I’ve had an internal debate all weekend long over whether I should blog about Trump’s executive order that bans immigration from seven Muslim countries, suspends refugees for 120 days and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. Ultimately, I decided that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, and this issue is too important to remain silent. I choose to be on the correct side of history.
If you are a staunch defender of the president who does not care to read an opposing view, I suggest you stop reading now, and come back tomorrow for a more benign post. Or, better yet, post a comment and let’s have an intelligent debate about this issue.
And, if you choose to unfollow or unfriend me because of my opinion, you are more than welcome to do that, too. This is still America, and I respect your right to have an opinion even if I disagree with it. I hope, however, that you show me and my opinion the same respect and patriotism that I would show you and yours.
This issue, however, is not a left issue, or a right issue, or a Democrat issue, or a Republican issue. It’s also not a legal issue, even though the courts will ultimately decide its fate.
Instead, it’s a moral issue; it’s an American issue. It’s how we choose to define ourselves as Americans. It’s who we are, and, perhaps more importantly who we choose to be as a nation.
I am proud that members of my profession have taken a stand, appearing at airports at all hours of the weekend to help those detained and facing deportation. I am proud of those that marched nationwide to protest Trump and his actions. And I am proud of the judge (now judges) that stood up to block this action, albeit temporarily.
As for employers (this is an employment law blog after all), some have chosen to take a stand.
For example, my alma mater, Binghamton University:
We know that these are difficult circumstances, leaving many of us concerned. Binghamton University remains committed to the continued success of all of our students, regardless of religious belief, country of birth or citizenship, and we are here to provide all students and faculty with support through this difficult time.
And Google:
We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S. We’ll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.
And Microsoft:
We believe that immigration laws can and should protect the public without sacrificing people’s freedom of expression or religion. And we believe in the importance of protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.
And Netflix:
Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all. Worse, these actions will make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe. A very sad week, and more to come with the lives of over 600,000 Dreamers here in a America under imminent threat. It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.
And Facebook:
We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help. That’s who we are.
And Apple:
As I’ve said many times, diversity makes our team stronger. And if there’s one thing I know about the people at Apple, it’s the depth of our empathy and support for one another. It’s as important now as it’s ever been, and it will not weaken one bit. I know I can count on all of you to make sure everyone at Apple feels welcome, respected and valued. Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.
And others, like Starbucks, which promised to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, and Lyft, which has pledged $1 million to the ACLU.
What about your workplace? How you choose to respond is a decision I cannot make for you. It will depend on your political beliefs, moral constitution, and the composition of your workforce. Know, however, that the issues of national original discrimination and religious discrimination are very much on the EEOC’s radar, and its recently appointed acting chair, Victoria Lipnic, likely will not deviate much, if at all, from this focus.
In the aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attack, I wrote the following:
We cannot let this type of discrimination again pervade our workplaces, no matter how angry we are over the murderous crimes of a few acting in the name of Islam. …
No doubt, we live in scary times. Some well tell you (and I don’t necessarily disagree) that we are amid the third world war (even if it looks very different than any war we’ve fought before). One of this war’s battle lines will be drawn at the ballot box over the issues of immigration and immigrant rights. We must resist the urge to fight this war in our workplaces by harassing and otherwise discriminating against those who have the right to work, and enjoy that right free from discrimination and harassment.
Oh how I hate being correct in this case.
I will leave you with this thought. The plaque at the base of the Statute of Liberty reads:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
In celebrating the centennial of the statue in 1986, President Reagan famously noted that liberty “is of foreign birth.”
I remain convinced that inscription, and President Reagan’s words, are America. To my readers, prove me right, that we as a nation are better than, and not defined by, this Executive Order.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
A nation without borders is not a nation. Wake up. He is keeping us safe. Stop putting out misinformation. there are 50 other Moslem states, not affected. It is a legal issue! Goo grief. Look at France & Germany…Europe, if not dead is major, major flux. We dodged a bullet getting President Trump in office…it buys us time to get things right. Please stop the misinformation
Not misinformation, just one man’s informed opinion on what I view as an un-American policy. Thank you for your opinion and contributing to this important debate.
Please define an “American” policy on immigration in the context of the history of immigration in America and not in the context of how your personally feel about immigration or what you have heard on the streets about how immigration (i.e., study the issue, don’t regurgitate the nightly mainstream media newscast).
An “American” policy is one that does not discriminate based on one’s religion, period. It’s not who we are.
Also, can you explain why voting for Trump is a moral issue (http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564) but this is not?
I think, perhaps, you are confusing “morality” with “ethics.” Voting for Trump was an ethical issue for me. Not allowing our enemies to come willy-nilly into this country is both an ethical and a moral issue, the former being based on truth, the latter on opinion or belief. The debate should first be around the ethics of immigration, secondarily the morality.
Not sure I 100% agree with your definitions of morality and ethics. Morality is one’s personal belief of right and wrong, while ethics are the rule that codify those morals. Morals are personal or religious, while ethics are more broadly based on societal norms or rules. To me, this is a moral issue — the wrong of keeping people out of our nation based on their religion. I violates my personal code of right vs. wrong. To you, it may be a more broadly based ethical issue. For what it’s worth, I asked @byhisgrace:disqus about the morality of a Trump vote because of comment his posted on an article makes that very point,
it is NOT a moral issue…Goo grief.
