Monday, January 30, 2017

Importance of Trump’s Executive Order might not be fully understood for generations


Importance of Trump’s Executive Order might not be fully understood for generations

Separating ourselves from the hysteria over Trump’s Executive Order on immigration, this is the crucial paragraph if you want to understand what Trump’s Administration is doing (full text of the statement here). At the end of this article I’ll explain it line by line.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
As we find ourselves at the end of the first week of the Trump era, we see this weekend’s screaming press outrage over Trump’s Executive Order and the complete shock that he’s enacting one of the core planks of his campaign. For some reason people have been conditioned to believe that promises made by politicians during election campaigns will all be broken.
There’s only one thing that’s happened this weekend which anyone should be mildly concerned about; it has to do with reports of Green Card holders having issues at airports. It’s reasonably clear from the text of the order that this shouldn’t be happening; either the reports are false or rogue elements in the Immigration Service are deliberately being overzealous to cause public issues. David French at National Review has a very good article on the hysterical overreaction:

However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned.
The press have gone into a meltdown over the immediate clamping down on movements of people from seven specific countries. Interestingly, the only country mentioned by name in the order is Syria. Seth Frantzman also noticed this and dug a millimetre deeper than the entire rest of the press:

Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.
The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last few years as countries of concern. In February 2016, “the Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” [read the rest]
Central to what the press and the usual grievance mongers (CAIR, ACLU, ADL and the usual alphabet soup of far left groups) are doing is to draw a false analogy between refugees from the Middle East today and Jews who tried to flee the genocide of the Nazis. Signing the order on International Holocaust Memorial day (and making a mistake by not specifically mentioning Jews) ensured that the press would jump on this bandwagon. This is done with carefully constructed (sometimes faked) photographs, especially of children. Dead child on a beach and dazed child in a hospital: I don’t even need to include photos, these are etched into your heads.
Back when I wrote about this in September 2015, I pointed out the enormity of this false equivalence.

So I was just wondering if I could ask something of all those people quick to claim that Syrian refugees are the new 1930’s Jews.
UNHCR persons of concern refugee numberFor those Jews who managed to escape Nazi Germany, where were the refugee camps, like the ones in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan today hosting 4,088,099 registered refugees (6th Sept). Because I’ve never heard anyone mention them. I’m sure a lot of Jews must have been saved in those camps.
As far as I know, in 1939 there were precisely zero Jewish countries and zero safe and secure refugee camps. I suspect if there had been a Jewish country or even a refugee camp it would have taken in some refugees. Worse: the major nations of the world, especially Britain, blocked Jews from reaching safety and sent them back to be murdered by Hitler.
Interestingly, the UNHCR “Persons of concern” website where I got my numbers from doesn’t seem to be working right now, so I can’t check for new numbers. The main number still stands: there were no refugee camps for Jews in 1939 and there are today many millions of Muslim refugees in (relatively) safe camps across the Middle East.
What has changed since I wrote that post is the seething societal problems currently ripping apart Europe. Every European nation that has accepted refugees is going through huge internal upheavals. I scarcely need to enumerate the problems, ranging from mass groping all the way up to huge mass casualty terror attacks in Nice, Berlin, Paris and elsewhere. Additionally, also since I wrote about the false equivalence, the UK voted to leave Europe and controlling immigration was one of the big factors in that.
Again, David French from National Review:

But don’t tell CNN’s chief national security correspondent, who last night tweeted this:

False. False. False. Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference (though not exclusivity) to members of minority religions. Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric.
So I’ll come back to the very first paragraph I showed you. That is the one that indicates what this new administration is actually thinking. And I believe it indicates that they know exactly what they’re doing. This isn’t something they put together in a week; this is evidence of their entire thinking on Islam and the defence of the west.
They’re going to treat Islam as a hostile political ideology. That is what has been needed for decades. It is the reversal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine set in place by Bush on September 17, 2001.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.
That statement should, quite rightly, strike terror into the hearts of anyone looking to promote Islamic law above the United States’ existing constitution. That is made even more explicit with the next sentence:

The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.
This would apply to a communist overthrow of the United States (I guess), but the only real threat on the global stage today is the ideology of Islamic supremacy.

