This press release has just been issued:
Earlier today a group of 19 scholars of law and religious history filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit attacking President Trump’s executive order banning immigration from 6 Muslim nations. The brief emphasizes the dangers of targeting immigrants on the basis of religion, telling the story of the federal government’s campaign against Mormon immigrants in the 19th century and its unfortunate legacy.
Mormons are often identified as political conservatives, but during the recent presidential campaign the Mormon Church took the rare step of issuing a critical press release in response to then-candidate Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration. The brief retells the history behind Mormons’ particular concern for religious minorities, and illustrates the evils of targeting Muslim immigrants and refugees or others on the basis of religion.
It is an amici curiae brief – a report by “friends of the court” – people who are not parties to a lawsuit but who have pertinent information that may assist the court as issues are considered. In this case, 19 “friends of the court” – among whom I am honored to be numbered – offered facts and experiences from Mormon history which we believe are directly relevant to current mistreatment of Muslims by some elements of American government. “The Mormon experience provides a striking example of the harms of treating a particular religious minority as dangerous and foreign,” the brief notes. We were once that mistreated religious minority; we oppose that mistreatment of another religious minority in the present.
The text of the brief may be read at the Mormon Scholars Brief website.
This discriminatory aspect of our past is a longstanding interest of mine – I first wrote and spoke about it in 2004, as A Gathering Storm. I have also written about Mormons as refugees during the Armenian Genocide and the Mexican Revolution, and my general approach to refugees is reflected in my Vigilance.
I post this on Keepa chiefly because of its relevance to Mormon history. We can talk about any aspect of that, if you’d like. What I don’t want, however, is political commentary attempting to justify any sort of civil distinction between Muslims and other American citizens/immigrants/residents/visitors/tourists.
Repeat: No Muslim bashing, under any pretext.
Thank you, Ardis. And thank you to the other signatories.
Most Church members may not be aware of the fact that President Grover Cleveland proposed a Mormon immigration ban in 1885.
Since the people upholding polygamy in our Territories are reenforced by immigration from other lands, I recommend that a law be passed to prevent the importation of Mormons into the country
Cleveland’s remarks to Congress in what today we call a State of the Union address were a laundry list of suggestions he’d like to see happen — no specific proposals, no drafted laws, merely “hey, you guys, you oughtta do this.” His remarks went nowhere — Congress did not pass legislation hindering Mormon immigration during Cleveland’s term.
The real threat, as outlined in the brief and in the earlier Keepa posts I linked to, was the request of Secretary of State William Evarts to interfere with Mormon proselyting overseas, and to prevent Mormon emigrants from sailing from other lands to the U.S. The actual effects of that 1879 request were powerful and long-lasting, still being cited into the 1920s by some countries who thought it was still U.S. policy to reject Mormon immigrants. Missionaries were refused permission to land in foreign ports, US consuls refused to protect the rights of Mormon American citizens abroad, missionaries were imprisoned and banished — acts that passed generally unnoticed by the public, and that were attributed to other causes even by the Mormons who had no insider knowledge of State Department communications with foreign governments. State Department correspondence now available, however, shows to what extent the Evarts circular — an official US government action — did cause actual, identifiable harm to known individuals. That, and not Cleveland’s passing remark, is what is applicable to today’s situation.
Thank you.
Great job with this. Thanks to you and the other scriveners.
The brief was an interesting read. I appreciate the expertise and courage of all you amici. Thank you.
Thank you.
I enjoyed everything about the brief. Very readable and compelling. Bravo to the group for making a persuasive argument that is also interesting to read!
If you care to say, Ardis, how much did you participate in the drafting/editing?
The ban is terrible policy, for all the reasons cited.
It’s not clear it’s actually illegal, and that’s what a court is supposed to decide.
I’d rather see this fought out in the political arena, where policy is decided.
You’re probably asking that, David, to give me an opportunity to speak up, if I have anything to speak up about, without harm to modesty (that is, I’d just be answering your question, right? not bragging?) Thank you for the friendly intent.
I think, though, that the strength of a group position is best maintained by supposing that everyone has an equal stake, an equal voice … although it is no secret that Nate Oman deserves every bit of available praise for both the idea and the final product. The rest of us contributed what we could and fully support the positions taken. I don’t often (okay, ever before) get to play a role in something as significant as this with scholars of this stature, and am as grateful to be included as I am adamant that we are on the side of right.
Your inclusion, Ardis, is a recognition by some of the best Mormon scholars that you are indeed, one of them. Good job by all, and I was very glad to see this filed.
I read the brief to the best of my lay-person’s understanding and found all the legal forms interesting. I suppose they serve a good purpose, if only to signal to the legal cognoscenti that this was done by one of their own. The list of signers is most impressive to those of us populating this small corner of Mormon stuff online. Every name has stellar street cred. But the action itself– with which I wholeheartedly agree, and find most appropriate in this context, makes my cynical heart crack with hope and pride to be peripherally associated with such a thing. Well done and Godspeed the effort.
Ditto kevinf’s comment.
Wonderful answer to my question, Ardis. I think I have a sense that you indeed contributed. (So you answered my question without vaunting yourself.) And yes, credit is deserved for all.
The brief is powerful and to the point. Let’s hope that those in power will embrace it.
That was great reading. Very well done, and I learned a few things. Thank you!