Executive Order re: Immigration Ban

[beatitude]

1 hour ago, CatherineM said:

I never said that I would have faced being killed or tortured had I been deported. I would have been homeless for a few weeks at worse. I said I never faulted the government of Canada for requesting the additional checks. It's my understanding that additional vetting is what his executive order is requesting, not wholesale deportations. 

Did you not see how green card and visa holders affected by the ban were trapped in airports and threatened with immediate deportation on the day this order was rushed through? How lawyers had to fight to gain access to those people, some of whom were actually put on planes out, including a woman who had come to be with her mother as she recovered from major surgery? The only reason that order wasn't enacted as it was originally penned is that enough people acted to stop it. This is what I mean by glossing over the order's impact and trying to act as though its problems are just minor procedural hitches that could be sorted out if only it weren't for all this media hype.

Havok, a senior judge making an argument grounded in law isn't comparable to a police officer expressing a purely personal opinion on drugs that clearly isn't grounded in law. The idea that she was just being a "liberal hero" (presumably Donnelly was too?) and there are plenty of judges who would agree with Trump is cast into doubt by the fact that he didn't call on the next AAG in line, which, as DoJ officials have pointed out, would have been Zach Fardon. As he showed in 2011, he isn't above shopping around for judges that suit him better, which is a disturbing trait in a president - the senior judiciary's function is to hold elected officials to account. That means they do have the right to go against the president if they can demonstrate a constitutional and legal rationale, which Yates did - her argument had rather more substance to it than, "I don't like it, so nyah." This is more minimisation: people talk as though it's just a perfectly normal thing for a president to sack an Attorney General who doesn't fall in with whatever they want, what's all the fuss about, no different from firing a police officer who wouldn't arrest an obvious criminal, when its extreme rarity and the shadow of Watergate testify to how very different it is.

It feels pretty clear now that for all their talk of how Trump was just the best of a very bad bunch and that you didn't have to like the guy to vote for him, there are people who supported him because on the quiet they actually liked his policies, and so when there is backlash against those policies, they assume it has to be sour grapes from liberals or the media stirring things up - they will not register any of this alarm as legitimate simply because they agree with what he wanted to do with that EO. If he'd been successful in deporting each and every person who was detained, today they'd be defending him. Instead it's, "Maybe the policy wasn't perfect, but no one's giving him a chance..." as though he is a stressed high school student rather than a national leader, and the real problem is the protests and the emergency stay rather than the step he took.

[CatherineM]

For the record, I didn't vote for Trump or Hilary. 

[Anomaly]

On 1/31/2017 at 7:27 AM, beatitude said:

Refugees always flee from unstable and dangerous places. If those places weren't unstable and dangerous, they wouldn't be running away. So if you say that banning refugees is a logical and just solution because the chaos in their home countries makes it too difficult to vet them then you might as well say that you want no refugees at all, and sadly I think this is what some people honestly believe.

Vetting is possible, and I say this as someone who has worked in the humanitarian sector, including in places that are coloured red on official maps for 'we advise against all travel'. Risk assessment is something that's an important part of most humanitarian work, and for refugee resettlement it's a rigorous multi-level process. This year I will be working in Algeria. Is there a risk that refugee communities may be infiltrated by violent individuals? Yes (and this question is brought up in every single situation of political violence by people who don't want refugees around, and who would much prefer to listen to tabloid newspapers with a known agenda than the far less sensationalist analyses conducted by professionals with qualifications in the field - it's not new). But it is a microscopic risk compared to the near-certain death that people face in their home countries, and even if the risk were real, we wouldn't be excused from our responsibility as Christians. 

