Chapter 5 Discussion

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the U.S. government to order the internment of a minority group in the interest of national security, even though there was no evidence that any members of this group were disloyal to the United States. Should the same policy be applied today against U.S. Muslims or Muslim immigrants? Why or why not? Respond to at least 2 other students’ posts.

The relevant learning objectives for this section are:

• Define the concept of civil rights.
• Describe the standards that courts use when deciding whether a discriminatory law or regulation is unconstitutional
• Identify three core questions for recognizing a civil rights problem.

Remember to  incorporate the course readings to form a foundation for your responses. Remember to discuss relevant examples.  Additionally, you must properly cite the course text  (Krutz, 2020, page number). Consult the Discussion Grading Guidelines for additional details. 

I Have Attached Reading Material 

Peers responses:

First peer below

During World War II and under Executive Order 9066, Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans were removed from their homes and communities and placed into internment camps (Krutz, 2020, p. 189). The United States government was fearful that these individuals would be disloyal to the United States and assist Japan during wartime (Krutz, 2020, p. 189). The government never had any evidence to support the Japanese committed any disloyal acts towards the United States (Krutz, 2020, p. 189). I do not believe this same policy should apply to Muslims or Muslim immigrants for several reasons. The first reason being that Muslims as individuals do not present a threat to the government and secondly, Muslims are a religious group, and religion is protected under the First Amendment. Muslim citizens and immigrants have the freedom to worship their religion.

Define the concept of civil rights.

The concept of civil rights is the guarantee that the government will treat people equally, particularly for individuals who have been denied the same rights and opportunities such as minorities. (Krutz, 2020, p. 156). The proclamation of “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution require the government to treat people equally (Krutz, 2020, p. 156). The Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment is an additional guarantee of equal treatment (Krutz, 2020, p. 156).

Describe the standards that courts use when deciding whether a discriminatory law or regulation is unconstitutional.

In the courts, the standards for deciding a discriminatory law or regulation are unconstitutional is based on whether the government can demonstrate that it has a good reason for engaging in it (Krutz, 2020, p. 157). The purpose of the discriminatory law or regulation is the predominant factor (Krutz, 2020, p. 157). The courts the “rational basis test” (Krutz, 2020, p. 157). The rational basis test determines if there is a reason for the law or regulation to treat others differently (Krutz, 2020, p. 157). For example, an individual would like to practice medicine but did not attend medical school or passed the state-mandated exams; however, he feels he has the right to work in the career of his choosing. The rational basis test will determine that the individual not having the education or skill set would be a risk to public safety due to his lack of education.

Identify three core questions for recognizing a civil rights problem.

1. Which groups? First, identify the group of people who are facing discrimination (Krutz, 2020, p. 160).
2. Which right(s) are threatened? Second, what right or rights are being denied to members of this Group (Krutz, 2020, p. 160)?
3. What do we do? Third, what can the government do to bring about a fair situation for the affected group? Is proposing and enacting such a remedy realistic (Krutz, 2020, p. 160)?

Second Peer Below

From my perspective, this policy was extremely discriminatory and baseless. I do not believe this policy should be applied today against U.S. Muslims or Muslim immigrants. This policy does far more harm than good. The main reason being that there is no proof of these individuals being a threat to national security. While there may be terrorist attacks being carried out by members of this group, we cannot blame the entire group. The bill of rights protects the human rights of all persons including and most specifically minority goods. Implementing such a law would be to go against the constitution that was created for the same purpose of protecting its people.

If we want to identify true discrimination we would need to ask these questions and apply them to the issue at hand.

1. Which groups? First, identify the group of people who are facing discrimination.
2. Which right(s) are threatened? Second, what right(s) are being denied to members of this group?
3. What do we do? Third, what can the government do to bring about a fair situation for the affected group? Is proposing and enacting such a remedy realistic? (Krutz, 2020, pg.160)

The group affected would be U.S. Muslims and Muslim immigrants.

Their civil rights are being threatened. They are being denied life, liberty, and property without due process. Which violates the Fifth Amendment. Muslims were being forced out of their homes, separated from their families, unable to travel freely, limited access to healthcare, some could not continue attending school, or practice their religion safely, even with proper documentation. Some were stuck here in America and some weren’t able to return to their homes. The Muslim ban not only impacts people attempting to enter the United States but people who are currently in the U.S. Muslim Americans residing in the U.S. have been cut off from their families and friends who are barred from entering the country. U.S. Congress enacted and passed the Immigration and Nationality Act which said that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

Instead of the ban, the White House should improve the screening of visitors by strengthening information sharing among governments and Muslim countries. Also, the state should begin processing visas and reconsidering those whose applications were previously denied, and also coming up with ways to ensure those applying are not prejudiced in a way. This is a realistic solution, and frankly, we should be compensating some of these people as well.

The concept of civil rights is that we are all meant to be treated equally. Civil rights are “guaranteed by the government that it will treat people equally, particularly people belonging to groups that have historically been denied the same rights and opportunities as others” (Krutz, 2020, pg.156).

In most cases when the courts are deciding whether discrimination is unlawful, the government has to demonstrate only that it has a good reason for engaging in it. In these cases, the courts are applying the rational basis test. This is the standard used by the courts to decide most forms of discrimination; the burden of proof is on those challenging the law or action to demonstrate there is no good reason for treating them differently from other citizens. That is, as long as there’s a reason for treating some people differently that is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest,” the discriminatory act or law or policy is acceptable. (Krutz, 2020, pg.157)

Discrimination based on gender or sex is usually looked at with a medium level of scrutiny, called intermediate scrutiny. It demands that the government show how treating men and women differently is “substantially connected to an essential governmental objective.” This shifts the burden of evidence from the individual alleging unfair discrimination to the government, which must show why the unequal treatment is justified. In reality, this implies that laws that discriminate between men and women are occasionally sustained, but not always (Krutz, 2020, pg.157).

Discrimination against members of diverse racial, ethnic, religious, or religious groups and individuals of various national origins is thoroughly scrutinized by the courts, who use the rigorous scrutiny standard in these situations. Strict scrutiny is “the standard used by the courts to decide cases of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion; the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest is at stake and no alternative means are available to accomplish its goals” (Krutz, 2020, pg.196). Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that there is a compelling governmental interest in treating members of one group differently than members of other groups—that the law or action can be “narrowly tailored” to achieve the goal in question, and that it is the “least restrictive means” available to accomplish that goal. “Finally, affirmative action consists of government programs and policies designed to benefit members of groups historically subject to discrimination. Much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action is about whether strict scrutiny should be applied to these cases” (Krutz, 2020, pg.158).