Presidential Racism Affecting US Policy

The story is one the administration was hoping would pass without comment. It didn’t. The article in Saturday morning’s New York Times made sure everyone was aware. “Materials on the Arlington National Cemetery website highlighting the graves of Black and female service members have vanished as the Trump administration purges government websites of references to diversity and inclusion.” Had they kept quiet, chances are that months might have passed before a significant number of people noticed. By then, the pages might have been gone permanently.

This is just part of a policy of “Whites First” racism being put in place by President Felonious Punk. As he has ordered the removal of all signs of DEI programs from all government websites and documents, as well as any agency, program, or university that receives federal funding, it is becoming increasingly difficult to excuse this president’s actions against people of color. Sure, he tosses the word ‘merit’ around a lot, but if there truly was a standard of merit in place then he wouldn’t be president, would he?

Returning to a tactic used during his first administration, the White House is now considering targeting the citizens of as many as 43 countries as part of a new ban on travel to the United States. This ban would be significantly broader and more ‘punishing’ than those of his first ban.

The list is divided into three sections: red, orange, and yellow, with restrictions on countries on the red list including a complete prohibition from entry to the US for any reason. Countries on the red list include Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The restriction on Cuba is one that the president insisted upon after the Obama administration had moved toward normalizing relations with the island country. Placing Syria on the red list seems to punish a regime that is no longer in power.

Countries on the orange list would have their travel restricted, but there would be exceptions such as affluent business travelers, but no one holding a ‘tourist’ visa. This aligns more with the president’s idea that rich people are welcome where others are not. Countries on the orange list include Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Turkmenistan.

Twenty-two countries could be on the yellow list and would be given 60 days to clear up perceived deficiencies, with the threat of being moved onto one of the other lists if they did not comply. Alleged issues could include failing to share with the United States information about incoming travelers, purportedly inadequate security practices for issuing passports, or the selling of citizenship to people from banned countries. Countries on this list could include Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, the Republic of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe.

Government officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations, cautioned that the list had been developed by the State Department several weeks ago and that changes were likely by the time it reached the White House. Still, there is no question that the countries on the lists disproportionately affect people of color and countries that are lower on the economic scale.

When revoking the travel bans from Punk’s first administration, President Biden said such bans were “a stain on our national conscience” and “inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all.”

By contrast, Punk said in January that the bans would protect US citizens “from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” However, it is important to note that no international terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil in over 20 years. To claim that the bans don’t have a racist motive is naive.

The most recent act of blatant racism came yesterday when the South African Ambassador, Ebrahim Rasool, was declared persona non grata by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This follows the Secretary’s refusal to attend a G20 Summit in Johanessburg last month because the focus of the meeting was supposed to be, “solidarity, equality and sustainability.” None of the other G20 countries missed the meeting, shining a glaring light on US racism.

Earlier in February, President Shitforbrains signed a useless executive order giving priority to the resettling of white South Africans of European descent (Afrikaners). Punk referred to them as “victims of unjust racial discrimination,” falsely claiming that the South African government had seized their land.

Worth noting, and almost impossible to miss is the fact that Punk’s most vocal adviser and director of nothing legal, Elroy Muskrat, is himself a native Afrikaner from South Africa who migrated to the US illegally. Muskrat seems to enjoy complaining that the South African government is allowing, and possibly facilitating attacks on white farmers.

That has been disputed by experts in South Africa, who say there is no evidence of whites being targeted, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country that suffers from a very high crime rate. More than 30 years after the end of Apartheid, white farmers still own most of the commercial farming land even though they make up only seven percent of the population.

There’s an Israeli/Hamas connection here as well. South Africa is one of the countries to enjoin a case at the United Nations’ top court accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel responded by accusing South Africa of acting as a proxy for Hamas. Rasool, the South African ambassador, comes from a Muslim community in South Africa that has been a center of support for Palestinians. 

However, it should be noted that South Africa’s first black president, Nelson Mandela, also compared the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to the experiences of Black South Africans who were confined to certain areas during apartheid. That perspective has largely been enshrined in South Africa’s Middle East policies.

There is absolutely zero excuse for such a blatant display of racism on the part of the US. While the country continues to battle with internal racism, exporting that racism to other countries is an egregious act of hate and denial of human rights. Every American wears the stain of this president’s racism and must become demonstratively vocal about the situation both at home and abroad.