Anyone interested in policy can hardly keep up these days. So much has been done, and so much furor, that it can hardly be digested before Life has moved on to a new 'emergency'. As a result, I am posting more often, but with less time to digest and edit. Tonight I want to comment on Trump's immigration order.
This is the full text of the order, found at NPR.org. Regrettably, I found no safe site that had the order's full text without editorial comment. It is, however, the editorial comment and reaction I want most to address.
Objection has been immediate and vocal, based in a couple of issues. One is the status of visa holders at the time of the order. There are, according to the press, 67,000 such individuals. As of Saturday, 193 had had their immigration delayed at airports, while 173 more had had flight boarding denied at the country of origin. The status of people arriving when an executive order is promulgated is a significant legal issue. I think it was wise for a federal judge to issue a stay for these people pending further clarification of the order.
Another objection is the order is that it is discriminatory. Atlantic Magazine has a succinct summary of the argument here. I am not a constitutional legal expert, but it seems to me that the very essence of immigration policy is to make judgments about who is to be admitted to the United States. US definitions of 'prejudicial behavior' cannot apply to such decisions. There is a long history of excluding groups based on religion, national origin and political ties.
To give an idea of the legal minutiae involved, the relevant text for presidential authority is summarized nicely here. That is a simple, clear and comprehensive paragraph. Here, however, is the full text of Section 212. For those who wish to commit suicide by reading, here is the entire text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, from which Section 212 comes. With laws that read like this, I am not surprised that almost anyone can make an argument for or against them. Like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, however, as an individual citizen I resort to 'knowing it when I see it'. I can't plow through several hundred pages of law, but I can say that immigrants ought to be beneficial to the US. We are not a charity, a home for the obnoxious or dangerous, or for those who wish to destroy us. As Theodore Roosevelt said, we welcome those who want to be Americans, not Greeks who live in America, or Muslims who want to impose their ideas of religious law on Americans. By all means, wear your hijab. Practice your religion, but don't insist that I or anyone else honor it. It is a private matter.
The authority Trump has used to make his order has been used before. There is an excellent blog post on the topic here. Obama himself used very similar language and arguments to implement a ban from Iraq, and Trump has merely extended this.
There are suggestions, which I cannot confirm outside of obviously partisan sources, that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has coordinated some of the response to the order. There is a superficial treatment of CAIR on Wikipedia. Tonight I don't have time to dive into CAIR deeply. There has been controversy over its ties; however, on initial review, CAIR appears to be well-intentioned group and represents much of what is admirable about Islam.
The order, although seen as prejudicial by Atlantic, does not target Muslims but rather immigrants from specific countries. It makes significant exceptions for religious persecution and other conditions, and it is temporary while there is a more formal and measured review. None of it is unprecedented or outside the president's legal authority. I suspect it will survive legal challenge. While this report is grossly partisan and labeling, I fear its essence is correct. It is too easy for objection to be ginned up and then supported and promulgated by a complicit media. While this is a good way to express outrage, it is a poor way to oppose, and is likely to label the user as much as the intended target.
On the other hand, while Trump has fulfilled another campaign promise in short order it has been done awkwardly, and without a good preparation of either government or populace. Trump is doing a great deal very fast, and that is a tough business to pull off politically. This is not a corporate takeover, where an old culture is swept out by a new one. This is a society, where no one has a good option for quitting the company. While I support the goals, and in large measure the actions, it is being done in a way that provokes needless opposition. Neither Trump's aggressive style or the opposition are doing any credit to themselves or to our nation.
Ted
This is the full text of the order, found at NPR.org. Regrettably, I found no safe site that had the order's full text without editorial comment. It is, however, the editorial comment and reaction I want most to address.
Objection has been immediate and vocal, based in a couple of issues. One is the status of visa holders at the time of the order. There are, according to the press, 67,000 such individuals. As of Saturday, 193 had had their immigration delayed at airports, while 173 more had had flight boarding denied at the country of origin. The status of people arriving when an executive order is promulgated is a significant legal issue. I think it was wise for a federal judge to issue a stay for these people pending further clarification of the order.
Another objection is the order is that it is discriminatory. Atlantic Magazine has a succinct summary of the argument here. I am not a constitutional legal expert, but it seems to me that the very essence of immigration policy is to make judgments about who is to be admitted to the United States. US definitions of 'prejudicial behavior' cannot apply to such decisions. There is a long history of excluding groups based on religion, national origin and political ties.
To give an idea of the legal minutiae involved, the relevant text for presidential authority is summarized nicely here. That is a simple, clear and comprehensive paragraph. Here, however, is the full text of Section 212. For those who wish to commit suicide by reading, here is the entire text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, from which Section 212 comes. With laws that read like this, I am not surprised that almost anyone can make an argument for or against them. Like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, however, as an individual citizen I resort to 'knowing it when I see it'. I can't plow through several hundred pages of law, but I can say that immigrants ought to be beneficial to the US. We are not a charity, a home for the obnoxious or dangerous, or for those who wish to destroy us. As Theodore Roosevelt said, we welcome those who want to be Americans, not Greeks who live in America, or Muslims who want to impose their ideas of religious law on Americans. By all means, wear your hijab. Practice your religion, but don't insist that I or anyone else honor it. It is a private matter.
The authority Trump has used to make his order has been used before. There is an excellent blog post on the topic here. Obama himself used very similar language and arguments to implement a ban from Iraq, and Trump has merely extended this.
There are suggestions, which I cannot confirm outside of obviously partisan sources, that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has coordinated some of the response to the order. There is a superficial treatment of CAIR on Wikipedia. Tonight I don't have time to dive into CAIR deeply. There has been controversy over its ties; however, on initial review, CAIR appears to be well-intentioned group and represents much of what is admirable about Islam.
The order, although seen as prejudicial by Atlantic, does not target Muslims but rather immigrants from specific countries. It makes significant exceptions for religious persecution and other conditions, and it is temporary while there is a more formal and measured review. None of it is unprecedented or outside the president's legal authority. I suspect it will survive legal challenge. While this report is grossly partisan and labeling, I fear its essence is correct. It is too easy for objection to be ginned up and then supported and promulgated by a complicit media. While this is a good way to express outrage, it is a poor way to oppose, and is likely to label the user as much as the intended target.
On the other hand, while Trump has fulfilled another campaign promise in short order it has been done awkwardly, and without a good preparation of either government or populace. Trump is doing a great deal very fast, and that is a tough business to pull off politically. This is not a corporate takeover, where an old culture is swept out by a new one. This is a society, where no one has a good option for quitting the company. While I support the goals, and in large measure the actions, it is being done in a way that provokes needless opposition. Neither Trump's aggressive style or the opposition are doing any credit to themselves or to our nation.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment