I saw this posted to Facebook from Unbiased America last night:
(WR) Final thoughts on Trump's proclamation on refugee and immigration policy from the Middle East:
The cacophony of claims that this violates the law and is a racist "Muslim ban" have been misguided
at best.
The headlines have been atrocious. This is what the headline should really look like:
"Donald Trump signs executive order placing a moratorium on immigration and/or re-entries
from seven specific countries and a moratorium on refugees from the Middle East as a matter
of national security in an effort to bolster the vetting process."
The President gets this authority from CONGRESS in the Immigration and Nationality Act Sec.
212(f) that clearly states in part:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of ANY CLASS of aliens into
the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by
proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
He is not denying immigration status based on religion or ethnicity (neither is mentioned
in the proclamation) and it no way tries to change the racial make-up of our country by
favoring one nationality over the other, for which previous law was promulgated to combat.
The temporary restriction is due to lax security measures and the danger immigrants pose
to US interests coming from these specific areas. The purpose is to create a system whereby
we can accept refugees and immigrants in the very near future, not place a longstanding
"ban" on refugees, visitors or immigrants.
The President has broad authority in matters of foreign affairs and national security
interests, which can take precedence over Congressional dictates as stipulated in
US v. Curtiss-Wright (1936) quoting John Marshall, "'The President is the sole
organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign
nations.' Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613."
IN THE CASE OF GREEN CARDS: It must be clear that no one, and I repeat, no one has a
right to emigrate or visit the US or remain in the US that is not a citizen. We have
zero responsibility to accept refugees, and can, in fact, deport legal immigrant residents
at any time (due process rights considered). The government has a duty to citizens first
and foremost. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) concludes:
"The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon
certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every
sovereign nation."
There is a threat that is real and recognized, of legal immigrants returning home,
radicalizing, and then coming back to the US to launch attacks.
Sources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/299/304.html#319
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…/149/698/case.html
After reading, I took a moment to reflect on all of the traffic and news coverage
I've been seeing about this new temporary immigration ban, and wondered what makes
this current instance different than temporary immigration bans in the recent past?
The Executive Order
Earlier today, National Public Radio published the
full text of the Executive Order, with annotations.
In my estimation,
National Review reporting on the
content of the order makes the move seem relatively mundane:
First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve
the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year....
Second, the order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S.
from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are countries
either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist
governments. The ban is in place while the Department of Homeland Security
determines the "information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa,
admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine
that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is
not a security or public-safety threat."...
Third, Trump’s order also puts an indefinite hold on admission of Syrian
refugees to the United States "until such time as I have determined that
sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission
of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."... [U]ntil
2016 the Obama administration had already largely slammed the door on Syrian-
refugee admissions....
Fourth, there is a puzzling amount of outrage over Trump’s directive to "
prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based
persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion
in the individual’s country of nationality."
The National Review reporting lays out some very important justifications
for its points:
- To it's first point, regarding the cap of 50,000, the article offers
Migration Policy Institute data which shows that the cap was stable at 70,000 from
FY 2002 through 2007, and was increased to only 80,000 from FY 2008 through 2012.
Admissions for that ten year period ranged from under 30,000 to 70,000. The data
appears to support National Review's statement that the Trump Administration
"intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before
[President] Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016." (The National Public Radio
annotations include the 2016 data.)
- To its second point, the article is careful to note the inclusion of a provision
which allows exceptions "on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national
interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which
visas and benefits are otherwise blocked", which opens the door to foreign
nationals who have aided US forces operating in the region.
- To its third point, National Review offers numbers on Syrian admissions.
To give you an idea of what the numbers have historically been like, in 2014, the
United States admitted just over 100 Syrian refugees. That number is greater than
Syrian refugee admissions from the previous three years combined.
- To it's final point regarding religion, National Review points out that
religion is an established criterion for refugee status — that is, religious
persecution is by law one basis for admission. This very subtle point is later
highlighted in National Public Radio reporting.
Detainees...
The trouble, which National Review acknowledges, is that there are
other issues at work — specifically, the detainees.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer
said the travel ban was "never
intended to deport people." — despite detaining over 100 people after
landing in the US on Saturday.
