Five Reasons Congress Should Repeal Trump's Immigrant/Refugee Ban

[TitanTiger 20,509]

 

Quote

 

Five Reasons Congress Should Repeal Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban

By David Bier

January 28, 2017 8:46AM

President Trump signed an executive order yesterday that would ban all Syrian refugees and almost all refugees from all countries from entering the United States for six months, while cutting the overall annual limit for refugees in half and banning for at least 90 days all immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. It implies that this ban could continue indefinitely for certain countries. These policies will not improve national security and will undermine America’s efforts to combat Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world.

1) The order violates the law. Under the Immigration Act of 1965, the president may not refuse to give visas to immigrants coming to live in the United States permanently due to their nationality. The provision is unequivocal in stating that no person may “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.” While this does not apply to temporary visitors or refugees, I have previously explained in detail why the president cannot legally enforce this order against immigrants who are sponsored by employers or family members in the United States.

2) Refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries are not a serious threat to Americans. The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack. Moreover, the likelihood of being killed by any refugee from any country is just 1 in 3.64 billiona year. This discrimination is arbitrary and cannot be rationally justified based on a assessment of the risk. It is worth remembering that German Jews were turned awayon a similar pretense that they could be Nazi spies—only to be killed in death camps.

3) The order aids the Islamic State. ISIS has said that it wishes to “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the gray zone themselves,” forcing Western Muslims to “either apostatize… or [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” They want this overreaction. The only thing keeping ISIS from imploding are its new recruits which makes winning the propaganda war critical. Accepting refugees deprives ISIS of human resources. The Caliphate’s main source of income is the people it extorts. One refugee told the Times. “ISIS would not let us leave. They said, ‘You are going to the infidels.’” What could be more important than making the “infidels” more popular than ISIS?

4) Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are reforming Islam. American Muslims are 81 percent first or second generation Americans who came from among the most socially illiberal countries in the world. Yet, they comprise the most socially liberal and tolerant Muslim in the world. In fact, during the most recent seven years when Muslim immigration was at its highest level, America’s Muslims grew increasingly socially tolerant of other religions and homosexuality. U.S. Muslim immigrants are spreading goodwill about America’s freedoms around the world. “When I talk to my family they ask, ‘How is the treatment of Americans,’ and I say ‘it’s wonderful,’” one Syrian refugee explained. U.S. immigration is creating a cohort of liberal Muslims who can confront radicalism worldwide.

5) America’s tradition of accepting refugees should be defended. Since World War II, the United States has accepted millions of refugees fleeing communism and totalitarianism around the world. The Roosevelt administration’s rejection of Jews fleeing the Holocaust was one of the more shameful acts of any American president. Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of moral decency.

America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to block the fire exits.

https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban

 

I think point #4 is the one most Americans are most ignorant of.  It's hard to explain to people who have only known Western thinking how different it is for Muslims (and really, nearly all people from Middle Eastern and Arab cultures) who are born and raised in the West.  They have a totally different paradigm growing up here and they do adopt so much of our religious tolerance just by being here.  Cloistering them over there exacerbates the problem of Islam not modernizing and joining the rest of the world.

[metafour 4,969]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think point #4 is the one most Americans are most ignorant of.  It's hard to explain to people who have only known Western thinking how different it is for Muslims (and really, nearly all people from Middle Eastern and Arab cultures) who are born and raised in the West.  They have a totally different paradigm growing up here and they do adopt so much of our religious tolerance just by being here.  Cloistering them over there exacerbates the problem of Islam not modernizing and joining the rest of the world.

How is that reforming Islam? Those people come to America and "reform", but their home nations stay the same.  If anything, you remove all the decent people from a terrible place and are left with nothing but the animals.  Islamic reform must come from the core of Islam; not from expats who are now thousands of miles away from the problem.  I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia who have money and power yet fund ISIS and other extremists.

