 Aloha. Welcome to Global Connections. I'm your host, Grace Chang, joined here today by Professor Pierre Aslan of Hawaii Pacific University, and he is a professor of history at the university here in Honolulu. And we're going to be talking about travel bans in the United States history in relation to what's been discussed in the media lately with President Trump's second immigration order, also often called the travel ban. So welcome back to the program here. It's an honor to be back, Grace. So for those of us who haven't seen your previous episodes, tell us a little bit about yourself. So I'm originally from Canada. I'm an immigrant. I got naturalized in 2012. I've been in Hawaii for 25 years. I've been an HPU for eight or nine years. And yeah, I'm an expert of the history of U.S. foreign relations and of the Cold War more generally. And I've kind of developed a different sort of interest in the whole travel ban because much of what we're discussing these days in terms of legality and illegality is actually tied to the Cold War period, and we can address that today. So yeah, I think placing, I mean, everything that goes on these days, I feel that we fail to put in its proper historical context. And this is another example of how we fail to recognize how history can help us make sense of this and put this into a more correct context. Okay. Yeah, I mean, there are so many phases of American history and different waves of immigration as well as well. I mean, just as far as global history, right? Waves of migration generally and how that impacts the U.S., who seeks to come into the United States for various reasons. So yeah, I think the historical context is an interesting one and kind of a timely topic because the judge in the Hawaii Federal Circuit Court just once again blocked this, halted this immigration order that the Trump administration had recently issued to replace its previous one. So yeah, it's given rise to more discussions. And this morning, the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer came out and said, you know, it is absolutely the president's prerogative to determine who comes in and out of this country. So again, that's where things get problematic because so the prerogative was given to the president in 1952, right? So technically Congress is supposed to be dealing with larger immigration issues. But in 1952, new federal legislation effectively granted the president the authority to ban certain groups from entering the U.S. If it turned out if the president himself determined that members of those groups were detrimental to the United States interests. So the president himself gets to determine that without providing evidence? But here's the context. 1952, this is the McCarthy era in the United States. So it's the onset of the Cold War. There's a rabid fear of communist subversion in the country. McCarthy is fueling that fear with his trials, with his denunciations of communists everywhere in government. The Cold War is presented as this existential conflict. And in the midst of that, there is what in retrospect is an overreaction to grant the president, in addition to the authority already has over foreign policy, which is almost imperial, grant the president this authority to basically now make immigration law. So technically, yes, the president has that authority. But we've got to recognize that the context in the 50s is very different from the context today. As much as we're concerned about global terrorism, this is not the kind of existential struggle that the country faced, especially during the McCarthy period. But again, there's a failure to recognize here where some of these laws come from, where some of these presidential powers were granted. And to simply say, well, he doesn't have that authority, yes. But let's look at when the authority was given and why. And if you put it in a proper context, you recognize that well, president might have that authority, but... I mean, it seems like we try to address that though in the 70s, right? I mean, this idea of the imperial presidency, this was roundly criticized in the 70s. And there were efforts by Congress to kind of take some of that authority back from the president so that there wasn't so much authority concentrated in the White House. But was this one aspect of that presidential power that has been overlooked in the 50s? So, I mean, the Constitution grants tremendous, tremendous power to the president when it comes to foreign policy. Domestic policy is a whole different animal. But in terms of foreign policy, the Constitution basically, the U.S. has the president has tremendous power. With respect to immigration, which is technically a foreign concern, but also a domestic one, that's where Congress can exercise a more significant role. But Congress, because of the Cold War, would surrender much of its authority to the president. It tried to claim some of it back in 73 through the War Powers Act, right? But what we've been seeing since then is presidents slowly but gradually resume their imperial tendencies, specifically by resorting to these so-called executive orders, which are effectively presidential sanctions to do anything that the president wants in the world without having to seek advice, counsel, or even approval from Congress or the Senate. I mean, the Constitution does grant Congress strong foreign policymaking