How (not) to talk about the Muslim Ban
No, we are not a “nation of immigrants.”
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld the Muslim Ban in a 5–4 decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made it clear that the court viewed the ability to regulate immigration as squarely within a president’s powers and he rejected critics’ claims of anti-Muslim bias.
“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote.
After a series of federal court rulings invalidated or scaled back earlier versions of the travel ban, the decision is a big win for the administration and ends 15 months of legal battles over a key part of Trump’s immigration policy, which opponents attacked as a dressed-up form of the Muslim ban that Trump promised during his 2016 campaign.
Trump tweeted his happiness with the opinion shortly after it was released. (NBC News)
Soon after reading the news, I tweeted out 4 talking points I advise allies not to use about this ruling:
So, let’s talk more about how we talk about the case and its place in history.
The “Dustbin of History”
After the decision was announced, Representative Keith Ellison tweeted out that the “dustbin of history awaits” this ruling.
Representative Ellison’s framework highlights how we can and should be talking about this case.
Here are the #MuslimBan talking points I advised allies against using, a brief description as to why, and some alternatives you can use instead.
1. “This is not my America” or “This is un-American”
This sentiment frequently comes up in an attempt to suggest that certain behavior is not “what this country stands for” or “what I as an American support.”
For the indigenous peoples of this land, for the descendants of enslaved Africans, for the Japanese who were incarcerated, for the South/Central American families who are separated at the border, for the thousands of Black and brown people unjustly detained, and for too many others, this is America. It is what this country stands for and it is what this country has chosen to support.
Even if this isn’t “your America”, it’s what the US is for too many who came before us and too many who are subject to discrimination today.
Don’t pretend that this history was a minor footnote or not worth acknowledging.
What to say instead:
“This does not fulfill the promise of the United States.” “This doesn’t live up to the dream of the USA.” “This is not the country we could be.”
2. “We are all immigrants” or “This is a nation of immigrants”
This line has come up more especially recently due to the Trump administration’s multi-pronged attack on immigration. However, as many have pointed out, this statement is factually inaccurate. One succinct breakdown comes from @ FeelingFisky on Twitter:
They go on to say: “Saying Natives are ‘the original Americans’ legitimizes the existence of America by implying it existed much longer than it has. It also erases the fact that there were (& still are) MANY thriving nations on these lands before colonization.”
Additionally, from a piece titled “We Didn’t Cross the Border, the Border Crossed Us”:
For Euroamericans today to claim that their parents came to the United States the “right way” or through “legal means” is a bunch of gibberish based on myths. It wasn’t until the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 that limits were placed on who could enter the country and the formation of the U.S. Border Patrol or the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was formalized.
Thus, these historically inaccurate one-sided “proper immigration channels” arguments and narratives obscure the facts and realities of history while illuminating racist underpinnings that are manipulated by racist Euroamerican politicians who offer no solutions to the problems they created in the first place through their own legislation.
“This is a nation of immigrants” indulges in revisionist history.
Settlers and the US government have broken countless treaties and agreements made over who “has the rights” to indigenous lands. The Supreme Court has ruled that Native Americans didn’t have standing to sue because they weren’t US citizens. Legality does not mean just. These are stolen lands.
Second, “we are all immigrants” erases the reality of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the Africans who were brought here by force and kept here by force. The descendants of enslaved Africans who built this country were not “immigrants.” Repeating this sentiment erases the atrocities of the Middle Passage. It ignores the reality that human beings were considered property on this continent before they were considered citizens. These erasures allows for history to repeat and new forms of enslavement to take hold.
Third, “this is a nation of immigrants” accepts the arbitrary logic that has defined our immigration system. The first law to restrict immigration was the Chinese Exclusion act, signed into law on May 6, 1882 by President Chester A. Arthur. It “effectively halted Chinese immigration for ten years and prohibited Chinese from becoming US citizens. Through the Geary Act of 1892, the law was extended for another ten years before becoming permanent in 1902.” The Bush administration created ICE, the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency, in 2003. The government page “celebrating the history” of the agency notes that “ ICE was granted a unique combination of civil and criminal authorities to better protect national security and strengthen public safety in response to the deadly attacks perpetrated on 9/11.”