[metafour 4,969]

Also, #3 is entirely counterproductive as the short-term gain of hurting ISIS recruitment also means long-term ramification AGAINST Islamic reform.  ISIS is just one of many reincarnations of radical Islam; what difference does it make in defeating them if the radical elements of Islam are still present? You defeat ISIS and a different group will just inevitably pop up.  The Left's idea of excusing the flaws of Islam gets you people like Linda Sarsour who speak at Women's rights marches yet openly defend Sharia Law (one of the most backwards elements of Islam).  This completely stifles the idea of reform, as now you are silencing yourself from speaking out which gibes MORE power to those that want to spread the current flaws of Islam.  It is no different from enabling a drug addict.  "Islamophobia" is a term created by the Muslim Brotherhood and pushed by their groups to silence opposition to Islam.  If you can't speak out, then they win.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

34 minutes ago, metafour said:

How is that reforming Islam? Those people come to America and "reform", but their home nations stay the same.  If anything, you remove all the decent people from a terrible place and are left with nothing but the animals.  Islamic reform must come from the core of Islam; not from expats who are now thousands of miles away from the problem.  I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia who have money and power yet fund ISIS and other extremists.

Because they stay in contact, often daily now, and many travel back. This provides a birds eye view their friends and families trust.

"Muslim immigrants are spreading goodwill about America’s freedoms around the world. “When I talk to my family they ask, ‘How is the treatment of Americans,’ and I say ‘it’s wonderful,’” one Syrian refugee explained. U.S. immigration is creating a cohort of liberal Muslims who can confront radicalism worldwide."

[metafour 4,969]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Because they stay in contact, often daily now, and many travel back. This provides a birds eye view their friends and families trust.

"Muslim immigrants are spreading goodwill about America’s freedoms around the world. “When I talk to my family they ask, ‘How is the treatment of Americans,’ and I say ‘it’s wonderful,’” one Syrian refugee explained. U.S. immigration is creating a cohort of liberal Muslims who can confront radicalism worldwide."

Those Muslims spreading "goodwill" are completely outnumbered.  Do you realize how hard it is to reform Islam? If refugees from America (or anywhere else in the world) could do it, it would have been long done before 2017.  The reform must and can only come from the belly of the beast itself.  There are Muslim scholars from these countries who have openly spoken about the flaws of their beliefs, what the Left doesn't realize is that normalizing Islamic practices just silences these people.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

8 minutes ago, metafour said:

Those Muslims spreading "goodwill" are completely outnumbered.  Do you realize how hard it is to reform Islam? If refugees from America (or anywhere else in the world) could do it, it would have been long done before 2017.  The reform must and can only come from the belly of the beast itself.  There are Muslim scholars from these countries who have openly spoken about the flaws of their beliefs, what the Left doesn't realize is that normalizing Islamic practices just silences these people.

No one claimed it was magical. Most changes in culture are incremental.

[metafour 4,969]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

No one claimed it was magical. Most changes in culture are incremental.

Yes, but you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot when you allow these people in and then blast them from every angle about how they are oppressed in America and how everyone supposedly hates them, or you let an obvious Islamic apologist stand up in front of a crowd of thousands to lecture them on how there actually isn't anything wrong with the current form of Islam.  Your handful of refugees calling their friends and family are completely silenced. 

[TexasTiger 12,992]

1 minute ago, metafour said:

Yes, but you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot when you allow these people in and then blast them from every angle about how they are oppressed in America and how everyone supposedly hates them, or you let an obvious Islamic apologist stand up in front of a crowd of thousands to lecture them on how there actually isn't anything wrong with the current form of Islam.  Your handful of refugees calling their friends and family are completely silenced. 

I'm not following you.

[metafour 4,969]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I'm not following you.