powers, but it seems that much of it's been delegated to the president in the form of permitting executive orders and other executive actions. So are the parameters of those kinds of issuances by the president? Are they just not well-defined or are you saying that they were issued in the context of the Cold War, especially the McCarthy era, kind of rain back in a bit in the 70s in the context of the end of the Vietnam War, but since 9-11 in particular, right? This is kind of, we've seen a little bit more loosening of this. So the whole executive orders thing, technically presidents have always had that prerogative, but it was very rarely used. Actually some historians recognize Lincoln's proclamation of the emancipation and proclamation as an executive order, but they really take off in World War II because of FDR. FDR will actually challenge the Constitution and Congress to give himself that prerogative to resort to executive orders, but again, it's World War II. The U.S. is engaged in this existential struggle, right? The issuance of hundreds and sometimes thousands of executive orders by presidents will continue throughout the Cold War period, and they haven't really evaded ever since. And that's what President Trump has been doing since being in office, issuing those executive orders. The problem with them is that you issue them without, again, consultation of Congress, which can then create problems down the line, and that's what this president has been experiencing, particularly from liberal elements within Congress. Well, I mean, yeah, Obama also issued a number of executive orders early on in his administration, so what is so particular about this particular travel ban, this immigration order, and as we're talking about, is it different from other travel bans or immigration bans in U.S. history? Let's look at the history of that. It's fascinating. I mean, the U.S. was effectively founded as a Protestant republic, and American policymakers have always been concerned about undermining this identity of the republic. So for all this talk of separation in the church and state, the idea at the onset, which is still shared by a good number of Americans today, is that this is a white Protestant country. Now, in efforts to keep the country white, in efforts to keep the country Protestant, the U.S. over time would enact a variety of different legislations. Some of the more popular ones, famous or infamous, are, so 1882, for example, 1882, there's effectively a ban on Chinese immigration. So that same year, 1882, there's also a ban on, and I'm not kidding you, on admitting convicts, lunatics, and idiots. There's actually a law that says that. Not good company. No, exactly, and good thing is no longer affected, because otherwise I might have a problem with my whole immigration status. For the record, I'm neither a lunatic or a convict. But yes, so we had this ban. So on immigration from China, which effectively lasted until 1943, until World War II, at which point China becomes an ally of the U.S. and as a favor, we end the ban. So we had that element. In 1901, following McKinley's assassination by the son of Polish immigrants, we have an act put in place to deal with anarchists that effectively bans anarchists from entering the country. How do we know someone's an anarchist? I don't know. To be honest, when I filled out my immigration papers, the communist question was on there. They asked me if I committed crimes, and then they asked me if I've ever belonged to the Communist Party. I think it's something about the Nazi Party, but I feel you should test. Are you a lunatic? I don't remember that being asked. The idiot question again I would have grappled with, but it didn't come up. So there's that history of trying to exclude others. So in the 20s, in 1921 and then in 1924, new legislation is introduced to really limit the number of people coming in from Eastern Europe, from Southern Europe. There's effectively a ban imposed on migrants from East Asia, from South Asia, and from the Arab world. And it was all part of this effort to protect America's western identity, America's western civilization. And it was very clear discrimination on the basis of nationality. And in the 20s, effectively, what Americans are seeking to exclude, or who Americans are seeking to exclude, it's effectively Eastern Europeans who are coming in larger and larger numbers, and Jews also. And that's, again, now we know, well, we shouldn't have done this because Jews would actually pay a price for this during World War II. And so yeah, all of these things need to be put into proper perspective. Okay, all right, well, that's really fascinating to hear about the background of the orders as well as the history of immigration bans. All right, well, thank you, Pierre. And stay tuned. We're going to continue this conversation with Professor Pierre Asselin. You're watching Global Connections. Hey, has your signal just been taken over? Am I supposed to be here? This is Andrew, the security guy, your co-host on Hibachi Talk. Please join us every Friday on Think Tech Away. Aloha, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pauline Schachmark-Chen. I'm the host for a new show on Think Tech Hawaii called Outside In. Outside In will be taking a look at how the external world can help shape Hawaii's future. And I will be starting the show