From
this National Public Radio report on Sunday:
[President] Trump's executive order ... includes those who hold green cards as legal
permanent residents of the U.S.; to enter the country, they will need a case-by-case
waiver, which officials say will be granted as long as there is no evidence of the
person presenting "a serious threat to public safety and welfare."
The article recounted detentions and deportations in Chicago, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., New York, and Seattle.
...and Worse
Tweets from
alt-Immigration on the subject included these:
The Washington Post reported the existence of a lawsuit arguing "that dozens of people
may have been forced to give up their green cards by Customs and Border Protection
agents."
According to Bloomberg reporting:
Form I-407... was distributed on several aircraft that landed this weekend at Los
Angeles International Airport, said Rachel Odio, an immigration lawyer with pro-bono
law firm Public Counsel. Other travelers saw the forms after they had been detained
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees in the airport...
"It’s absurd. There’s no legal basis for it," Odio said of the requests to
renounce residency. Because many of the forms are being signed "under duress"
in isolated airport rooms without access to family, attorney representation, or even
food, "there is definitely a strong argument that their signature is without
consent."
Protests and Religion
News of the detainments
created protests from coast to coast, with
tens of thousands participating.
The United Nations projects some 200,000
people could be affected by the policy change, according to The Washington Post.
The demonstrations added fuel to the fire that the
ban was about religion, and likely prompted Pope Francis to rebuke
"the contradiction of those who want to defend Christianity in the West, and, on the other
hand, are against refugees and other religions.".
As Unbiased America, National Public Radio and National Review
all point out, the term "Muslim" is nowhere to be found in the text of the order. However,
careful study of the document does reveal a preference for people not of the Muslim faith,
as pointed out in the National Public Radio annotation.
SPOILER ALERT: Recall that one of the legal requirements for refugee status is
that the person seeking the status follow a religion other than the dominant religion
of the country they're fleeing. The countries listed in the schedule are all dominantly
Muslim.
Fallout
In Washington, the fire spread out of control when
the Attorney General
was relieved of her duties after refusing to enforce the ban. Sally Q. Yates was
immediately replaced.
Reaction across the globe included the possibility of retaliatory visa
restrictions from Iraq and calls from Britain to cancel the President's impending
visit; The German Foreign Minister, speaking in Paris,
"questioned how such orders could be imposed by a country that embraces Christian
values like the U.S.".
The List of Countries
Several have weighed in on the composition of the list of banned countries, which are
not named in the Executive Order, but were provided under separate cover.
The Institute for Policy Studies observed:
It’s no accident that of the seven countries identified, the U.S. is bombing five
(Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia), has troops deployed and military bases
in another (Sudan), and imposes harsh sanctions and frequent threats against the
last (Iran).
National Public Radio took a close look at how the list related to
the president's business interests.
[President] Trump has no business interests in those countries [listed in the
Executive Order].... The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates... They are among the Muslim-majority
countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.
Summary
We have looked at the content of the Executive Order, and have seen distilled summaries
from Unbiased America and National Review, plus annotations from
National Public Radio. Based on this information, the numbers do seem generally
consistent with previous allowances as reported by Migration Policy Institute, and do
appear far lower than the revisions made in 2016. I surmise the impact perceived by the
UN (as reported by The Washington Post) reflects the 2016 numbers.
I also believe the populace is generally correct in its perception as a "Muslim ban,"
but the simple fact of the matter is the terrorist threat is seated in religious radicalism.
I've made my feelings clear about it in a previous post, but to be fair, 2016 allowances
excepted, the Executive Order is not outlandish.
I take serious exception to what has seemed to be a very heavy-handed approach by
customs officials. I don't recall anything in the Executive Order authorizing the expulsion
or detainment of permanent alien residents (read: "green card" holders). The notion
that flights were issuing forms for abandoning permanent resident status
is horrifying. Yes, Unbiased Anerica, I understand that we can deport legal
immigrants at any time, but handcuffing families in the airport? Making people sign
away their permanent resident status? Really?
Lady Liberty weeps.