I'd be more afraid of being shot by the USA than killed by a refugee or an immigrant in Germany, because the statistical likelihood of that is considerably higher. It would seem that people over here are broadly supportive of that view - I don't know how many Phatmassers follow the international news (I was surprised to see that not even the national protests in airports are getting much mention on here) but thousands of people in European countries have been hitting the streets in solidarity with refugees in protest against Trump's ban and to make their own commitment to refugee welfare heard loud and clear. This was London last night; Whitehall, a major street in the political district, was completely shut down as over ten thousand people came to demonstrate. There were also protests of thousands in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and all other major cities, with even my parents' town managing to find four hundred people to protest at half a day's notice. Similar things are happening all over the Continent. I find it a bit baffling when I encounter Americans online who seem to fervently believe that Europe is some hotbed of danger and that we are all in terror of refugees, based on the Daily Mail (possibly people on Phatmass who quote it uncritically don't know that its owner was a supporter of fascism - one of its 1930s headlines was 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' - and that its line on refugees hasn't changed since, not to mention the amount of fire it has come under for the publication of shall we say 'creative' stories on the issue). I was visiting my parents last night, and when I saw what was going on, I went out with a hastily made sign, inspired by Bl. Charles de Foucauld - a saint who has always encouraged me to strive to recognise Christ in each and every person and to take risks for love. I was very happy that my sign attracted attention from people in attendance and the press, because I was able to evangelise a bit and talk about Bl. Charles and his belief that "we have no right to be silent watchdogs or sleeping watchmen...it is Jesus in this situation." I even had chance to tell someone about the Real Presence, when she was wondering how to keep hope alive when you're tired out by witnessing pain. I can't recognise the Gospel in banning the vulnerable. Occasionally people ask if I would still have my same views if I got violently assaulted when was out in the refugee camps of Lebanon, or kidnapped and tortured as I was travelling on Algerian roads that technically require a military escort because the Al-Qaeda threat is so high. I tell them that I hope not, but that hasn't happened to me yet and I'll cross that bridge when I get to it - what's important is that I do the right thing today. In the meantime I've met hundreds of refugees, perhaps thousands, and I'm still alive to say how very grateful I am to them for the way in which they have strengthened my faith in Jesus, who once had to flee like them.

Did Whitehall also open up the Chunnel for the refugees in Calais and did you make a sign, "Keep Calm and Come In via Calais"?

[Amppax]

22 hours ago, beatitude said:

Did you not see how green card and visa holders affected by the ban were trapped in airports and threatened with immediate deportation on the day this order was rushed through? How lawyers had to fight to gain access to those people, some of whom were actually put on planes out, including a woman who had come to be with her mother as she recovered from major surgery? The only reason that order wasn't enacted as it was originally penned is that enough people acted to stop it. This is what I mean by glossing over the order's impact and trying to act as though its problems are just minor procedural hitches that could be sorted out if only it weren't for all this media hype.

Just to let you know, if you're not already aware, this sort of thing happens all the time. My father is an immigration lawyer, and I've worked with his office from time to time (throughout university and high school I would spend my summers, and various other breaks, working for him). He gets calls constantly from frantic family members whose relative here on a visa is at this or that airport, and the TSA is threatening to put them back on the plane to their home country, and "please Mr. Lawyer, please help my brother/sister/cousin/etc." Most of these individuals are traveling on visas or other legal means. Often, given my Dad's specialty in asylum law, they believe they will be killed if they go home. They'll be from Africa, Asia, the Middle East... largely, doesn't matter. So for me, this doesn't really seem all that different than what has always been going on, it's just now all of a sudden people seem to actually care. 

Also, in my experience, lawyers are routinely denied access to their clients, as *something, something, national security, no due process, no legal rights, something, something* gets invoked. It's maddening, and heartbreaking, but the US immigration system is so overburdened and broken. 

Anyway, rant over. This is a topic I don't really care to get into, as it just makes me angry, and frankly outside of my personal experience with it I don't actually know all that much. 

[havok579257]

the issue i have with this ban is its a indefinite ban on people from Syria.  The other bans are temporary.  They all let up after 90 to 120 days or such.  As of right now the Syria ban never lets up.  It is completely un-christian to say if you live in Syria, you are never allowed into our country.  Not everyone from Syria is evil.  This indefinite ban is completely un-christian.

[Anomaly]

Germany and France are experiencing a large amount of crime by Syrian migrants in recent years.   Google it. 

The US has taken in many times more Syrians than England, which happens to be much closer than a half a world away.   The US has accepted about the same number of Syrians as France has, which again, is relatively close by.  

Where were the riots in the US over Calais?  Where was the World Condemnation over Calais and destroying the Migrant Camp?

Misguided protestors are aimed at Being Against Trump, not For War Refugees.  We should be demanding action on vetting and aid, not fighting the fact Trump is President and is fulfilling his promise for security that got him elected  The Election is over.  Don't be a dumb pawn of partisan politics, re-aim your concerns and passions. 

 

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Germany and France are experiencing a large amount of crime by Syrian migrants in recent years.   Google it. 

