Since the election of Donald Trump in November 2016, the United States has witnessed a disturbing increase in hate-inspired violence targeting members of South Asian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Middle Eastern and Arab communities across the U.S. This spike in attacks – driven by racism and xenophobia – has been documented in a new report titled, “Communities on Fire,” researched and published by the group South Asian Americans Leading Together, or SAALT.
The report concludes that the rise in assaults on specific American minority communities runs parallel with the surge in the Trump administration’s anti-Muslim policies and rhetoric. SAALT’s report documented 302 incidents of hate violence and racist rhetoric aimed at racial, ethnic and religious minorities, of which 82 percent were motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment. “The 302 incidents cited represent more than a 45 percent increase from the year prior to the 2016 election campaign, levels not seen since the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.” During the violent incidents, one in five of the assailants invoked President Trump’s name, his administration’s policies or his campaign slogans.
Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Suman Raghunathan, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Together, who summarizes her group’s “Communities on Fire” report and explains how civil society groups are coming together to combat racist-inspired hate and violence associated with the Trump presidency.
SUMAN RAGHUNATHAN: SAALT has been looking at hate crimes and hate violence as well as xenophobic political rhetoric for the better part of a decade – in particular, hate violence. Our analysis on hate violence has been far longer frankly than the FBI when it comes to attacks on Muslim, Arab, Sikh, Hindu and South Asian American communities. What I can tell you right now is that our nation is confronting a wave and really a surge in attacks on our communities that we have not seen since the events of September 11th. And in fact, at this current moment, are really pointing to a far, far larger scale of violence against our communities. And unfortunately, tragically, what we’re seeing and what we were able to document in “Communities on Fire” is the reality that the current policies of the Trump administration, candidate Trump’s political rhetoric and the current statements from the White House are really emboldening and actively encouraging acts of violence against our communities and really continuing to draw a further down a road the racial animus that our country has not seen for the better part of 50 to 60 years.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Suman, how can we make direct links, if any, that correspond to the rhetoric used in the presidential campaign in 2016 by Donald Trump and his supporters and the violence that we’ve seen increase since that campaign got underway?
SUMAN RAGHUNATHAN: That’s right. Well, what I can tell you is that we have seen for the last few years a significant uptick in hate violence affecting those many communities that I already outlined. Eighty-two percent of the incidents we documented as well as our community has documented or animated by anti-Muslim sentiment regardless of their target. And perhaps most chillingly, Scott, one in five of the hate violence perpetrators we documented in only one year immediately after President Trump’s election exclusively referred to President Trump; a Trump policy such as the Muslim ban or a Trump campaign slogan, like “Make America Great Again” as they were violently assaulting one of our community members. So for us, a link that we have been very frankly worried to to make conclusively for quite some time has now been actively and clearly documented between what’s coming out of the mouth of our current political leader and the policies coming out of the White House and how they are indeed, actively encouraging people toward violence.
Suman, given the prospect that we might have a Supreme Court weigh in and uphold the Trump Muslim ban, what is the recourse for your organization and other civil rights groups around the country? With our Republican Congress right now, it doesn’t seem they would stand up to Trump or pass any legislation that would undercut the Muslim ban. What would your group be engaged in if such a decision were rendered by the justices of the Supreme Court?
Yeah. Well, you know, I’m proud to report that there is actually a piece of legislation that is bicameral in both the House and the Senate that would effectively end the Muslim ban and really reverse it. That’s one core piece. If the Supreme Court does indeed decide to uphold the Muslim ban, we can again push back. I can say that our communities have remained united not only with ourselves, but really aided by and with the solidarity of so many other communities of color – from Dreamers to law professors to grassroots activists, including Africans, eastern Europeans, you name it.
We all know that the fight and the current debate on the Muslim ban before the Supreme Court is really something that affects all of us and we know that it’s up to us to continue to keep up the pressure on this administration to –should the Supreme Court continue to uphold the Muslim ban – know that they cannot move forward with continuing to implement it; that simply by virtue of an executive order that can be rescinded or reversed; that the ethos and the impact of the Muslim ban has no place in this country.
And I think the final piece that I’ll say is also that a huge majority of Americans are in strong opposition to the Muslim ban. Voters across the country know that the Muslim ban and its impact and its ethos are un-American. And I think we have continued to see voters across the board, regardless of their political affiliation, realizing that policies such as a Muslim ban are not who they are and are not who we are as a nation.
MARC MAUER: Gov. Cuomo’s executive order would potentially apply to the 35,000 people who are currently living in the community under parole supervision. More than half of that group, 19,000 are African American, reflecting the disproportions we see in the prison system itself. The executive order is a little ambiguous in part and says that there would be a review of people on parole for their restoration of rights. It’s not clear if the governor’s people have set up anything on that or what the criteria would be, but I think the intent of his executive order very clearly has been essentially a blanket restoration unless there’s some unusual circumstances that come to light.
BETWEEN THE LINES: So there’s a whole gamut of how states deal with voting rights of those convicted of felonies. Can you break it down for us? And we’re talking about really huge numbers, right?
MARC MAUER: We have a total of 6 million people who can’t vote because of a current or past felony conviction, but these are all dependent on state policies which are extremely broad and varied in how they play out. At one end, we have two states, Maine and Vermont, where you never lose your right to vote, including if you’re in prison. So people in those states are eligible to vote. At the other end, we have four states where any felony conviction results in a lifetime ban on the right to vote and those four states are Florida, Virginia, Kentucky and Iowa. Now it is possible to get a gubernatorial pardon in those states, but the underlying ban is lifetime and it’s across the board. And among the other states, it’s a mix of restrictions depending on whether you’re in prison or on probation or parole. And there’s a wide range there as well.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Do these folks get something when they leave prison or a letter in the mail? Do they have to go to the polls and see if they can vote? How does it work in practice?
MARC MAUER: In most states, unfortunately, there’s no means by which the state informs people about the right to vote, regardless of whether the state is restrictive or relatively lenient in this regard. But it’s rare that you get a piece of paper, the daily prison saying this is how to register to vote or the day you’re off parole or the like. So there’s been a lot of confusion about this, a lot of misinformation. Tthis recently led to a case in Texas where a woman who was on parole, served her time in prison and was now living in the community working on parole. She went and voted in a recent election. It never occurred to her that she didn’t have the right to vote. She was prosecuted for voter fraud and recently sentenced to five years in prison for voting while she was on parole and five years for just trying to exercise her right to vote. Her argument was that she didn’t have any idea about the fact she couldn’t vote. No one in the correction system told her. It should be the obligation of every state corrections system to inform people about if and when they regain the right to vote and what the procedure is for doing that.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Have there been any studies showing what impact, having the right to vote even perhaps while incarcerated has on any other aspect of people’s experience of incarceration or post-incarceration?
MARC MAUER: Well, we don’t know very much about it. The only reports we have made in Vermont is that it’s a relative handful of people who do exercise the right to vote. But you know, when it comes to the right to vote, regardless of the group involved, if only even one person chooses to exercise that right, you know, it’s really the fundamental principle that we need to be concerned with and then once we extend the right, you know, to make sure people take advantage of it.
There’s a fair amount of literature on reentry from prison and the like, that, you know, makes a strong argument that for people to succeed in the community, they need to have investment in the community. They need to be connected in various ways. So you know, that means good family connections. It means having a job or schooling to participate in. But it also means things like electoral participation. People who are committed to the future well-being of their community are going to be less likely to go out and return to committing crimes. There’s not a lot of heavy duty research on that, but it certainly makes sense intuitively as part of a whole re-entry process that people go through.
For more information, visit South Asian Americans Leading Together at SAALT.org
