Professors express mixture of fear and hope at executive order forum

Approximately 30 people gathered on Thursday night for a panel discussion about President Donald Trump's executive order on refugees and immigration in the ASEAN Auditorium at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The panel, sponsored by the Office of the Provost, was the third forum hosted by the university to discuss the ramifications of the recent executive order that attempted to temporarily bar travel by nationals of seven predominantly Muslim nations. The executive order is currently not being enforced due to a temporary restraining order that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel was made up of three Tufts faculty members: Professor of Political Science Jeffrey Berry, Fletcher School Professor Karen Jacobsen and Visiting Professor of International Law John Cerone.

Following a brief introduction by Provost David Harris, the panelists presented their views on the impact of the executive order before answering audience questions.

"It's easy -- all too easy -- to think of Trump as an incredibly unique figure in the history of the United States, and he is," Berry said. "But, in terms of trying to expand presidential power, which the Ninth Circuit slapped him down for, he's part of a long trend of presidents who try to aggrandize the office."

He went on to discuss the possible political strategy behind the order, noting that Trump may be pursuing a strategy similar to George W. Bush during his first term. According to Berry, Bush wrote off Gore voters and operated his administration in a way that fired up his base. Trump appears to be following the same ideological path, Berry said.

"He’s the only president that I know of who gave an antagonistic inaugural address," Berry said.

Cerone followed up Berry's remarks by addressing the legal challenges the Trump administration faces.

"The federal government was seeking a stay of the lower court's temporary restraining order," Cerone said. "In order to get the stay, the federal government would have to show that they have a good likelihood of success on the merits and a few other elements, including irreparable injury."

Cerone explained that the government failed to show that the executive order was likely to stand up to close scrutiny and failed to show that the temporary restraining order issued against it would cause irreparable harm.

Cerone also noted that the executive order was further compromised because it showed discriminatory intent, though it was not necessarily explicit. According to Cerone, the lower court concluded that Trump's campaign statements regarding Muslims and refugees demonstrated discriminatory intent.

Jacobsen provided a different perspective. She said that, for an immigration policy to be internally consistent, the United States would have to apply the same form of rigorous vetting to all immigrants that it currently applies to refugees. Additionally, the main sources of immigration violations were people who overstayed work, tourist or student visas, according to Jacobsen.

"Why are these security concerns not extended to other groups? Well, one reason is that all of our focus on security and immigration is laser focused on the southern border," Jacobsen said.

Following the panelists' remarks, members of the audience had a chance to ask questions.

One Fletcher student asked the panelists to address how Afghan and Iraqi people who assisted the United States' wars there are faring under the recent order. Cerone and Jacobsen said that Trump's administration likely would not target them.

"The people who have assisted our military there are given a different kind of visa," Jacobsen said.

Berry argued that the United States has an obligation to take in refugees from the region, given that the United States has contributed to the area's political instability.

"The United States has a collective amnesia as to our responsibility for the fact that there are lots of refugees in all of these countries," Berry said. "We dropped a lot of bombs, we paid other people and gave them bombs to drop, we overturned governments. And it's not completely our fault, but we are pretending like all the instability in the area is the fault of Al-Qaeda or ISIS. We should be taking more refugees."

Another Fletcher student asked about the administration's proposed changes to the H-1B visa program, which allows companies to bring over skilled workers. Some in Washington have proposed raising the minimum salary for a sponsored skilled worker substantially, which would reduce the number of people that companies are willing to bring in, the student noted. Cerone responded that the administration was likely focusing on skilled workers in specific industries.

"The [United States] has a great model for bringing in really smart people. We do so for students, through Ph.D programs, master's programs. We bring in the best and the brightest to work in our labs. They create wealth for this country," Berry said.

At the end of the audience question section, a Tufts staff member who identified himself as a Trump supporter addressed the crowd and the panel. The staff member alleged that, since before the Sept. 11 attacks, people have entered the United States with bad intentions. He also noted that the corresponding increase in the state security apparatus affected everyone who wished to travel, including his aging mother.

"The status quo isn't working," he said.