Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, April 19, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan

Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A

s the curtain falls on 
an era of unity and 
diplomacy, I am sure 
members of the British Parliament 
are asking themselves, “To be or 
not to be?” That is, should they 
be holding British society hostage 
to 
nationalistic 
policies 
that 
could send the global economy 
into a recession? Well, that is the 
question. Just as Shakespeare 
meant this phrase to refer to 
death, it is more than appropriate 
to use this expression to refer 
to the death of international 
stability at the hands of the British 
Parliament.
With the third failure of the 
ratification of the Withdrawal 
Agreement 
paired 
with 
the 
European Union’s strong position 
against changing the terms of the 
agreement, the chances of Britain 
exiting 
the 
European 
Union 
without a deal seems probable. 
Since British Prime Minister 
Theresa May has already begged 
the 
Parliament 
to 
reconsider 
their decision on the agreement 
ratification — and even promised 
to step down from her position to 
do so — we are left to wonder what 
else can members of Parliament 
do? And oh, do we wonder. The 
actions of the British Parliament 
have caused nothing but anger and 
confusion.
When I think of all the 
things that are going to be lost 
from this deal, I am continually 
dumbfounded 
by 
the 
effects 
that the agreement ratification 
decision Parliament has made will 
have on the world economy, or on 
the integrity of European politics 
as a whole. Under a soft exit, the 
EU is predicted to lose 22 billion 
Euros ($24.7 billion) in income, 
and under a hard exit close to $40 
billion, which will predominantly 
fall on Germany, Europe’s largest 
economy and largest exporter. 
Britain is set to experience a 5 
percent contraction in their GDP, 
suffer a loss of 57 billion Euros ($64 
billion) in income and probably 
suffer a major financial crisis that 
would impact the global economy 
as well.
Though the British Parliament 
forced May to to extend the 
deadline to October, it became clear 
that the EU would not budge in 
making any significant changes to 
the more than 550 page document 
that was negotiated and approved 
by the rest of the 27 countries in 

the bloc. Why would they? Brexit 
is like an ugly breakup. Of course, 
the EU is going to be unyielding 
in the terms of the separation. 
Think about the integrity of 
Europe and the European Union 
without the inclusion of one of its 
superpowers. The UK leaving the 
EU negatively affects the entire 
image of unity between Europe 
and the EU. They have no control 
in the UK’s decision, and still must 
bear the consequences.
I, for one, am happy that 
the EU isn’t budging. There is 
nothing stronger than the EU 
flexing its power rather than 
enduring the cost that a No Deal 
Brexit will bring. How can the 
world just bend to the preferences 
of the members of Parliament 
that 
are 
already 
represented 
rather generously in the existing 
Withdrawal Agreement? Britain 
wanted to leave. Now they are, 
and if the world economy spirals, 
it is on them. The EU should not 
be bending to the interests of the 
UK so that the UK can cherry 
pick what relations of the EU 
they want to keep and which they 
don’t. The UK should be the one 
making larger concessions in this 
deal as it was their decision to 
leave. What continues to perplex 
me is how taking the deal is only 
temporary — yet Parliament still 
continues to take on the risk of 
taking the temporary Withdrawal 
Agreement that expires at the end 
of 2020. Let’s highlight that — the 
members of Parliament would be 
to blame. Prime Minister Theresa 
May has done everything she 
possibly could to arbitrate this 
deal, so if No Deal Brexit ensues, 
it will be because Parliament 
has not ratified the Withdrawal 
Agreement despite incentives to 
do so. When the economy and 
stability of the rest of the world are 
at stake, MPs should be ratifying 
the deal.
I can, however, see where 
some of the strong dissatisfaction 
behind the plan comes from. The 
Irish backstop would essentially 
keep EU control over trade in 
Northern Ireland, and would 
keep it bound to the customs 
union that the UK so desperately 
wants to leave. All of this is to 
prevent the border from forming. 
Yes, this is an issue as it would 
keep extend EU influence longer 
than intended. But consider the 
alternative. If there is no deal, then 