Migrants or refugees? There is a difference. 

Quote

The US has taken in many times more Syrians than England, which happens to be much closer than a half a world away.   The US has accepted about the same number of Syrians as France has, which again, is relatively close by.  

As I'm sure you're aware, the US is slightly bigger than England. France too for that matter. 

Quote

Where were the riots in the US over Calais?  Where was the World Condemnation over Calais and destroying the Migrant Camp?

I haven't paid too much attention to this whole crisis, frankly, other than trying (and failing) to keep up with what is happening here in the US. Again, there's a difference between a migrant and a refugee. 

However, lack of outrage over what happens in other countries doesn't invalidate outrage over what is happening in this country. 

Quote

Misguided protestors are aimed at Being Against Trump, not For War Refugees.  We should be demanding action on vetting and aid, not fighting the fact Trump is President and is fulfilling his promise for security that got him elected  The Election is over.  Don't be a dumb pawn of partisan politics, re-aim your concerns and passions. 

I agree with this, largely. If Trump is truly aiming at improving the vetting, we should hold him to that, and demand better vetting. Except we already have a 2 year vetting process for refugees, and it seems to me everything I've seen that says this isn't enough is accompanied by some sort of statement along the lines of "and it really isn't possible to vet these people to an appropriate standard, therefore we can't take them." 

Also, Trump's promise was this: 

Quote

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

It's not just security he was promising, but security from "them." 

[Anomaly]

15 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Migrants or refugees? There is a difference. 

- I was being facetious, no difference to the politically correct, but they are displaced due to the war  

As I'm sure you're aware, the US is slightly bigger than England. France too for that matter.

- And as you are aware, we take in a more substantial amount of immigrants from various countries, more so than either of these countries, even as a percentage of population   I'm specifically referencing Syrians, which was bright up regarding the indefinite suspension.

I haven't paid too much attention to this whole crisis, frankly, other than trying (and failing) to keep up with what is happening here in the US. Again, there's a difference between a migrant and a refugee. 

- Exactly, but not really   

However, lack of outrage over what happens in other countries doesn't invalidate outrage over what is happening in this country. 

- It does invalidate the specific point of outrage and gives credence to the point that it's effectively mare about being ant-Trump, not a real concern for the Syrians.

I agree with this, largely. If Trump is truly aiming at improving the vetting, we should hold him to that, and demand better vetting. Except we already have a 2 year vetting process for refugees, and it seems to me everything I've seen that says this isn't enough is accompanied by some sort of statement along the lines of "and it really isn't possible to vet these people to an appropriate standard, therefore we can't take them." 

Also, Trump's promise was this: 

It's not just security he was promising, but security from "them." 

- The vetting process is over hyped for being good because if the length   It's long because it's under resourced, not due to competent thoroughness. I learned that in 60 minutes and verified it with people involved in vetting and Security.  

"Those people" was a convenient election shorthand. If it was about Muslims, the tens of thousands of Indians from India would be targeted and in the list.   Have them appear on the list, and it would be a Muslim ban    That should be monitored.

Troublesome to me, is the quantity reduction from 85k to 50k immigration goal.    I've read the Exec Order, you can too.   There are some good aspects of it, such as reciprocity with other nations for visas, transparency and publication of rules every 6 months, etc.

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Is not security as a concept necessarily security from?

[Amppax]

15 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Is not security as a concept necessarily security from?

Sure. Just think Trump's version is xenophobic and racist.

[beatitude]

On 2/2/2017 at 4:32 PM, Anomaly said:

Did Whitehall also open up the Chunnel for the refugees in Calais and did you make a sign, "Keep Calm and Come In via Calais"?

I don't normally answer questions that are asked snarkily and obviously don't expect a sincere answer, but yes, I and many people from my church were directly involved in campaigns on behalf of the people in Calais, such as Care4Calais. We also partner with other local churches to house destitute asylum seekers who would otherwise be street homeless and we have been active in trying to push our government to do more, including through demonstrations, which I presume is what you meant by calling the current UK protests "riots." There haven't been any riots in the UK over Trump, but as he seems to feel that anybody who opposes him in the street is a "professional anarchist", a "thug", or "paid" (his exact words on Twitter, his favourite medium, followed by MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN in screaming capitals), it seems logical that his supporters would start using the same vocab. If you'd watched the video of the protest in Whitehall that I linked to, you would have also noticed that while the demo was provoked by Trump, those thousands of protesters were giving a message to their own Prime Minister: "Theresa May, Theresa May, let them in and let them stay." That was the chant of the night, made because people recognise that refugee policy is an international concern and that one country's stance could affect how others respond.

