Blog by Manar Waheed, Legislative and Advocacy Counsel, ACLU

Exactly one year ago today, the Supreme Court allowed the full implementation of Trump’s Muslim ban. It would be months still before it heard oral arguments in Hawaii v. Trump and issued its ruling on June 26, allowing the ban to remain in place. But on Dec. 4, 2017, America began to ban millions of Muslims from the United States, even if they have family members, jobs, academic spots, or other compelling connections here, and even if they would otherwise be fully entitled to receive a visa to come here. 

This day goes down in the history books, not only as an enormous failure to live up to our values of religious and racial equality, but for the real impact that the ban has on people’s lives. Take Anahita, who never got to say goodbye to her father in Iran before he passed away and did not even get to mourn with her family. Or Nisrin, who was detained during the chaotic implementation of the first Muslim ban simply because of her Sudanese citizenship, although she has lived in the United States for 25 years. Let’s also not forget the numerous students afraid to return home to visit their families because their visas may not be reissued. Or the families now traveling thousands of miles and spending thousands of dollars to simply be able to hug someone they love at a library on the border of Canada and the United States.

Though there is a waiver process, the numbers have been sparse. In the first three months, the government issued just two waivers. As of June, the number of waivers grew to around 570 — a mere two percent of visa applications. Most recently, State Department claimed to have “cleared” 1,836 applicants for waivers as of September, but it remains unknown whether those individuals have actually been granted waivers. Many advocacy groups and members of Congress have requested updated numbers about waiver issuances, but the government has yet to fulfill those requests.

The ban’s impact comes in many shapes and forms, reaching well beyond individuals from the five targeted countries into hearts, homes, and neighborhoods across the country.

Refugee numbers are grinding practically to a halt, largely impacting Muslim, Arab, Iranian, Middle Eastern, and South Asian communities. Many applicants are indefinitely stalled in their immigration process because of so-called “extreme vetting,” including a social media monitoring program that claims to determine who will present a “threat”—even though there are no reliable predictorsof who will commit violent acts. In fact, documents have revealed that officers truly don’t know what they’re looking for and have stated their need for “training and clear guidance.”

Hateful rhetoric coming from the highest levels of government is also echoed and manifested on the ground. Hate crimes continue to rise, particularly those motivated by racial or ethnic animus as well as those motivated by religious animus. Muslims are facing heightened levels of harassment and violence, though reporting numbers by the Federal Bureau of Investigations do not fully reflect that reality in part because of the escalating fear these communities face engaging with law enforcement. Communities worry that law enforcement will report them to immigration enforcement or the FBI for little or no reason — even when they are U.S. citizens. For some, it may feel like there is no safe place to turn.

But as other communities have shown us throughout history, one antidote to hate is committed activism. Our government has been on the wrong side of our values and the law before. Japanese incarceration through internment camps. The denial of citizenship for Black people. Racial segregation under the notion of separate but equal. Eventually, and after much struggle and harm, they were overturned, just like the Muslim ban will be.

From its very start, the Trump administration has vilified and stigmatized Muslims through its rhetoric and its discriminatory policies, starting with the Muslim ban. A new year, however, is upon us — along with a new Congress. And they’re just the ones to rescind the ban and put an end to this period of government-sanctioned discrimination and hate.

Date

Tuesday, December 4, 2018 - 3:00pm

Featured image

Muslims Welcome Here sign

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Immigrants' Rights Freedom of Religion and Belief

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

The 2018 election results sent a clear message: Massachusetts voters expect their elected leaders to prioritize our health and our rights. When the Massachusetts State House kicks off its new legislative session next month, it will do so with the largest pro-reproductive health majority in recent history. We must hold them accountable.

At Lobby Day, advocates from across the state will come together to declare: access to sexual and reproductive health care is a basic human right. The day will begin with a tabling fair and short speaking program to get you fired up, followed by a training to prepare you to hold effective conversations with your lawmakers. Then we'll send you off to meet with your state representative and senator to advocate for a new bill to boldly and proactively expand access to safe, legal abortion; legislation that expands access to comprehensive sex education, and funding for Massachusetts family planning, teen pregnancy prevention, and HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

RSVP TODAY

Co-sponsoring organizations include: NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, ACLU Massachusetts, National Association of Social Workers Massachusetts, Mass NOW, and MassEquality.