a hard border would will increase 
the likelihood of something akin to 
the Troubles conflict, which ended 
with the Good Friday Agreement, 
exponentially. If the UK is cutting 
off relations this quickly, of course 
this issue will continue to persist 
and 
would 
probably 
require 
heavier customs and immigration 
control in Northern Ireland. It 
would just put the UK in a worse 
position. I am not sure why the UK 
is trying to force a different option 
when more harm would likely 
occur at the Northern Irish border 
with a No Deal option. Failing the 
resolution for the third time is 
almost as if Parliament wanted to 
expedite the damages that are set 
to come from the No Deal policies.
And of course, we have 
witnessed the political death of 
Theresa May in this process. In 
an era where our trust in national 
leaders doing the right thing is at 
an all-time low, May, who has put 
her career on the line for the sake 
of her country, has sadly become 
collateral in this messy divorce. 
As May desperately tried to get 
Parliament to vote on the only 
agreement available, she sacrificed 
her entire career as an incentive 
for her country to unite over a 
decision to safely and securely 
leave the European Union. I guess 
my astonishment of May’s sacrifice 
is the fact that she was willing 
to unite her country around 
anything — even the satisfaction of 
her as their leader — as an effort to 
push the UK to do the right thing. 
Maybe the only good thing that 
came out of Parliament failing the 
deal is that we got to see just how 
dedicated May is to her country.
The hardest part of this is that 
we simply will not know what will 
happen. And though I am deeply 
disappointed and worried about 
the state of international politics 
because of the British Parliament, 
all I can do is wait. Though most 
of our attention is on President 
Donald Trump these days, be sure 
to pay attention to Brexit, which 
is proving to be one of the most 
important events in recent history 
Times like these force us to call 
back upon our famous British 
friend Shakespeare, and hope 
he was right when advised that 
“though this be madness, yet there 
is method in’t.”

RAMISA ROB | COLUMN

America’s Islamophobic war on Ilhan Omar
U

.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, 
D-Minn., has received 
boundless 
accusations 
of disloyalty to the United States. 
The first round of fury can be 
attributed to her pro-Palestinian 
views, and callous comments on 
Israel that aligned with certain 
age-old, anti-Semitic conspiracy 
theories. While Omar should 
have 
been 
watchful 
of 
her 
language, we should note that 
she has unequivocally apologized 
and said, “anti-Semitism is real 
and I am grateful for Jewish allies 
and colleagues who are educating 
me on the painful history of anti-
Semitic tropes.”
But more recently, social 
media 
has 
shifted 
from 
antagonizing Omar for anti-
Semitism to demonizing her 
with a 20-second snippet of her 
20-minute 
speech 
about 
the 
9/11 attacks during the Council 
on American-Islamic Relations 
banquet on March 23. The 
speech took place a week after 
the New Zealand attacks, where 
Omar made the case for Muslim 
activism — while many protesters 
gathered outside and chanted, 
“Burn the Koran,” “Ilhan Omar 
go to hell,” and “Shame on you 
terrorists.” Such outcries are 
odiously Islamophobic in origin.
Islamophobic 
onslaughts 
equating 
Omar 
with 
9/11 
bombings found its inception 
before she even uttered a word 
regarding the attacks. In early 
March, on West Virginia GOP 
Day, a poster of Omar was placed 
in 
the 
statehouse 
featuring 
imagery of the 2001 massacre 
and captioned, “‘Never forget’- 
you said.. I am proof - you have 
forgotten.” On March 21, prior to 
her speech at the CAIR banquet, 
a man from New York called 
Omar’s office and told her aide 
that he would “put a bullet in her 
(expletive) skull.” He was later 
arrested for threatening to kill 
Omar.
Last 
Thursday, 
shallow 
journalism 
from 
the 
New 
York Post capitalized on this 
unsubstantiated 
outrage 
by 
smearing vivid images of this 
horrific day in American history 
on an inflammatory cover page 
— only to vilify Omar. After 
facing criticism for irresponsible 
reporting, the editorial board of 
the New York Post tried to justify 
their errors by stating, “What’s 
out of context? She claimed that 
Muslim civil liberties suffered as 
a result of the nation’s reaction 
to 9/11 — even as she completely, 
intentionally 
disregarded 
the 
grim facts of that day.”
The 
most 
perturbing 
element is the willful ignorance 
that leads educated adults to 
eschew middle school reading 
comprehension 
lessons 
and 
misinterpret what Omar meant 
in her speech. The context for 
her comments was “a speech 
about 
the 
prejudice 
against 
Muslims.” Extracting a phrase 
out of this context to infer that 
it’s intentionally ignoring “grim 
facts” requires interpreting in 
a far-fetched manner that is 
optimized to derive offense and 
stir conflict. To straighten this 
out, Omar said: “Here’s the truth 
… Far too long we have lived with 
the discomfort of being a second-
class 
citizen. 
And 
frankly, 
I’m tired of it … CAIR was 
founded after 9/11 because they 
recognized that some people did 
something and that all of us were 
starting to lose access to our civil 
liberties.”
It was later revealed that she 

