Executive orders and the American conscience

Late Tuesday evening, a report issued by Reuters and published by Yahoo News indicated that President Trump intended to sign a series of executive orders, which began on Wednesday, that will noticeably alter current immigration and national security policy. The president himself took to Twitter that night promising a “big day planned on National Security tomorrow. Among other things, we will build the wall.”

Chief among the initiatives announced by the president on Wednesday was the construction of the long-promised border wall with Mexico. Forthcoming executive actions, while not yet issued, were first rumored by media outlets to center on a temporary ban on most refugees seeking entry into the United States, as well as the suspension of visas for nationals hailing from Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries gripped by terrorism-driven carnage.

{mosads}Late Wednesday night, the New York Times reported that they had obtained an eight-page draft of the executive order concerning the ban on refugees. The report indicated that the President intends to institute a policy which will indefinitely block the entry of Syrian refugees into the United States.

This particular executive order will also suspend the intake of all other refugees for 120 days, until extreme vetting procedures are in place. Once the refugee program is revived, the total annual intake of refugees will be reduced by over 50 percent, from 110,000 to 50,000.

Over the past few days, we’ve witnessed the continuation of a long-standing and ferocious clash of political ideologies, this time largely fueled by the adversarial opinions that surround virtually all of the president’s executive orders.

Given the overwhelming partisanship that has enveloped the recent crop of executive orders, which range from immigration policy impacting Mexico-United States relations to the reauthorization of controversial oil pipelines, these topics will be hotly debated for weeks to come.

They’ll draw sustained protests and ferocious debate, likely overshadowing seemingly less visible, but critically important, issues.

To that end, there are issues that must rise above the political fray, issues of monumental gravity that transcend party affiliations. The impending executive order surrounding refugee restrictions cannot be subjected to partisan interpretation, nor can we allow this story to be buried within a busy news cycle. The preservation of innocent life, regardless of nationality, cannot be subjected to political squabbling.

As it stands, the United States — the most powerful and charitable nation on the planet, appears on the verge of enacting a policy that will turn away tens of thousands of people who desperately need our help. Our government seeks to further tighten a refugee entry process that, according to previous White House statements, possesses the most robust and thorough security screening procedures of any traveler intake system currently in use.  

Now we seek to refuse sanctuary to those from a set of nations devastated by war. We fear the physical threat presented by terrorism and the infiltration of its agents. To justify our own pursuit of safety, we avert our eyes from the grotesque reality of unfettered butchery.

We attempt to forget the images of parents carrying the lifeless bodies of their children along rubble-laden streets, or the images of children standing powerless as their siblings convulse on the floor of a makeshift field hospital following a chemical attack.

Yet, just over seven decades ago, our ancestors shed their blood on distant shores in resolute opposition to those who sought to victimize the innocent. Their service and commitment allowed the United States to stand as a beacon of hope in a world darkened by brutality.

Today, we instill in our children the virtues of selflessness and compassion, teaching them to always act altruistically, even in the face of fear. We teach them that the right thing is usually the most difficult thing to do, that even though it’s commonly accompanied by danger, they should do what is right anyway.

The specter of evil’s visitation always looms, but we cannot be willing to trade our very conscience so that we may enjoy only the prospect of security.

How can we as Americans, a people long defined by an inherent willingness to run toward the flames instead of away, abandon tens of thousands of defenseless human beings to an inescapably gruesome fate?

How can we look ourselves in the mirror, knowing that we sacrificed not only our principles, but scores of innocent lives in order to secure the mere possibility of safety?

Jesse Heitz is a long time contributor of The Hill. He obtained his BA in History from the University of St. Thomas and his MA in War in the Modern World from King’s College London. He is also the author of, “Fire Resistance in American Heavy Timber Construction: History and Preservation.”

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.