecil but don’t know about #FinsburyPark or #NabraHassanen or #CharleenaLyles. When animal deaths make us sad but not human deaths.

When we love that new expensive white-owned “fusion” restaurant, but don’t want to pay more than $7 at an immigrant-owned Chinese/Mexican/Arab/etc. restaurant.

When we think Arab mass murderers are “terrorists,” but white mass murderers are “gunmen” and “van drivers” with “mental illnesses” in no way radicalized by fundamentalist Christianity / Reddit / Breitbart.

When we think it’s okay to bomb Syria to protect its children from chemical weapons but that’s definitely not the same thing as Syria hypothetically bombing us to protect our children from being chemically poisoned by elected officials in Flint, MI, or to protect indigenous people from being gassed by police officers at Standing Rock.

When we say Islam oppresses women with the hijab and the driving ban, but we love celebrities who rape, beat, and sexually harass women like Kobe Bryant, Casey Affleck, and Bill Clinton (don’t fight me on this, just google it please).

When we talk about how Democrats have alienated the “working class,” when we really mean the “white working class,” as if black and brown people and immigrants aren’t part of the working class.

When we say we don’t like “identity politics” or “silly bathroom bills” and would rather focus on the “real issues,” like “the economy,” as if the white working class isn’t an “identity.” As if police brutality and vigilante violence aren’t “real issues.” As if safety for transgender people in bathrooms without fear of being murdered by transphobic people isn’t a “real issue.” As if loss of income and wealth from employment discrimination and housing discrimination aren’t “economic issues.”

When we heap praise on white / non-black / non-Muslim, etc. people for allyship but don’t give the same credit to black and brown mostly women and LGBTQ folks who have been saying the same thing for decades and centuries.

When we say MLKJ would have wanted protesters to be “more peaceful,” even though Dr. King was considered a radical in his day. Even though he said the greatest threat to racial equality was not the KKK but “the white moderate” who agrees with your goals but not with your methods/tone. (The same Dr. King who called America the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”)

4. If you agree with my post but think I’m being “too aggressive,” I will refer you back to what MLKJ said about moderates. Don’t create a false equivalence between criticism of violence and actual violence.

I wish I could also say that I don’t care if you think I’m being an aggressive anti-white/anti-male bitch/etc. I care a lot, but fuck it because as the brilliant Nayyirah Waheed wrote:

‘no’
might make them angry,
but
it will make you free.
– if no one has ever told you, your freedom is more important than their anger.

5. If you want to learn more, I can recommend some great insta accounts to follow. DM me 🙂

If you would like to put your money where your hashtags are, consider donating to the families of Nabra Hassanen, Charleena Lyles, and Philando Castille.

If you would like the system to change, please VOTE in every election, not just the presidential one. Your state and local officials are often the ones legislating (and adjudicating) on policing, education, housing, etc.

6. Nothing I said here is original — thank you to the brilliant and tireless advocates (almost all of whom are black women, NB women of color, and LGBTQ women of color) who educate and inspire me every day on fb and insta.

Understanding the immigration ban

Dear Wharton,

We are grateful that the President’s executive order on immigration was temporarily blocked by a federal district court in Seattle last Friday and that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to reinstate it. As we await a final decision by the Ninth Circuit (and likely subsequent review by the Supreme Court), we write this letter to stand in solidarity against the immigration ban and to provide more information about the ban, which has already affected hundreds of immigrants, green card holders, and refugees—including many of our friends here at Wharton who hold student visas. (See below for FAQs.)

Although the stated purpose of the ban is to protect against terrorism, the Cato Institute notes that foreign nationals from the restricted countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during 1975-2015. Indeed, the annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion. Moreover, in the aftermath of 9/11, terrorist attacks by anti-government and white supremacists have killed nearly twice as many people as those by jihadist extremists. (Note: We cite these statistics to show that the immigration ban lacks a legitimate factual basis—not to imply that an immigration ban would be permissible for a country that does have terrorist affiliations.)