Lastly, this line plays directly into the model minority myth where “good immigrants” are placed in stark contrast with African Americans, Latinos, and/or Native Americans who are deemed the “problem children” or assumed to be extinct. “We are all immigrants” often comes paired with a story about the hard-working law-abiding immigrant who is an economic asset to this country and therefore deserves rights.
The slogan “No Ban on Stolen Land” is a powerful one — but it comes with the responsibility to recognize the powerful work Native American and indigenous organizers are doing, and to renew our intentions to join in that work.
What to say instead:
Avoid this one.
3. Calling it a “travel ban”
A travel ban neatly sanitizes what this ban entails. It also provides distance from Trump’s own statements about why he did this, and allowed the administration to pretend it wasn’t about discrimination based on religious grounds.
In fact, it provided so much distance that the majority opinion of this SCOTUS ruling bought it.
This is a Muslim Ban. Follow the lead of Sotomayor’s dissent, which notes that this Ban was motivated by “anti-Muslim animus.”
Islamophobia does not impact only Muslims. It also harms those who are perceived to be Muslim and those who are in proximity to the stereotypes of who is a Muslim. A critical anti-Islamophobia approach highlights this issue. I’ve written about that larger context for Vox here, and about how Islamophobia has shifted what “Muslim” means here.
What to say instead:
“This is a Muslim Ban.”
4. Anything referencing “this bigotry started with 9/11”
This ruling wouldn’t be on the books if it weren’t for a system of discrimination existing. It would not exist if this country hadn’t already done its test runs and if SCOTUS didn’t have a history of upholding racist rulings time and time again.
The policies that we see justified against Muslims today have their roots in other attempts. The history of surveillance goes back to keeping an eye on enslaved Africans, some of whom were Muslim. The history of detainment without due process goes back decades. COINTELPRO made CVE possible.
Additionally, this travesty of justice did not start with 9/11 just as anti-Muslim sentiment did not start with 9/11. The hatred of foreign Muslims has existed throughout history, resulting in this dramatic “clash of civilizations” framework that modern day bigots have been able to dust off and repackage to sell hate.
You don’t get a SCOTUS-endorsed ban in 15–20 years. You need a machine to get us to this point.
And, hypothetically, say we could work that machine to overturn this ruling so that Muslims are no longer restricted. Unless we are intentional about our strategy, these same gears will then be used to aim the machine toward other groups. The domestic terrorist legal/law enforcement framework and system, which stemmed from anti-Black racism, has expanded in the last 15 years to efficiently target Muslims. However, in recent years, it has swung back to target Black Lives Matter activists and Standing Rock activists as, you guessed it, “domestic terrorists.”
Any Muslim worth their “standing for justice” salt is not going to sit still while others face the consequences of policies that were used on us.
What to say instead:
“This ruling is the latest in a long history of anti-Muslim discrimination.” “This is one of many SCOTUS rulings that are unjust.” “Islamophobia today would not be possible without drawing on generations of racism.”
Your Narrative is Powerful
I welcome other suggestions for phrases to discuss the Muslim Ban. I’ve provided some alternatives above and I hope you’ll consider practicing and using these instead.
More importantly, I hope you understand why.
I don’t say any of this to ‘police’ your words or give you ritualistic proclamations. This is about where you cause others pain — perhaps unknowingly — and where you disrespect people who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them this much.
Lastly, this is about disrupting the process of re-writing history. They say that “history is written by the winners.” We are surrounded by messages that are carefully crafted to erase what white supremacy has done. These narratives then justify modern-day policies which harm millions of people in the United States and abroad. Don’t carry water for grotesque policies and ideas.
Doubling down on these sentiments disregards the very real impact of anti-Muslim bigotry and hate. We cannot move forward in this fight for justice for all if we don’t understand — or can’t acknowledge — what we’re up against.
Narratives have power. Choose how you will wield yours.