 

Event Date

Thursday, January 17, 2019 - 10:00am to
Friday, January 18, 2019 - 1:45pm

Featured image

More information / register

Venue

Massachusetts State House

Address

24 Beacon St
Boston, MA 02133
United States

Website

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Date

Thursday, January 17, 2019 - 2:00pm

Menu parent dynamic listing

21

Thanks to a growing number of state and local government officials, not to mention national actors like President Trump, questions abound these days about the constitutionality of public officials blocking people on social media.

The answers to those questions are complicated and depend on the facts of any given case. But, as we explain in a brief we filed in a Virginia lawsuit this week, the proper framework for courts to use in considering these cases should ensure that as our democracy increasingly moves online, the Constitution applies with no less force on the internet than it does offline.

Two main principles should govern these cases: First, individuals do not lose their First Amendment rights just by virtue of gaining public office, no matter how powerful they are. Second, when they act on behalf of the government, elected officials are also subject to the limits that the First Amendment imposes on them as government actors.

To answer this conundrum, courts must begin by asking which role a public official embodies on a given social media account: that of a private speaker or a government actor. If the answer is “private speaker,” she can limit her audience and curate the messages on the page, just like any other member of the public. But if the answer is “government actor,” the First Amendment dictates that she can’t prohibit access to her social media in three specific circumstances.

First, once she intentionally opens up her social media for public conversation, she can’t stop people from joining in because of the views they express on the topics at hand. Second, if she generally allows individuals to ask for government services through her social media account, she can’t block critical voices from doing so. And, finally, if she uses her account to publicly share government information, she can’t prevent people from actually being able to see her posts because of their viewpoints. This is all for good reason. Allowing a government actor to ban critics from speaking in public forums would silence and chill dissent, warp the public conversation, and skew public perception. And enabling government actors to block critics from petitioning them for services or seeing public information would mean punishing them for speaking out or holding critical views.

How does a court apply that test to specific facts? Let’s consider the Virginia case. There, a chairwoman of the board of supervisors of Loudoun County, Va., created an “official chairwoman” Facebook page. She uses that official page to share information with constituents, give them a space to discuss “any issues,” and find out who needs emergency relief during snowstorms. She generally keeps the page open to all, but she briefly blocked the plaintiff in the case — a constituent who criticized members of the board she chairs.

In this circumstance, we think the chairwoman is clearly a “government actor” because of the contents of the page and its links to her activity as a public official. That leads to the next question: Does she offer the page as a public forum, a way to petition her for public services, or as a space to share government information? Her posts inviting “any” constituent to comment on “any issues” suggest that she has at least opened it up as a place for public discussion. That means that she violated the First Amendment by blocking a constituent from commenting on her page because he expressed criticism of her colleagues.

Let’s try one more. What about President Trump? @realDonaldTrump is clearly an official government account, by the Department of Justice’s own admission. That means Trump cannot claim that the First Amendment does not apply to the digital acts conducted on that account. The second part of the test depends on the facts that will be found by the court: namely, whether President Trump has opened his feed up as a forum for public discussion. If the answer is yes, his blocking of users violates the Constitution. If the answer is no, the public is still entitled to see his tweets, since he issues official decisions — like his intention to ban transgender people from serving in the military — through that account. However, given Twitter’s current policies, even those “blocked” by a certain account, or those without a Twitter account at all, can still see public tweets. So it may be a social media company’s specific technology that dictates the ultimate constitutional result in that case.

More often than not, the First Amendment traffics in nuance, detail, and government intent. In applying it to the internet, we should expect nothing less.

Blog by Vera Eidelman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

 

Date

Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - 6:00pm

Featured image

Social media icons on cell phone screen

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Related issues

Free Speech and Expression

Show related content

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Type

Menu parent dynamic listing

25

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU Massachusetts RSS