Which part? You claim that refugees will reform Islam when the fight by the left right now is to normalize current-state Islam, for fear of being "intolerant".  The biggest "political activist" in America is a Sharia Law apologist who obviously feels that there is nothing wrong with Islam; ie: she is against any reform, to the point that she has actually shamed and defaced a TRUE ally of Islamic reform (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) on several occasions.  Yes, you're arming ISIS by being mean.  You are also however arming the root of the problem (which is much more significant) by pretending like there is no problem and allowing obvious evils like Linda Sarsour to normalize the aspects of Islam that allow groups like ISIS to rise in the first place.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

8 minutes ago, metafour said:

Which part? You claim that refugees will reform Islam when the fight by the left right now is to normalize current-state Islam, for fear of being "intolerant".  The biggest "political activist" in America is a Sharia Law apologist who obviously feels that there is nothing wrong with Islam; ie: she is against any reform, to the point that she has actually shamed and defaced a TRUE ally of Islamic reform (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) on several occasions.  Yes, you're arming ISIS by being mean.  You are also however arming the root of the problem (which is much more significant) by pretending like there is no problem and allowing obvious evils like Linda Sarsour to normalize the aspects of Islam that allow groups like ISIS to rise in the first place.

You ascribing positions to me I haven't taken.

[AURaptor 1,126]

1 is false because the E.O. is not permanent. All other reasons given are pure speculation. 

[LakeBum 187]

Why don't the millions of Americans who want to help these refugees donate to a fund that would help these refugees?  If each one gave just $2,000, there would be billions of dollars to build new settlements in their countries instead of being shipped to the four corners of the world.  Quit protesting and donate some of your savings to help those you feel so passionate about.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

21 minutes ago, LakeBum said:

Why don't the millions of Americans who want to help these refugees donate to a fund that would help these refugees?  If each one gave just $2,000, there would be billions of dollars to build new settlements in their countries instead of being shipped to the four corners of the world.  Quit protesting and donate some of your savings to help those you feel so passionate about.

Many people (particularly Christians) are helping in whatever ways they can financially.  But that has its limits.  There is nothing wrong with bringing a very small percentage of the most vulnerable over here for asylum after thorough vetting.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

17 hours ago, AURaptor said:

1 is false because the E.O. is not permanent. All other reasons given are pure speculation. 

He went into more detail on the illegality here:

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-presidential-ban-immigration-certain-countries-illegal

[TitanTiger 20,509]

Also, the ban isn't truly "temporary."  A better word would be "indefinite."

 

Quote

A ‘Temporary’ Ban That Isn’t Really Temporary

Lawfare has obtained a draft of a letter from the State Department’s dissent channel that lays out the objections of many U.S. diplomats to Trump’s recent order. This section specifically addresses the duration of the ban:

From state department staff, a warning that countries affected by the visa ban will never be able to meet its bar: https://t.co/hBh3ydKxlQ pic.twitter.com/GirTQjQSzH

— Nicholas Dawes (@NicDawes) January 30, 2017

That means that nationals from all of these countries could be prohibited from traveling here for as long as the order remains in effect. Depending on how long it takes the courts to settle the issue, the “temporary” ban might be in place for years before it is lifted in some cases, and perhaps much longer than that in others. That would be an extraordinary burden to impose on innocent people even if there were good reason for imposing it, but there isn’t one. The purpose in setting a “high, vague, and nebulous” standard for these governments to meet seems to be to make it as difficult as possible to lift the ban, which further suggests that there is no intention of lifting it.

The justification given for imposing this ban is to make America more secure, but it isn’t going to do that. It fuels anti-Americanism, aids the propaganda of adversaries, alienates people in the targeted countries and around the world, and mars our international reputation, and all in exchange for guarding against a threat that isn’t real. This ban is the product of threat inflation run amok. The damage done to relations with Iran and America’s image among Iranians is particularly worrisome when we remember that the administration is already overflowing with Iran hawks that want confrontation with Tehran. Barbara Slavin comments:

But the Trump administration’s actions do not punish the Iranian government; they hurt ordinary Iranians and provide grist for regime propaganda that has long portrayed the United States as the “Great Satan.” On Saturday, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, an Iranian-born journalist for the Guardian newspaper, tweeted: “Iranian leaders failed for 38 years to convince their people that the US is their ‘enemy.’ This visa ban may just do that job for them.”

