Supreme Court of the United States: Trump has the right to ‘discriminate.’
President Trump is celebrating his victory: He has claimed that he as the president of the United States has power to restrict immigration. Many have criticized him painting him as a white Anglo Saxon racist protestant Christian whose desire is to restrict the ‘pollution’ of white-ism in America by admitting foreigners (http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/28/new-york-times-columnist-trump-white-supremacist/). Many of those who have spoken against the president are legal aliens who were allowed to migrate to the United States.
But outside of the rhetoric and hate mongering, president Trump has not gone as far as Russian president Vladimir Putin who has alluded to the fact that Russia has an obligation to protect what he called, “western European values” against non white immigrants. He argued that immigrants are eroding American white European values, and non-white immigrants will swallow up American historical exclusivity. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YfPbvL9Gk). Putin’s argument arises from his belief that immigration dilutes the historical Christian values of Europeans. He further asserts the fundamental ‘European-ness’ of the Russian people. According to Putin, Russia is for Russians not for immigrants.
Without engaging in the emotional name-calling that blurs the purity of both Trump and Putin’s argument, let us examine the facts. 1. Nationalism is a fundamental human right value created by the historical development of “border” philosophy. 2. The definition of border, assume an absolute principal that legally discriminates against “others” (Those who do not legally belong within the “border”). 3. Boundaries as geographical landmarks imply restriction, exclusion and gate keeping.
The argument of many is that America is a ‘nation of immigrants’. This statement is supposed to imply that America is the land for all inhabitants of the earth who wish to migrate there. This statement is driven more by ignorance than an examination of historical facts which show the creation of a nation with nationhood and a constitution, and a legitimate (within Internationally accepted norms) claim of nationalism for those born in the United States or those whom the law allow to become its’ nationals.
The fact is that Trump seeks to protect America from Putin’s prophetic ‘mumbling’. It is important however to note that Putin’s words, though crude, are backed by facts: Those of us who have lived in the State of Florida have witnessed the transformation of Miami into a Spanish-speaking city. It seems like every body that works at Miami international airport is Hispanic. And in some areas, Spanish is ‘required’ to maneuver through a gas station mart. One can therefore say, “Miami has been overrun by foreigners.”
As a philosophical theologian, I like to bounce theories onto the wall of biblical fundamentals. The Bible establishes national exclusivity from the birth of human governments. The sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who became Israel were the chosen people of God. God established constitutional fundamentals that qualify those nationals. Even within the New Testament, the Church is the bride of Christ: This exclusivity is earned through certain fundamental requirements. Nationalism is therefore not an ad-hoc non-rational attitude but a fundamental principle both in heaven and on earth.
Kenya’s president, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta does not share the same historical philosophy on nationalism to the detriment of Kenyan citizens and Kenya as a republic.
Fortunately, it is within this fundamental principle that the United States Supreme Court gave The Trump administration authority to ‘discriminate’ against foreigners, within the limits of the constitution and laws that allow legal immigration! The majority wrote,
“(c) The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “funda-mental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U. S. 787, 792. Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly bur-dens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen.”
Teddy Njoroge Kamau (Ph.D)
Diaspora Messenger Senior Columnist