Agree, to an extent. It is a security and worldview issue, but it is also an ethical and moral issue. The problem lies in elevating it to a moral issue over and above an ethical issue. Morality is based on current societal norms and behaviors. Ethics are based on eternal truths. Liberals tend to argue from a moral perspective. Conservatives tend to argue from an ethics perspective. Neither group should totally ignore the other aspect of the argument.
I wonder what terrorism the dirt poor Yemenis, Somalis,Sudanese, Libyans, Syrians and Iranians have ‘perpetrated’ within American borders for the last 200 years!
Good Gawd, you are snotty and arrogant. (Oops, already started with something that is not “intelligent debate,” but I have a deeply-held belief that snottiness and arrogance deserve an in-kind response).
I suppose it is not sufficient reason to simply take a stand on what is right and what is wrong, as the President and his supporters have done on immigration and many other issues? The way we see it, illegal immigration is wrong because…well, because it is illegal. But Rule of Law is something that liberal progressives embrace only when it is convenient, not out of any ethical obligation. The President and his supporters also believe that it isn’t wise, nor is it “American”, to invite your avowed enemies to live among you. We simply don’t think it is a good thing to import people whose stated objective is to destroy you and your religion. Sure, go ahead and make the argument that most of the world’s Muslim’s are secular or not “radicalized,” and I will argue that you simply are ignorant of Islam both as a religion and as a political movement. You cannot, for instance, declare yourself to be a Nazi (also both a religion and political movement) and hope to have people ignore your worldview that is hell-bent on the destruction of people that don’t see things your way.
If you are a Muslim who takes his religion seriously, you are by definition a threat to freedom, Democracy and America. (Hey, that’s also the definition of a liberal Progressive! Epiphany!) If you are a Muslim who is not serious about the political aspect of Islam, and you truly embrace real Americanism, then pledge your loyalty and allegiance to the flag and live as an American, but be aware that you cannot be a good *religious* Muslim without being a good *political* Muslim, the latter being antithetical to being a good American. (Just like you cannot be a “good Catholic” and ignore the teachings of Christ and the Bible on abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
If Muslims want to enter this country, they, and all immigrants of all races, religions, creeds and nationalities, should do as all immigrants who entered the country for pretty much the first 200 years of our history as a country have done: Arrive legally, go through the process of “Americanization” (something that was normative in the workplace, by the way, until fairly recently, and a process that allows people to retain their heritage AND their religion in exchange for their promise to follow the Constitution), obey American laws and live peacefully with others who pledge to do the same. Embracing Islam, by definition, places the individual in conflict with everything that is normative to being an American, as does being an avowed Nazi, Socialist, Communist, or Fascist. Traditionally we have not allowed those who pledge their allegiance to those creeds and their stated objective to obliterate Democracy and Christianity to enter the country; it is only our relatively recent case of national insanity that has allowed any of this “everyone who wants to come to America” versus “Everyone who wants to become an American” non-sense to prevail.
President Trump put a *temporary* ban on *travel* for people whose religion is also their *political* stance, people who both openly and covertly profess no interest in supporting any of the preceding requirements for becoming American citizens. Islam is not just a religion, stupid, it’s a political ideology that is opposed to everything that, ironically, you claim to stand for.
I am proud to be defined by this Executive Order. I was ashamed to have Barack Obama as my President, and equally ashamed to have un-American fellow citizens like you who supported him. The table has turned and the grown-ups are now in charge. Oh, how I love being *more* correct than you.
Time and space do not allow me to dissect just how wrong you are on virtually every point you make about the *temporary* (an extremely important and deliberately overlooked word in this debate) ban on Muslim immigration. So, can we just agree to leave the topic alone? In another year, nobody is going to be talking about this and no legitimate immigrant who wants to be a real American is going to have been hurt by a 90-day ban on travel. Did I mention “Good Gawd, give me a break?”
Thank you for proving my point. If the only good my post does is bring opinions like yours to the surface so we can all see that we are not only fighting against radical Islamic jihadists, but also against radical Americans that hope to undo our way of life, then I’ve succeeded.
Sadly, if those radical Islamic jihadists are part of the solution that helps redefine who we are as Americans, then they also have succeeded. We cannot allow that to happen. We as a nation are better than that (although comments like yours are, sadly, making me think differently).
And thank you for proving my point: Snotty and arrogant little twit.
I know you are, but what am I?
As a practicing Muslim it’s enlightening to hear what Islam ‘really’ is from the Motley Blogger! I think if i told him/her about what Christianity ‘really’ is, it might lead to some violent reactions to my definition! But it does prove one thing: humans can be so presumptuous without searching for the truth behind vitriolic propaganda and without bothering to use their own brains to analyze what’s right in front of their (misshapen) noses.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO — because apparently Islamic terrorism is the only kind that matters anymore.
The confederate flag in your avatar makes it amply clear what you believe. Your words are merely an oh-so-elaborate rationalization for your prejudices, which come through clearly in this sentence: “If you are a Muslim who takes his religion seriously, you are by definition a threat to freedom, Democracy and America. (Hey, that’s also the definition of a liberal Progressive! Epiphany!)” How many millions of peace-loving, hard-working, conscientious, patriotic Americans have you dismissed and falsely demonized with those few words? Not to mention the personal attacks on Mr. Hyman, which speak to your level of maturity.
And one more thing. Place yourself in the late 1930’s and rethink your statement above in the context of accommodating avowed Nazis in the workplace: “We cannot let this type of discrimination again pervade our workplaces, no matter how angry we are over the murderous crimes of a few acting in the name of Nazism.” Nazism, like Islam, is inseparably both a religion and a political worldview. Each has secular, ambivalent members and radical, committed members. At their core, neither is reconcilable with Americanism.
Nazism was not a religion, it was a fascist worldview, and an anti-religion. Moreover, your entire argument is based on the premise that Islam is wrong, that it’s not “reconcilable with Americanism.” That fallacy is not supportable. Our concern is radical Islamists (very different than Islam itself). Moreover, how many Americans are killed annually by radical Islamic jihadists? Two. As compared to other more benign risks (lightning or falling out of bed) or less benign risks (armed toddlers or armed Americans) this risk is minuscule.
Yes, we must be vigilant, because, yes, there are people out there that want to do us harm and end our way of life. But, to lump in all members of one religion because of the horrible acts of a vocal, albeit dangerous, minority, is the height of ignorance. To use your fallacious Nazi argument, swap out murdering Islamist jihadists for money hungry Jews. “We need to rid the world of all Jews because a few control the banks.” It is vey definition of “un-America” to condemn all for the sins of the few. We are all created equal, and all innocent until proven guilty. I refuse to have my values, my morals, poisoned because of the sins (again, albeit violent and dangerous sins) of the few. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f5bdffd2f277a20b15dab3853561c4387766a9e1a50b1e3e5ddadd7e052bdc3a.jpg
Just for the record, I do not think that an employment law blog is the appropriate place for this type of political rant.
For the record, this is not a political rant. It’s one person’s apolitcal take on what he views as an unsupportable and un-American policy. I also neatly tied it back to the workplace, cognizant of theme of this blog. If you disagree, I welcome your opinion.
Mr. Hyman…I would really appreciate it if you would enlighten me on HOW EXACTLY taxpayers
are going to pay for all the refugees already here, let alone any additional refugees? WHERE is the money going to come from?
Once you explain that, would you please go on to explain HOW you justify giving refugees more than
those who fought for the freedoms YOU enjoy every day? (That one just blows my mind…I can’t imagine how you justify that.)
AND THEN…. please explain HOW you can look in the face of an elderly American/US Person and tell them that their monthly Social Security check will be less from now on so the money can be used to take care of those who never contributed a penny to Social Security? People, who I might add, seem to be under the impression that we OWE them something. (You now, the people who DEMAND we change our ways to accommodate them. Yes, THOSE people.)
I have a lot more questions for you to answer but in closing, let me ask you this….HOW can you justify
providing for refugees when OVER 15 THOUSAND children go TO school every day
but have absolutely no idea of where they will sleep once school lets out? HOW come YOU haven’t been jumping up and down on your soapbox, protesting for them??
Jon, if this executive order is as bad as you say it is, you should devote a little more time to analyzing its details. Anything short of that is just pandering to emotions. And that’s just too easy to do with Trump. It’s easy to dislike anything the man does because he’s such an (insert your favorite description here). But it’s healthier for all of us if we discuss policy. Otherwise we’re just dumbing-down our public discourse.
I was purposely not making a legal argument, but a moral argument, as I am concerned that orders such as this fundamentally change who we are as a nation (which will permeate every aspect of our lives, including the workplace). This is not dumbing-down our discourse, but instead having a discussion on philosophical grounds instead of legal grounds.
As far as (il)legalities and (un)constitutionalities, however, this EO will not survive judicial scrutiny at any level.
For foreign nationals who already possess a lawful right to enter the U.S. via an existing visa, etc., it expels them from the U.S. without due process of law. The 5th and 14th Amendments do not just protect citizens or those lawfully in the U.S., but all “persons”, period. To automatically expel or deport a foreign national without due process is a constitutional violation.
Secondly, while the EO does not explicitly ban all Muslims from entering the country, it could still violate the 1st Amendment’s religious freedom protections if a court were to find that the EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion, or if it shows a preference for Christian refugees over Muslims.
Thank you for bringing a little more light to the discussion. There’s plenty of heat already.
Workforce Analytics and Succession Planning is far more important than petty politics.
I respectfully disagree that this is “petty politics.” I view it as a philosophical debate about the meaning of Americanism, and how that can bleed into the workplace.
Whatever Jon. But I noticed you were absent when ex-President Obama was tearing the nation apart.
Search the archives. I had plenty to say the past few years about Obama.
I applaud your willingness to step outside your area of expertise and take a stance. Employee culture is more than policy and productivity. Culture is beliefs translated into actions and voices. Well done!