Justice. A word that tends to roll off the tongue of almost every comic book hero or movie star in their rather cliche monolog. This time, however, we're going to talk about John Jay College of Criminal Justice: to be more specific, a post made to their Facebook Page referencing a tweet made by the college's outgoing president. The post, and repost, of the tweet was made four days after Mr. Trump signed his executive order on immigration and has led to some rather interesting comments on the Facebook thread. Anyone can go ahead and see the original post since it is public, but I want to quickly analyze and deconstruct many of the arguments made, especially in the wake of the travel ban's revival.

1. It is a criminal offense to harbor or aid an undocumented resident.

Fact:This is actually true. According to US Code 1324, anyone who is found to have brought, aided, or harbored an undocumented person is subject to penalty. This penalty ranges depending on your level of involvement of course. On average, you're looking at about ten to fifteen years in prison, on top of fines. There is also the aspect that states that any mode of transportation used to aid an undocumented person is also subject to seizure, meaning it will be taken away from you if deemed needed. Of course, this also extends to employers stating that they can not employ undocumented workers--but for some reason, it's okay only if less than ten people know that they are undocumented--or else the employer will be fined and face a possible five years in prison.

2. All immigrants that have been here for generations came here "legally," so everyone needs to as well.

Fact: This depends on how far back someone is talking. Obviously, settlers came during a time in which immigration was as simple as traveling by boat, killing a couple of people, and then attempting to survive harsh winters by depending on the very people you're killing--pretty simple and moral stuff.

Before 1921, there was no limitation to the number of immigrants permitted to come to the U.S. Of course, you had some groups that were excluded (or banned) such as the Chinese through the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was only fully repealed in 1943. Any time before 1921 was a time of free travel--there was no need to have family already here, no need to have an employer vouch for you, no need for a visa, no need for a federal or state agency monitoring documentation, and no need for immigration limitations.

3. Undocumented immigrants come here to steal jobs and get on welfare.

Fact: This one is actually pretty simple: (1) undocumented immigrants are not taking jobs, (2) undocumented immigrants are actually benefiting welfare programs for documented residents, and (3) immigration law stops the natural circular flow of immigrants looking to work.

(1) A five-hundred and fifty-page report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine explains this in more detail. According to this report, there was no evidence of any negative effects on wages or employment for documented residents due to the presence of undocumented workers; however, the number of hours available to work at a job may be reduced, but not the difficulty of obtaining a job. Other studies have also explained that an increase in undocumented workers actually helps to benefit the low and middle-class working families in the country. Since employers tend to pay undocumented workers lower wages at the same or higher productivity compared to their documented counterparts, this creates a positive direction in company revenue, resulting in an increase of wages for company employees. (2) Undocumented immigrants are also contributing highly to our welfare system. At the local and state level, undocumented immigrants contribute twelve billion dollars in taxes, with an additional twelve billion in federal taxes. Remember, undocumented residents are not excused from paying the same taxes, such as commercial, housing, and transportation taxes, that we all pay with our daily activities. Even the claim that almost no undocumented immigrants pay federal taxes is a complete myth. It's estimated that a third of undocumented are homeowners paying property taxes, about fifty percent pay income taxes, and up to seventy-five percent of all undocumented immigrants pay into the Social Security system; compare this to the finding that only about fifty-five percent of documented citizens are paying their income taxes and this is quite a different narrative. (3) Lastly, the claim that "only the strong remained" does not make complete sense. For one, it could also have been the fact that these "strong" immigrants did not get enough money to be able to go back home after working, locking them into staying in a foreign country with possibly no family. Many immigrants travel to this country for the sole purpose of working and getting money so that they can then leave back home. Go and speak to many undocumented and documented immigrants, and you'll find out that that tends to be the case. Of course, there are multiple cases in which immigrants are fleeing some form of persecution--don't expect them to be heading home anytime soon--but the fact of the matter is that immigrants that are seeking economic improvement don't really want to always stay. Culturally speaking it makes sense that they don't feel comfortable in a foreign country, so they just want to work. However, immigration laws and strict regulations make it difficult for them to willingly choose to leave. Undocumented workers are fearful of having a record attached to their names, which would make reentering the country more difficult, so they choose to start new lives here in the country rather than return home with their earnings.