In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
If you read that paragraph and immediately think #MuslimBan, then you’re bringing your own impressions of Islam. The text doesn’t mention Islam, but we all know that the leading ideology that sanctions bigotry, hatred, violence against women, and oppression is not Buddhism.
This section, again without mentioning Islam or Muslims, arrives at the heart of the problem. Islamic values always lead to intolerance. Islam’s guiding texts are all fundamentally devoted to separating the world between believers and non-believers. All of our liberal freedoms and our equality stem from a Judeo-Christian belief that all men are created in the image of God and are equal before equitable laws. That is not at the heart of Islam.
That same Islamic ideology led 56 member states of the UN to ignore the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replace it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which opens with:

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
The idea that God made Islam the best nation is not a statement of equality. It is a supremacist statement. The Constitution of the United States doesn’t and obviously shouldn’t begin with “God made White America the Best Nation”. Every Islamic nation considers Islam to be superior to any other ideology.
That is what we are dealing with: 56 nation states and millions of indoctrinated followers who are religiously compelled (with a depth of fervour the godless left can no longer comprehend) bound to profess the supremacy of their civilisation, whilst anyone with open eyes knows the United States Constitution is one of the greatest acts of foundational liberal freedom in history.
America is an astonishing social experiment. If it continues to open its borders, it will be overrun like Europe by those who desire its destruction, and could quite literally sink back into darkness. Whilst being so harshly condemned by those whose freedoms they are safeguarding so determinedly, Trump’s team, in its first week, has put out a document the importance of which might not be fully understood for generations.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounces Trump's plan to favor refugees from persecuted religious minorities


Subscriber Exclusive

The chaos surrounding President Trump’s hastily-drafted and prematurely-implemented executive order regarding refugees and immigration from predominantly Muslim countries has led to the promulgation of a bevy of half-truths and outright lies.
It’s time to clear them up.
First, read this primer on what’s actually in the executive order.
Now, there are truly four questions about this executive order. First, is it actually a “Muslim ban,” as leftists in the media claim? Second, is the executive order truly “unprecedented,” as we keep hearing? Third, is it legal? Finally, is it useful?
No, It’s Not A “Muslim Ban.” Trump rightly stated today, “this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.” Obviously, this policy isn’t a Muslim ban. If it were, there would also be a ban on Muslims from the forty-odd other Muslim majority countries, plus a ban on Muslims living in Europe and Canada. It didn’t help Trump’s cause that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on national television and said that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and asked Giuliani how to accomplish it legally, leading to the current policy.
It’s Somewhat Unprecedented, But Not Entirely. There are two oft-cited precedents here: President Obama’s six-month ban on Iraqi refugees in 2011, and President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 ban on Iranian visa-holders. Obama’s ban on refugees, as Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) points out, affected only refugees; Trump’s executive order affects green card holders, visa holders, and refugees. Obama implemented the policy quietly, while Trump did so openly. And it’s worth noting that Obama’s policy did result in the death of at least one refugee waiting to be processed. As far as Carter’s policy, Carter put a moratorium on new Iranian visas, with an exception for humanitarian purposes, and a cancellation of then-current Iranian-American visas. The purpose of Carter’s policy was to leverage the Iranian government to give up American hostages, not as a broad-based policy meant to last indefinitely.
There’s A Case For Its Legality, But The Story Isn’t Entirely Clear. There’s a fascinating legal debate going on between Andrew McCarthy of National Review on one side and David Bier of the Cato Institute. McCarthy says that the order is legal, particularly given the strong powers of the executive branch in foreign affairs. Bier claims that the governing law under which Trump operates is Section 1152(a) of Title 8, which says “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” McCarthy says that this provision falls apart in the face of Section 1182(f), which grants the president the capacity to suspend the entry “of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” on the basis of declaring such immigrants “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The question is whether 1182(f), which was passed in 1952, was narrowed by 1152(a), or whether 1182(f) overcomes 1152(a). As Patterico points out in his excellent and cogent analysis, “I think Bier’s argument is even more persuasive when you note that the non-discrimination provision in section 1152(a) says it applies ‘[e]xcept as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title.’ In other words, Congress carved out specific exceptions to the general nondiscrimination rule, and section 1182(f) was not one of the listed exceptions. That analysis strongly indicates that the rule of section 1182(f) is not an exception to the nondiscrimination rule in section 1152(a)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...