Sec. 5 (b): “Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”
We’ve all heard opinions of the order from both parties. But allow me to examine it strictly legally – without prejudice and bias.
The above excerpt, taken from Trump’s Executive Order, allows those of a minority religion in their country to come in. But this presents a problem:
Legally speaking, religion is subjective. It’s meaningless to the law. It isn’t an objective biological identity about ourselves that you would see on a birth certificate, like height, race, birthday. Religion can’t be found from genetics. As far as objective fact and law are concerned, It’s something humans make up themselves, not existing outside of the human mind. Thus, turning away people because of their chosen religious identity is analogous to turning away those who call themselves “motivated” and “hard-working.” It makes no legal sense.
The religion we identity as is like describing ourselves as “compassionate.” It wouldn’t say “compassionate” or “incompetent” on our Driver’s license. It’s like an executive order turning away incompassionate people. It makes no sense; it’s vague, ambiguous, subjective, and irrelevant. You get the point.
So the fact that an executive order, a professional legal document, would exclude or include people on a subjective, variating, fickle, self-assessed identity, is very surprising.
But here’s the real kicker:
Couldn’t someone just lie? What’s stopping a refugee from saying their a minority religion in their country?
Say they are asked to show proof of their religion. What constitutes proof? The person has a Bible in their pocket? A Pastor verifies they’ve been attending church? You can’t legally use things like that as legal proof for one’s religion. They are meaningless in a courtroom. It is impossible to legally prove someone is a different religion than they claim, because legal evidence for that is nonexistent.
Legal proceedings can only prove actions, not thoughts. Religion is a thought, a state of mind. A court cannot rule that someone who claims to be Christian is a Muslim because they’re wearing a burka or has been seen as Mosques. That’s not proof of a thought. That’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless. And if a fed denies someone because they are assumed to be a different religion than they claim, that’s a winnable lawsuit against the feds.
So if you really look the order, and understand law, it doesn’t make sense. It is inherently illegal, and anyone who understands law should be able to see this.