4. The Executive Order passed by Trump was a Muslim Ban.

Fact: This commenter was pretty spot on, but let's get more into the specifics. The entire justification for the original ban was said to be primarily the 911 Terror Attack of 2001, and the 2015 San Bernardino Shooting in California. And, of course, it is right to say that we should look into the matter and identify the countries in which these extremists originated to consider a course of action. However, in this case, the ban does not make any sense. The 7 countries that were banned were Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, but the actors from the two U.S. terror incidents were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon. To keep it short, the original ban was not even targeting the right countries when you look at the entire list of all terrorists on US soil--many of whom are American born. For this reason, it has been seen as a Muslim ban because the countries are primarily Muslim-majority nations and because of Trump's promise to create a Muslim ban while on the campaign trail. However, as the Atlantic states, some reporters and people argue that it is not a Muslim ban because Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and other Muslim-majority countries are not included. But if you look at the actual order you see it is a matter of religion. The order and Trump said that the "RELIGIOUS MINORITY" in these countries should receive priority in visa access. To be specific, looking at the actual text and at Section 5 (E), you read the words that establish this religious bias. Trump has also directly stated that those that follow Christianity must be given priority. Since these countries are Muslim majority then it means that this particular group was being marginalized completely. In short, this truly was a "Muslim Ban." Trump was directly limiting access to a specific group of people based on religious affiliation. Another big argument that was used to defend the original ban was that the Trump administration said that the countries selected for the original ban and part of the new ban are from a list created by the Obama administration. Now, these countries were compiled and chosen by the previous administration, but it was not correct in the way that Trump has claimed. Obama did create a visa waiver for the citizens of 38 different countries back in 2015 and chose to exclude the 7 countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. This act means that it was not a complete ban on all people entering from those countries, but rather, it was only for the purpose of increasing the security processing for visitors from those countries; the clear difference is that Obama's action did not target refugees as Trump's did. It also did not have a component of a religious bias. There was categorizing involved in the processing, however, this was based on a more focused breakdown of the sects which were deemed linked to terror organizations, not the entire religion. The only "ban" that was passed was in 2011 for Iraq refugees, but only for new applicants, not the ones that were already in the process. In fact, Iraqi refugees were still being accepted the following months, signaling that it was actually a slowing down of the visa process rather than an actual ban. On the contrary, Trump has decided to completely shut down the entire process.

Here and Now

This is all important information to keep in mind as Trump's administration continues to fight for their second attempt at a travel ban. It should come as no surprise that this second try has already been blocked by courts in Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Maryland, leading the administration to face an upward battle. However, there have been many changes in the travel ban since the first, making it potentially a more difficult battle to have it ruled as unconstitutional. For example, as was discussed earlier in my breakdown, there was a built in religious preference for those facing persecution. This made it relatively easy to build a case around fighting the original ban. However, in a stroke of luck, Trump has come out to say that the second ban is a watered-down version of the first travel ban. This is good news for many advocates and courts as it provides a base for building the argument that the administration is trying to reach the same unconstitutional reach, just in different clothing. Advocates will have to act quickly in building their case, however, mainly because the appeal will be reaching the Supreme Court. Trump has come out directly in his rally to say that he will take it up to the Supreme Court if necessary. At the moment, the Supreme Court stands in a position where deadlock will most likely occur, a great instance for advocates working against the ban as it would uphold the current block of the ban. However, Trump's pick for the vacancy, Neil Gorsuch, a judge that has been spoken of as a copy of Justice Anthony Scalia, is due to possibly be confirmed this week unless Democrats maintain a filibuster to remove his nomination. Unfortunately, this also poses as a double-edged sword for the Democrats since Republicans are committed to changing the rules of the chamber to ensure that future Supreme Court hearings will not allow for any filibusters, leading the decisions to only require 51 votes in favor. This is kind of a way to rig the vote considering Republicans hold the majority at 52, leaving no room for any real discussion or debate on the credentials of nominees now that parties have become polarized to a greater degree. Fears are that these changes will result in a much more conservative pick to be introduced to the Supreme Court since it is speculated that two Judges are likely to retire during Trump's time.

All-in-all, this will be a fight that will continue well beyond this week. Hopefully, this breakdown helps to show that there are currently many narratives floating around that may or may not be grounded in the truth. Only time will tell if we can ensure that our communities are allowed to remain together or if we will be pulled apart due to circumstances we were born with such as the color of our skin.

Written with the hope for a better future,
Nuno Pereira