What would we do without Hawaii?

Right now I cannot tell which of these facets of the recent rulings about travel bans and immigration by the Supreme Court and the Trump administration is most disturbing: the “limited” application of the ban, the use of the term bona fide, the lack of adequate outcry by any group of people whose relationships were ever deemed not bona fide, the notion that a graduate school placement or corporate job was bona fide but a grandparent was not, or the downright approval by many of this erosion of human rights and human dignity.

Fortunately, before I could get to the point of throwing furniture, I learned that once again Hawaii filed a legal challenge of the Trump travel ban, this time arguing that many of the relationships that have been determined to lack good faith, were culturally viewed as close family by Hawaiians. I am looking forward to seeing similar suits to be filed by HRC, NAACP, disability rights organizations, NASW, and APA — all groups whose members’ relationships have been historically viewed as illegal or which purport to support human relationships as critical to our well being.

Though it is very unlikely to happen, I would applaud corporate heads who halt international employee travel and defer hiring all foreign nationals until the administration gets its collective head out of its ass. Medical schools and other STEM programs should do the same. Hiring people or engaging them educational programs that will almost certainly require them to severe human relationships is absurd.

Let’s see how that would go down. Amazon, Apple, Boeing, Google, and Microsoft to 45, “We are putting thousands of jobs and billions in business on hold because we recognize our employees as humans with human connections. If the economy stumbles, it’s on you.”

Of course, it would also be great if NAACP would cry out that 50 years ago Loving v. Virginia reminded us that human relationships are to be valued. HRC could similarly point to Obergefell v. Hodges. I doubt that either will, arguing that it would be futile to do so. Yes, they are correct in that assessment, but justice demands that they do nonetheless.