misspoke about one part: CAIR 
was founded in 1994. She meant to 
say it doubled in size after the 9/11 
attacks to protect the civil rights 
of Muslims who were blamed 
for the violence committed by a 
small fraction of co-religionists. 
What 
is 
so 
ideologically 
objectionable about this clumsy 
but extemporaneous speech? She 
does not assert anywhere that 
9/11 was not a terrorist attack, nor 
that the perpetrators were not 
vile terrorists. Fixating oneself on 
“some people,” and “something” 
to 
purposely 
diabolize 
a 
woman conveys a reprehensible 
message of baseless rejection 
for Muslim leaders who expose 
Islamophobia. Yet, such blowback 
is unsurprising in a political 
climate where civil conversations 
are impossible on account of the 
large number of these “outrage 
exhibitionists.”

On 
Friday, 
President 
Donald Trump amplified the 
widespread 
Islamophobic 
indignation when he tweeted, 
“WE WILL NEVER FORGET!” 
alongside an incendiary video 
that repetitively pans Omar’s 
remarks 
with 
terrorizing 
background music and graphic 
flashbacks of the carnage of 9/11. 
This disrespectful video exploits 
the trauma of dozens of New 
Yorkers for a cheap callout to 
score points against a member 
of Congress. It is these regular 
embraces of divisiveness that 
emboldens 
the 
anti-Muslim 
rhetoric and ensures it stays 
intact against the safety of all 
Americans.
But if we are going to 
censure statements, then we 
should also be appalled by 
Trump’s comments during the 
9/11 attacks. When asked about 
the damages to his building, 
Trump responded, “It was an 
amazing phone call, 40 Wall 
Street actually was the second-
tallest building in downtown 
Manhattan, and it was actually 
before the World Trade Center 
the tallest, and then when 
they built the World Trade 
Center it became known as 
the 
second-tallest, 
and 
now 
it’s the tallest.” Whether this 
constitutes bragging is subject 
to interpretation, as Trump 
supporters 
on 
Twitter 
have 
argued. At the same time, they 
hypocritically saluted Trump’s 
hate 
incitement, 
one 
that 
prohibited the slightest context 
for Omar’s remarks.
To counter backlash, Omar 
quoted the Washington Post’s 
fact checker that concluded 
her remarks were reminiscent 
of 
President 
George 
Bush’s 
“bullhorn speech.” In one of 
the 
top 
replies, 
right-wing 
businessman Dennis Michael 
Lynch wrote, “I must set you 
straight dear because you are way 
out of line. America was always 
founded upon Judeo-Christian 
principles, not the Koran. Unlike 
Muslims who are taught to kill 
infidels, AMERICANS...” This 
irrelevant, 
ghastly 
response 

