STATEMENT FROM MAYOR DE BLASIO ON SCOTUS DECISION ON MUSLIM TRAVEL BAN AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO -  “This ban is institutionalized Islamophobia, promoted under the guise of national security. Banning people from our country on the basis of religion is an affront to our founding ideals. With this decision, the highest court in the land has sent a message of exclusion and division across the globe. As our President tries to build walls, New York City will continue to welcome people from all over the world to our shores, from all faith traditions. Our values have helped make our city the safest big city in the United States – and they are what make America great.”

CONGRESSMAN JOE CROWLEY - “This decision will be remembered as one where the Supreme Court of the United States legitimized discrimination and religious intolerance. This is a deeply shameful decision that strikes at the heart of the principles our nation was founded on and the values we hold dear as Americans.

“Instituting a religious test and vilifying refugees seeking asylum is immoral, ignorant, and hateful. President Trump’s Muslim Ban is the antithesis to everything we stand for, and we will continue to fight against this policy and this administration’s xenophobic and intolerant agenda.”

Council Member Andy King - "I have heard many today call the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the President's travel ban 'un-American'.  This is because we are a nation of values, and in a nation of many racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds, we hold the value of pluralism paramount.  The President clearly stated he wanted to ban individuals from Muslim countries, so I agree with Justice Sotomayor's dissent that it's ridiculous to ignore this reality despite tacking on North Korea and Venezuela to the list.  At this time of national conflict, let us not forget our national history of segregation and attempts to legally divide us to strengthen white, Christian communities.  From the origins of the 3/5th Clause in our constitution, some of us have been legally defined as less than, utilized to justify behavior from the discriminatory to the inhumane.  As a black man whose ancestors were kidnapped, shackled and lynched, I stand with my Muslim brothers and sisters in solidarity against efforts to allow the cancer of white supremacy into our policies and statutes to discriminate."

STATE SENATOR GUSTAVO RIVERA - "I am profoundly appalled and disgusted, but not surprised, by today's Supreme Court 5-4 ruling to uphold the Trump administration's restriction on travel to the United States from 7 countries, including 5 majority Muslim countries. I unequivocally condemn and denounce this hateful immigration policy as it will limit the granting of visas to travelers from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

While there is no question that our national security is of great importance, we cannot mask this racist policy as an attempt to better secure our borders. It was carefully designed to blatantly discriminate against people of certain religions and nationalities, which goes against the principles and values embedded in our Constitution. We are closing our doors to individuals who not only want to see and experience our country, but more importantly, to those escaping extreme physical and economic strife.

I remain committed to resisting this administration's efforts to discriminate against people, whether it be based on their nationality, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. #NoTravelBanEVER."

Council Member Jumaane D. Williams - "The Supreme Court's ruling today enables institutionalized bigotry, codified racism. The Muslim Ban, or so-called travel ban, is unconscionable, a denial of rights and of humanity on the basis of a person's faith. The policy is as vicious, illogical, racist, and inexcusable today as when it was first enacted and protestors flooded airports across the country."

"Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court found a "hostility" towards religion in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Now, given the President's past hate speech and hateful policies, they found none, and it seems clear that this depends on the religion in question."

"The conservative takeover of this court is disastrous and dangerous. I suspect that today's court would have ruled against Oliver Brown in 1954, Homer Plessy in 1896, or  Dred Scott in 1857, when it was argued that Scott had "No rights which the white man was bound to respect," enabling injustice against vulnerable populations, as they have today."

I am committed to continuing this fight in New York and across the country."