hopefully next year in terms of regularly scheduled programming. And we hope to invite a wide variety of different guests, ranging from history, philosophy, art and architectural fields, all the way to robotics, biotech, cryptocurrency, Bitcoin and the like. So we're going to have a full range of guests to cover many different areas of interest. And I hope to see you next year. Until then, aloha. Aloha, welcome back to Global Connections. I'm your host, Grace Chang, joined here by Pierre Asselin, Professor of History at Hawaii Pacific University. And we're talking about travel bans in U.S. history. And before the break, Pierre, you were talking about early 20th century travel bans, well, beginning with the late 19th century ban on Chinese immigrants, then early 20th century against East European, East Asian, South Asians, Arabs as well. So our immigration in recent decades has been much more open. And a lot of this is in the context of the anti-discrimination policies, laws that have been passed since the 60s in the context of the civil rights. So give us a little background on that. So, you know, again, so American immigration policy was very kind of unfavorable toward non-white Protestants, non-whites and non-Protestants. And during the Cold War, this becomes a liability for the United States, just like the treatment of blacks is a liability. So because Soviet propaganda is going to exploit these aspects, right? Because, I mean, each country, the Soviet Union and the U.S. claims to be promoting justice, freedom and so on and so forth. However, we chose to see the Soviets and they saw us at the time. But what the Soviets end up doing is looking at Americans and saying, okay, Americans say that for democracy, look how they treat their blacks. Americans say that they're about freedom. Look how they restrict immigration from outside. And so this creates tremendous pressure on American presidents to kind of change things. So what do we see? 64 Civil Rights Act, right? Of course, it's a response to domestic efforts at changing legislation. But there's also that external component that tends to be ignored, the Cold War context, which added more pressure on U.S. policymakers to change things to kind of undermine Soviet propaganda to the effect that the U.S. is racist. You need allies in the world versus... Including in Africa. So what kind of message are you sending when you're trying to win over newly independent African states and blacks in the U.S. are getting lynched? They can't use bathrooms because whites are using them. So this was a really powerful tool used by the Soviets against the U.S. And so the Civil Rights Act, again, all the credit goes to the kings and the Malcolm X's and the others who were involved in that struggle. But let's not forget that the Cold War context also created another pressure on policymakers to change. And this is what's interesting. So 64 Civil Rights Act, a year later in 1965, the U.S. under Johnson again revises this immigration policy and effectively at that point says we will no longer discriminate on the basis of nationality. And so it's intended to kind of change America's image in the world. There are still quotas on the number of people who can come in. But you can't say that now we're going to allow 100,000 people who are white to come in, but no Arabs to come in. As of 1965, you can no longer do that, discriminate on the basis of nationality. And that's the conflict we have right now. So the Trump White House is saying that 52, the 52 provision gives the president the right to exclude people if they're detrimental to the U.S. If he deems it himself. But then 65 says you have that right, but you cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality. Nationality means citizenship. So you can't say if you hold, let's say a Syrian passport, you can't come in. Because the 65 act was effectively meant to end these kinds of practices. And the Supreme Court has felt kind of, the courts in the U.S. have felt compelled to kind of uphold that because it becomes a slippery slope if you kind of decide to go against tradition and say well, because circumstances warrant, we're going to have these blanket bans on individuals. Well, he claims that there are reasons for the ban on people from those six specific countries. Now here's the thing that's interesting. There actually has been a Muslim ban before. 1980 Jimmy Carter in the aftermath of the hostage crisis. Carter, right? The darling of liberals actually imposed a ban on all Iranians coming into the United States. Yeah, but that's not Muslims. It's a specific nationality. In terms of the idea that if we look at what's happening now as a Muslim ban, White House says no, it's a ban against people from Iraq, from Syria, Yemen, irrespective of religion. But critics say it's a Muslim ban. Well, there was this ban imposed by Carter in 1980. So what it did was, it's interesting what it did. It basically nullified all these that had been issued to Iranians when they entered the country just yet. But I mean, it doesn't seem the same thing. I mean, I think we can, one of the criticisms of these courts that have blocked the two immigration orders is that it reads into them that these are Muslim bans. When they are bans against six specific countries, not people of the Muslim faith broadly. And so they're reading into what President Trump