ignores that Omar’s tweet does 
not suggest America was founded 
on the Quran. Omar simply 
implies that she is receiving 
strident scrutiny for being a 
Muslim. 
Furthermore, 
the 
bullies claiming that Muslims 
are “taught to kill infidels” 
vehemently 
demonstrate 
the 
Islamophobia she is referring to.
The U.S. is supposed to be 

a nation founded on religious 
liberty as enshrined in the 
freedom of religion clause in 
the First Amendment. Yet, even 
in 2019, people are alienating 
Muslims by unconstitutionally 
and 
authoritatively 
asserting 
superiority of Judeo-Christian 
principles. What’s next — falsely 
insisting 
unknown 
“Muslim 
enemies” 
were 
involved 
in 
the devastating Notre Dame 
cathedral fire in Paris, just to 
belittle 
Muslim 
leaders 
and 
intensify Islamophobia? This is 
ridiculous.
Anti-Muslim 
echoes 
in 
social media signify that Omar’s 
unpolished words wouldn’t have 
been so horrendously decried if 
she wasn’t an outspoken Muslim. 
This detestable fact reflects a 
brazen double standard and 
it is our civic responsibility to 
condemn such racist narratives 
that alienate individuals and 
weaponize faith. Yet, I find it 
futile to carol, “We should all 
fight against Islamophobia and 
hate,” as no one is remotely 
willing to listen.
The truth is people only hear 
what they want to hear. Thus, 
I will not reference the book, 
“Behind the Backlash: Muslim 
Americans After 9/11” by Lori 
Peek so people can learn how 
discrimination against innocent 
Muslims 
skyrocketed 
after 
9/11 attacks. I will not explain 
how exposing this fact does 
not translate to denigrating the 
tragic incident. I will not remind 
people that Muslims, ranging 
all ages, died in 9/11 attacks. 
I will not list Muslim victims 
of 
countless 
other 
attacks, 
including one where Muslim kids 
from my neighborhood lost their 
young lives to Islamic terrorism. 
And I will not mention that it’s 
more impertinent to circulate 
images of 9/11 than saying “some 
people did something,” because 
everyone should already know all 
of this or at least have the human 
decency to show willingness to 
grasp it.
But how do we get to the 
bottom of this anti-Ilhan Omar 
narrative? One answer is Omar 
outrightly stating that she does 
not repudiate the viciousness of 
9/11 attacks (even if it’s implicit 
in her comments), and that 
she 
co-sponsors 
9/11 
victim 
compensation fund. Yet, U.S. 
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 
D-N.Y., 
has 
already 
pointed 
this out, but many people love 
defaming her as well. A peaceful 
conclusion is only possible if 
people are willing to listen 
to any plausible explanation 
without sprouting empty threats 
and thrusting dialogues into a 
cauldron of partisan politics. 
Reaching a substantive solution 
requires 
every 
individual, 
regardless 
of 
political 
or 
religious ideology, to recognize 
that America is a diverse nation, 
where brewing such pointless 
resentment 
will 
shatter 
the 
tolerance and unity that exists 
today.

S

uccess has not only been 
ingrained in me because 
I am a competitive and 
driven person, but it is also my 
duty because I am the daughter 
of an immigrant. Going away to 
top a university and being the 
first in my family to do so, was a 
pretty big deal at the time. From 
the old days where I skipped nap 
time to do extra math problems 
to having over 30 of my family 
members show up to my high 
school graduation, I knew there 
were high expectations for me. 
My parents made great sacrifices 
not only to be in this country, but 
also for me to be able to receive 
the best education I possibly can.
The culture shock I faced as a 
first-generation minority woman 
within my first semester of college 
was also met with the shock that 
I was no longer on top, and that 
everyone around me also came 
from places where they were the 
best of the best. I spent a lot of 
time coping with this and trying 
to accept it. Much of my freshman 
year was spent in my dorm room 
— crying or sleeping — because I 
couldn’t come to terms with the 
idea that I might not be meeting 
these expectations of breaking 
barriers.
Every time I didn’t do as well 
as I wanted to in school, or any 
time I wasn’t the “best,” I thought 
of my dad, who lived out his 
American Dream and wanted to 
continue the progression of said 
dream through me. I thought of 
my mother, who could not have 
the same opportunity of going to 
college like me and who I knew 
wanted 
to 
live 
vicariously 
through me. Through my college 
career, I wanted to achieve the 
impossible. Coming onto this 
campus my freshman year, I knew 
I needed to take advantage of 
every resource and opportunity 
that I could find on this campus.
It is possible to be the best — to 
be the best versions of ourselves 

