To the editor: It is shocking, sad and an embarrassment that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s ban on visitors from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Though it appears as a victory for the Trump administration, it is a major defeat for our core values as Americans, and it suggests that our justice system has lost its moral compass and conscience. Considering this decision and the administration’s separation of immigrant families, we have fallen as a nation in our judgment. Denying access to vetted, law-abiding citizens of certain selected countries sends a message of hate, not of fairness and justice.
The U.S. has further lost its standing in the world. We are now perceived as not trustworthy and less compassionate, and as a nation that cannot be looked up to in times of need to stand by other countries and people who need the help.
Fareed Farukhi, Buena Park
To the editor: No member of the court mentioned the shameful precedent upon which the majority’s unwarranted deference to the Trump administration is based.
In 1889, the Supreme Court upheld governmental power to exclude a whole category of people on the premise that the Chinese were a “different race … who will not assimilate with us” and were “dangerous” to “peace and security.” Although Congress finally repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and later apologized for the discriminatory legislation, the Supreme Court has never reconsidered this case and rejected its prejudiced premises.
In the Muslim ban case, the majority of the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to what is clearly yet another shameful discriminatory denigration of a whole category of people.
Janet Calvo, New York
The writer is a professor at the City University of New York School of Law, where she teaches immigration and nationality law.
The ban is for inhabitants of seven specific countries, not certain Muslims. The Sikhs, Christians, atheists and whatevers of those countries also will be banned.
Connie Veldkamp, Laguna Niguel
To the editor: While it is hard to keep track of his statements, Trump at times told us he was imposing a Muslim ban, but when challenged, he said he was not discriminating against Muslims but was simply imposing a temporary 90-day ban so he could more fully vet potential immigrants.
How is it that this “temporary” ban is still needed, considering that Trump has been in office for 18 months? Surely a competent leader could have implemented a thorough vetting process by now.
Joel Koury, Santa Monica