This executive order is not based upon fact—it merely amplifies xenophobia and Islamophobia. In attempting to justify the immigration ban, the administration cited the killing of six Muslims mid-prayer by a white terrorist to support its fallacious narrative that the immigration ban will reduce radical jihadist terrorism. We condemn the administration’s use of an Islamophobic attack on Muslims to justify an Islamophobic ban against Muslim-majority countries. We urge each of you to continue actively seeking out the truth and resisting attempts to obscure the truth.

The executive order also does not withstand legal scrutiny. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. We cannot repeat the United States’s long and shameful history of enacting immigration bans on the basis of nationality. See, e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act of 1917, the rejection of thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, and Executive Order 9066 interning Japanese Americans during World War II.

The administration’s claim that President Obama first identified these seven countries for immigration restrictions is misleading. The Obama administration required greater visa scrutiny (not a ban) of individuals who had traveled to these seven countries, and specifically rejected a nationality-based restriction. The law was enacted to address credible concerns about individuals who had become radicalized after traveling to those seven countries, like the Belgian national who masterminded the Paris attacks after traveling to Syria.

The claim that President Obama had previously issued a similar ban against Iraqi nationals is also inaccurate and misleading. In 2011, the Obama administration slowed the issuance of Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) to Iraqi applicants after two Iraqi immigrants in Kentucky were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group. Unlike the Trump order, which imposes a ban on all non-diplomatic visas from seven countries without a legitimate factual basis, the Obama order required enhanced review (not a ban) of a single type of visa from a single country in response to a specific, credible threat. Moreover, unlike the Trump order, which bans all refugees, the Obama order did not impose any ban on refugees. The administration’s attempt to equate the two executive orders is flatly wrong.

As some of our classmates recently noted, the University of Pennsylvania’s motto is “Laws without morals are useless.” We find that the President’s executive order is morally bankrupt and must be rescinded.

With love and in solidarity,
Middle East North Africa Club (MENA)
Muslim Students Network (MSN)
Wharton Africa Student Association (WASA)
Return on Equality (ROE)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Who is included in the (currently suspended) immigration ban?

Issued on January 27, 2017, the executive order suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry for 90 days for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The ban included all visa holders from these seven restricted countries—including Wharton international students holding student visas, with the exception of  individuals traveling on diplomatic, NATO, or UN visas.

The immigration ban did not include naturalized U.S. citizens from these seven restricted countries, green card holders (i.e., permanent residents), and dual citizens who present a passport from a non-restricted country.

2. Is the immigration ban illegal?

Very likely. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), prohibiting discrimination “in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1152. The President relies on Section 212(f) of the INA, which provides an exception “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report acknowledges that there are no “firm legal limits” on the president’s authority, citing case law on Section 212(f) and its extensive use by the last five presidents, including 19 instances by President Obama. However, the Cato Institute notes that “no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception.”

Both liberals and conservatives agree that the immigration ban is illegal. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) denounced the executive order as “unacceptable,” adding that “[e]nhancing long-term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.” Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) also voiced his concern that the ban would “give ISIS some more propaganda.” Former President Barack Obama criticized the ban, warning that “core values may be at stake.” Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.

The immigration ban also violates a number of international treaties ratified by the U.S. The United Nations Refugee Convention requires the U.S. not to return refugees to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires the U.S. to “guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that even in a “time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,” the U.S. cannot discriminate “solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

3. What legal action is being taken to reverse the immigration ban?

Judicial action: Last Friday, February 3, a federal judge in Seattle blocked the entire executive order nationwide. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the DOJ’s request to immediately restore the ban, and the matter remains pending before the Ninth Circuit. Earlier judicial actions include:

  • Federal judges in New York and Virginia blocking deportations of green card holders and all arrivals with valid visas or refugee status;
  • Federal judges in Boston imposing a seven-day restraining order against the executive order in its entirety (which has since expired);
  • Sixteen state attorneys general issuing a joint statement condemning the ban and promising to “fight this unconstitutional order;” and
  • Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) not to defend the executive order (the President fired Yates shortly afterwards).

Legislative action: On Monday, January 30, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced two bills to rescind the executive order and limit executive authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bills have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

4. The ban may affect me personally. How can I protect myself?

Note: Please contact an immigration lawyer for all legal questions. See this decision chart (English, Arabic, and Farsi) prepared by the CUNY School of Law before the ban was temporarily suspended.