Before the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was still seen as a significant threat and communism was seen through the same lens as terrorism is today, my mother was getting ready to depart her home in the Netherlands to attend a conference in the United States. As an active student in a higher education institution in Amsterdam, she participated in student government while fighting for fairness in society.
The student union which my mother was a part of was linked to the communist party in the Netherlands, a relationship that prevented her from obtaining a US visa during that time. One of the questions on her application was, “Have you ever been a member of or in any way were/are associated with (either directly or indirectly) the communist party?” My mother answered yes - she didn’t think telling the truth in the country of “freedom of speech” (land of freedom?) would become problematic. As an advocate for fairness and freedom (liberty, justice, and truth?), she didn’t want to lie in her visa. Yet her visa was denied. Fortunately, in the end, someone from her work intervened and she miraculously ended up getting the visa, a privilege not many people have had.
…But this piece is not about that privilege - this piece is about the US visa process. It is about how arbitrary the process can be, and how the smallest things - like personal ideology – can turn out to be very important.
Today, we might find it ridiculous to deny people based on their political affiliations, but this was the norm not too long ago. There are a lot of questions on the visa application that might make sense, such as do you intend on killing the US president, or if you have ever participated in human trafficking. We can all agree that someone who comes to the US to commit a crime should not get a visa. However, political affiliation or religion are no indicators for this. My mother was just as likely to commit an attack as any Muslim we see nowadays.
The fact is that the visa process isn’t based on anything substantial. Just as communists were hated in the past, Muslims are hated now, and that is the only reason why the ban is in place. Because it is easier to choose a scapegoat than address the issues that exist. The US population is facing mass poverty, a rise in child mortality (which isn’t happening anywhere else in the Western world), and inequality based on many different things like gender, race, and sexual orientation. But instead of addressing these issues, the government wants you to be afraid of Muslims.
Perhaps in 20 years, we can look back on the Muslim ban and put our heads down in shame while smiling at the poor political decisions our state representatives made. Yet whether that turns out to be the case or not, that doesn’t change the effects this law has had on the lives of the citizens of the seven banned countries.
The idea that someone should be denied access to a country based on their religion or ideology is not only ridiculous - it’s just malarkey. You can try to protect your country as much as possible, but someone’s belief isn’t an indicator of any danger. Additionally, the ban goes against the founding principles of the United States - the freedom to believe whatever you want and be whoever you want. The United States is known as the “Land of the free and the home of the great”, yet this travel ban is limiting the freedom of US residents. It has been less than a month since the new President has come in office, and we are already seeing limitations on people’s freedom. I just fear where we will be in four years.