Amppax is correct that people are now much more vocal and concerned about certain issues now that Trump has turned up the heat - I for one am hoping that means more attention will be given to drone strikes and other policies in Yemen that have contributed to the terrible devastation in the region. Trump has, however, turned up that heat high; protesters are acting because they feel that things are not just the same as they were and may well get worse, much as you might like to believe that it's only because they've been told what to think (as opposed to following your advice to "Google it" in order to find stories about migrants and crime?). And yes, I know that if I Google, I will get lots of stories about big bad criminal foreigners - that's always been a theme where anyone foreign is concerned - but I'm also aware that numerous studies in multiple countries have demonstrated that while immigrants are more likely to be accused of theft, their involvement in violent crime is no greater than that in the general population; and that poorer neighbourhoods in general tend to have higher rates of petty crime, whether immigrant-dominated or not. This doesn't make such sensationalist reading as some headlines, but it's a well-established trend, and no, I'm not going to start backing monstrous policy on the strength of it. As Amppax also noted, refugees fall into a different category - it's not just a semantic difference but a difference in how their cases are processed and they themselves are treated.

And as for your advice to accept that the election is over and to re-aim my passions - I don't see anyone here advocating that where politicians who are fine with abortion are concerned. Or gun control. Or any other issue that their reps support but they happen to disagree with. Democracy isn't about participating in elections once every four years. If you feel that something is wrong, you have a right to raise your voice. In the UK the protests have also been about more than Trump, because demonstrators recognise that refugee rights are a broad global concern and the US stance may have implications for our own foreign policy, as is obvious from what was being chanted. We can't afford to be insular on this question.

[beatitude]

On a separate but related note, demonstrating the interconnectedness of refugee policy and its centrality to foreign relations, I don't know if everyone here saw how Trump reacted when he spoke with the Australian PM about a deal that had been reached under the Obama admin to resettle up to 1250 asylum seekers currently held in Nauru and Papua New Guinea in the US. PM Turnbull (whose policies I am also decidedly not keen on, for the record) suggested in diplomatic language that it had been a difficult conversation but that Trump had said he intended to honour the commitment, something that was then confirmed by the US embassy in Canberra. After the embassy - and therefore the USA's official spokespeople in Australia - had issued the confirmation, Trump was on Twitter: "Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take in thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!"

Leaving aside the inaccuracies ("up to 1250" isn't "thousands", and asylum seekers who have already been accepted into a formal resettlement program are not illegal immigrants), Trump's bellicose style on its own is enough to focus people's attention on the refugee issue in a way that they may have never focused before. He put his own embassy in a seriously embarrassing position, because his admin is supposed to keep them briefed on what they say and do. They can't ad-lib. He risked damaging relations with Australia, a firm US ally, by taking to Twitter to vent after a private conversation with the Australian PM. With his shouts of "dumb deals" he is acting as if he is still on The Apprentice, not being the president of a country. And maybe that's what lots of people want in a president. Maybe they think it's fantastic. He definitely has a certain audience he's trying to appeal to. But if he wants to play it this way, then he can hardly be surprised when other people look at him and go, "Whoah. Who's this they've elected over there?", start peering closely at the things he's talking about, decide they don't like them very much, and finally get active.

[havok579257]

for all those who support the ban, how do you support a ban which indefinitely bans anyone from Syria.  The other bans are temporary but the Syrian ban that does not have an end date.  How is it christian or moral to ban people from Syria indefinitely?

[Nihil Obstat]

16 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

for all those who support the ban, how do you support a ban which indefinitely bans anyone from Syria.  The other bans are temporary but the Syrian ban that does not have an end date.  How is it christian or moral to ban people from Syria indefinitely?

Such broad policies like that always strike me as being somewhat imprudent. Give yourself some wiggle room on the corner cases. That applies to policies moreso than principles.

[little2add]

make no mistake, the US is at war in the country of Syria, there is killing of innocent, agony and collateral damage going on.  Revenge is a real possibility. 

Trump is urging what he called using  "a extreme vetting" policy... he has a point!

Edited February 4, 2017 by little2add