The first days of Donald Trump's presidency have rattled the conscience of a lot of Americans.
Admittedly, his actions encouraged others, specifically those in his base, the people actually responsible for Trump's election.
Nevertheless, what exists now is an unsettled populace, not just a politically divided electorate.
Even some Republicans are questioning the president's sweeping executive order to ban all refugees temporarily, taking aim primarily on people from seven predominantly Muslim nations.
Or these Republicans are at least questioning the way the policy was implemented, leaving totally in the dark even those men Trump has entrusted with the nation's top defense and homeland security offices as well as his pick for secretary of state.
Also apparently left out of the decision-making and rollout of these new policies were key members of Congress.
It's really unbelievable how bungled this whole mess is, all to the detriment of the United States' image in the world. It promises serious repercussions on future foreign relations.
The reactions are only just beginning to build. And, while some of the ramifications are obvious, others will surface in the days ahead.
The saving grace is that there are some checks and balances at work, notably in those states where litigation has interrupted at least parts of the president's plan.
How it will end is unknown, although at last one person, the nation's acting attorney general, lost her job when she ordered Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump's executive order.
She's gone now and her replacement will try to defend it. At least some members of Congress from both parties are trying to undo the damage.
Meanwhile, everyone should take stock of this situation, remembering that most of us are at least descendants of immigrants. Ours is literally a nation of immigrants and that has been a proud tradition.
The individual stories of immigrants to this country, those who are already part of the culture and those who were trying to come here, are compelling.
They speak to the America most of us know, a welcoming environment for people who want to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.
The idea that the United States could abandon that fundamental precept, replacing it with fear, is what caused Americans in cities large and small to turn out over the weekend to protest.
It happened in Arkansas on Sunday in both Little Rock and Fayetteville.
Reports from Little Rock were that as many as 700 crowded onto the steps and lawn of the State Capitol.
Similarly, protesters lined both sides of Fayetteville's College Avenue in front of the Washington County Courthouse. What began as maybe a dozen people spontaneously grew to upwards of 400 during the afternoon.
It was the spontaneous nature of the protests that was most striking. Contrast that to the planned women's marches all over the nation the day after Trump's inauguration. Those were certainly impressive showings of people, men and women alike, with concerns about the impending Trump administration and its impact on the rights of women.
The gatherings on Sunday, which undoubtedly included some of the same people who participated in the women's marches, nevertheless seemed more akin to the demonstrations of the 1960s against the Vietnam War.
They were driven by deep angst as participants chanted, "No Ban, No Wall" protesting not only the ban of immigrants into the U.S. but also the wall Trump intends to build between the U.S. and Mexico.
Whether in Arkansas or elsewhere, these protesters were disturbed about what was being done in America's name and they were telegraphing their sentiments to Washington.
Of course, their numbers here do not remotely rival the votes Trump received in Arkansas from people who are at least presumed to be supportive of his bumbling efforts to control immigration.
The protests in Arkansas may seem to have been futile, considering the hold that Republicans have on Arkansas' seats in the U.S. House and Senate.
So far, the state's two senators, John Boozman and Tom Cotton, have appeared to support the president's ban.
Only U.S. Rep. French Hill, R-Little Rock, offered any criticism at all. He called the additional security afforded by the ban reasonable but said its design and implementation "appear unreasonable" and have unintended consequences for law-abiding citizens of the U.S. and other countries.
Other Arkansas congressmen have apparently been mute.
Even as other unexpected repercussions from Trump's immigration policy come to light, Arkansans opposed to the ban will apparently have to rely on legal attacks in other jurisdictions and on efforts by other state's members of Congress to fight the fight.
Commentary on 02/01/2017