Iran hawks have often claimed that their quarrel is with the regime and not with the people, but in this case the Trump administration has squarely targeted the latter in a clumsy swipe at the former.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/a-temporary-ban-that-isnt-really-temporary/

 

[AURaptor 1,126]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

He went into more detail on the illegality here:

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-presidential-ban-immigration-certain-countries-illegal

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, & he's no Sean Hannity sounding far right winger

[japantiger 4,051]

19 hours ago, metafour said:

Which part? You claim that refugees will reform Islam when the fight by the left right now is to normalize current-state Islam, for fear of being "intolerant".  The biggest "political activist" in America is a Sharia Law apologist who obviously feels that there is nothing wrong with Islam; ie: she is against any reform, to the point that she has actually shamed and defaced a TRUE ally of Islamic reform (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) on several occasions.  Yes, you're arming ISIS by being mean.  You are also however arming the root of the problem (which is much more significant) by pretending like there is no problem and allowing obvious evils like Linda Sarsour to normalize the aspects of Islam that allow groups like ISIS to rise in the first place.

American muslims are not going to reform Islam in these 7 countries or anywhere in the Muslim world...that's not even a serious response.  Meta, your comment here is dead on...

[autigeremt 6,660]

It's a pointless ban that does nothing to protect the US. Saudi Arabia is our largest terror threat....and they have the inside straight.

[AURaptor 1,126]

6 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

It's a pointless ban that does nothing to protect the US. Saudi Arabia is our largest terror threat....and they have the inside straight.

  There are factions in Saudi that also make them one of our iggest allies. It would be foolish as to throw them all in the same basket. 

 I guess some people would rather Trump have banded immigrants from every single Muslim country, and not just one third of them. 

[autigeremt 6,660]

Just now, AURaptor said:

  There are factions in Saudi that also make them one of our iggest allies. It would be foolish as to throw them all in the same basket. 

 I guess some people would rather Trump have band immigrants from every single Muslim country, and not just one third of them. 

They didn't do much to protect us from Bin Laden and others. I have no respect for that manipulating power family.

[WDavE 332]

I found the statement about long term  U.S. Muslim refugees changing the face of radicals kind of funny.

 

• Dar al-Hijrah, located just outside Washington in Falls Chruch, Virginia, for example, was the place of worship for two of the 9/11 hijakers. This mosque’s present Imam, Shaker Elsayed, described Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s teachings as “the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” The Brotherhood “seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally,” according to the Clarion Project.

• Multiple terrorists have come from the Islamic Society of Boston, including the Boston Bombers and al-Qaeda terrorists Aafia Siddiqui, Tarek Mehanna and Ahmad Abousamra.

• The Islamic Center of Tucson was “basically the first cell of al-Qaeda in the United States,” terrorism expert Rita Katz told The Washington Post in 2002. “At least a dozen terror-linked individuals have been tied to the” center, according to the Clarion Project.

[AURaptor 1,126]

 

49 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

They didn't do much to protect us from Bin Laden and others. I have no respect for that manipulating power family.

They expelled him from Saudi Arabia. He went to Somalia , and then ended up in Afghanistan.  

And it's not like we didn't know who he was or where to find him. Clinton simply chose not to. 

[autigeremt 6,660]

Over 2,200 terrorist have come from Saudi......light years ahead of the next closest nation. 

[homersapien 11,423]

On 1/30/2017 at 6:44 PM, metafour said:

Those Muslims spreading "goodwill" are completely outnumbered.  Do you realize how hard it is to reform Islam? If refugees from America (or anywhere else in the world) could do it, it would have been long done before 2017.  The reform must and can only come from the belly of the beast itself.  There are Muslim scholars from these countries who have openly spoken about the flaws of their beliefs, what the Left doesn't realize is that normalizing Islamic practices just silences these people.

So we should restrict them even more? 

[homersapien 11,423]

#6:  Immigrants are extremely important to our economy. They make up a large proportion of grad students in STEM curricula and are responsible for a large number of technology start ups.