has said in other four, as a candidate in particular, about that he would ban Muslims that we shouldn't allow Muslims in. But this is not a blanket ban against Muslims. So I think this one is, we could read it that way. It's six specific countries. And I think the question is what is it about people from these specific countries that we should have a blanket ban over? I mean, the one that Carter issued in the context of the hostage crisis in Iran was part of a broader set of policies to pressure Iran itself. It wasn't specific to an idea of everybody from that country is a security threat. It was part of a diplomatic tool used to pressure Iran to deal with the 444 Americans that were being held hostage, or for, yeah. 444 days, right? It's such an easy number to remember. But at the same time, the ban is imposed on Revolutionary Iran on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So I see your point. But there is, at the same time, in what Carter is doing by imposing this blanket ban, kind of a clear message being sent to radical Islamists, right? And to the same extent that not all Iranians were buying into the revolution, right? Just as not all Muslims obviously are buying into ISIS and that kind of one. Carter still felt that all Iranians are to be banned. So the other difference, I think, is that in the Iran case, in the aftermath of the Revolution 79, there was a specific crisis with regard to Iran and the United States. In the current case, there's no direct crisis between, or anything that's unusual anyway between the six countries in the United States. I agree. I mean, again, when you look at the 50s, when you look at the Cold War, very clearly, by the early 1950s, the Soviet Union, communism, is recognized wildly as the enemy of the United States. So it's not just that. It's the entire system, the entire ideology, the entire country, the entire socialist camp is seen as hostile to the U.S. and technically the Americans at a point because after all communism, self-professed, right, is intent on eradicating capitalism. It's the root of all evil. And so it becomes part of this existential struggle. What we have here is kind of slightly different. I mean, we have a situation where, you know, we have bad apples in the area, a ton of people who desperately need help. And by saying that, well, all of them are bad, there's an element of unfairness here. I mean, refugees, people living in war zones trying to survive, desperately need the assistance of other countries. And for a country like the U.S., to come and say, you know, well, if you're from Syria, you're too bad, blanket ban on you guys, it sends the wrong message. I mean, we want to make this country great again. We want this country to lead the world. When you lead the world, ultimately, you have to lead by example. You impose a ban on Syrian refugees, other Western states follow suit. What happens? We have hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are basically left on their own to effectively die. And that's not right. It's the American. And that's really was not what the whole Cold War system that the U.S. creator was intended to support. It goes against tradition in that sense. You know, it defies not only the law, but logic and specifically logic as it has been defined by the United States and its policymakers over the centuries, over the decades. Ultimately, what we need to question here, so the president, you could say, looking at the 52 law, he does have that prerogative. But that judgment, the fact that this rests on one person's judgment, that's the problem with the imperial presidency. It grants the president too much power. Fine, you know, the president needs to be able to fire nuclear weapons in the event that in the next five minutes, the Chinese decide to launch missiles our way. But these are extraordinary circumstances, and that's what a lot of these laws granting the president these kinds of powers were meant to answer. But, you know, this is not an emergency. I mean, obviously, it's not like, you know, ISIS has declared a war on the U.S. that's going to happen on full within the next two hours. There's an element here in terms of necessity and whether this can really help American national security, I personally have a hard time seeing the logic behind that. I really do, and it goes against, I think, some of the core principles of the Cold War period. Yeah, it's difficult to kind of extract this from broader questions about, you know, the imminence of the danger that anyone from these countries particularly, or anybody, like literally anybody, right? Absolutely. Why the totality of the bans. But the history, Grace, and all of this is people need to know their history. They need to put this into context and not take phrases at random here out of their proper context. Oh, great. Sorry, that's my rather than his story. There's no one gives any more, but it still matters. Here, Ashlyn, here, Ashlyn here to give us historical context and why history matters once again. But yes, very enlightening. Thank you for sharing all that background on American history and where our immigration laws and executive powers have evolved from. The political context versus the legal powers. Thanks for coming and thank everybody who tuned in to us for joining us today. See us here at Global Connections every Thursday at 1 p.m. Aloha.