possible. It is time to break the 
generational curse surrounding 
mental health and stop the cycles 
of self-hatred and guilt of putting 
happiness first.
I felt like I had no room for 
mistakes, no time for falling 
behind. I felt like this was my 
one opportunity and I couldn’t do 
anything to possibly mess it up. I 
beat myself over every little thing 
that went wrong. I blamed myself 
for not trying hard enough. I told 
myself I wasn’t good enough. I 
convinced myself that I was a 
failure. Most importantly, I drove 
myself crazy over all the pressure.
The best and nothing less is 
what immigrant parents expect 
for their children. The pressure 
to be the “best,” however, is not 
always easy to cope with. While 
setting 
high 
expectations 
is 
important in achieving success, it 
isn’t always possible to meet such 
expectations. Compared to our 
peers, students with immigrant 
parents face a perpetual state of 
guilt. Despite our hard work and 
dedication, we sometimes feel 
we are not enough and that we 
should feel guilty for not being 
good enough.
When this guilt manifests 
into more than just feeling bad 
after getting a bad grade and 
reaches the point of affecting 
our mental health, students with 
immigrant parents feel even 
more like failures and even more 
confused. To many of us, we feel 
too privileged to be able to go to 
our parents about these kinds of 
mental health problems. In their 
eyes, there is never anything to 
be unhappy about. If we have so 
much — from food to money to 
clothes — then to many immigrant 
parents, there is simply no reason 
to be sad. It’s easy to enter a 
cycle of normalization of poor 
mental 
health 
within 
these 
communities. In an essay written 
by 
first-generation 
American 
Betsy Aimee, she emphasizes that 

the reality is that, “immigrants 
learn to live with sadness.” This 
suppression of anxiety often 
manifests in us, to the point 
where we too, also feel like we 
have to live in a normalized 
sadness.
Just as I came to the University 
of Michigan under pressure, 
countless 
other 
children 
of 
immigrants come to college not 
only with the stress of being a 
new, confusing place, but also 
with the pressure of being the 
best in this foreign environment. 
Added onto that pressure is the 
disadvantages that many of us 
face being first-generation college 
students and/or people of color. It 
is so easy for us to fall into this 
trap of “imposter syndrome” — 
the idea that we are imposters 
on this campus because we do 
not belong here and that we are 
not supposed to belong here. 
Research has shown that first-
generation and underrepresented 
minority students face obstacles 
that hinder their academic and 
professional success. I constantly 
felt and continue to feel like I’m 
faking it and that it’ll only be 
a matter of time before others 
realize it. We don’t have the 
generational privileges of many 
of our peers. We don’t have the 
same access to opportunities as 
many of our peers. We simply face 
the reality of others not wanting 
to see us winning.
If there’s one thing I know, it is 
that I want to make my immigrant 
parents proud. No amount of 
“thank yous” could ever possibly 
express my gratitude for them. 
They’ve instilled the best work 
ethic in me and much more just 
to give me the best life possible. 
Despite the pressure, I hope to 
proudly continue their legacy and 
their American Dream.

Doing your best among the “Leaders and the Best”

Ramisa Rob can be reached at 

rfrob@umich.edu.

How confusion on Brexit is Parliament’s fault

MARIA ULAYYET | COLUMN

Maria Ulayyet can be reached at 

mulayyet@umich.edu.

Amibka Sinha can be reached at 

ambikavs@umich.edu.

AMBIKA SINHA | COLUMN

The U.S. is 
supposed to be a 
nation founded on 
religious liberty