Full text of Trump's executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/01/all-trump-executive-action…
Trump signed an executive order Friday evening making significant changes to the visa and refugee programs in the United States. It includes:
- Cuts the number of refugees allowed into the United States in fiscal 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000
- Suspends for 120 days the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which identifies and processes refugees for resettlement in the United States
- Suspends the entry of all “immigrants and nonimmigrants” from Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya for a period of 90 days. This may also apply to citizens of Libya, Yemen and Somalia depending on the interpretation.
- Bars all Syrian refugees for an indefinite period
- Directs the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and secretary of state to put together a list of countries that do not provide adequate information to vet potential entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Foreign nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the United States.
- Directs the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, and the director of the FBI to implement uniform screening standards for all immigration programs
- Directs the secretary of homeland security, upon the resumption of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, 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.”
- Directs the secretary of homeland security to implement a biometric entry-exit tracking system
- Grants state and local jurisdictions, whenever possible a “role in the process of determining the placement or settlement” of refugees
- Suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows certain people renewing their visas to skip an in-person interview
- Directs the secretary of state to expand the Consular Fellows Program
http://sharperiron.org/filings/012817/32842
And could be a good discussion item
Bars all Syrian refugees for an indefinite period
Pathetic… The “Chick-fil-a Christians” that put Trump in office have some consistency problems. They seem to find no problem with a government ignoring the Sermon on the Mount even if they consider themselves bound to it.
What’s a “Chick-fil-a American”?
And what does “Chick-fil-a” have to do with this?
Two related asides:
- Have been to Chick-fil-a twice in my life
- I voted 3rd party (not Trump)
[Jim]What’s a “Chick-fil-a American”?
That is my own coined term for evangelical Christians who believe they are under persecution and seem more interested in fighting for the rights of Christians than focusing on what Christian values really should be. Examples of their recent battles are the Chick-fil-a boycotts, the Duck Dynasty scandal, and the Duggars scandal. It is this people that put Trump in the White House because he promised to help them but they hypocritically ignored the fact that he is morally bankrupt.
In this case, I find the refusal to help Syrian refugees as exceedingly non-Christian though it will be applauded by the Chick-fil-a crowd that is scared to death of Muslims.
Certainly, I was not referring to you. I eat at Chick-fil-a myself since I live within 10 miles of maybe 3 of them. They are OK… That is about as critical as I can be of them down here though. If you dare suggest you are not a Chick-fil-a fan, people will come close to accusing you of not being a Christian ;)
My son-in-law who is completing his graduate studies at MIT has been invited to Dubai for a conference.
Incidentally he himself was born in Afghanistan and came to the US as refugee (Afghanistan –> Pakistan –> India –> Germany and now is a US citizen)
Dubai is one of the emirates of the UAE (United Arab Emirates)
The UAE denies visas to citizens of Israel
Source: http://www.dubaivisa.us/israeli-stamp-passport.html
Israeli citizens are normally denied visas to the UAE
They seem to find no problem with a government ignoring the Sermon on the Mount even if they consider themselves bound to it.
Surely you are not suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount applies to 21st century American politics are you? And even if you were, what part of it would mandate the admitting of Syrian (or any other kind of) refugees?
[Larry]Surely you are not suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount applies to 21st century American politics are you? And even if you were, what part of it would mandate the admitting of Syrian (or any other kind of) refugees?
Yes I am. I am saying that the Sermon on the Mount is sort of a basis for how Christians should operate and what values they should have. And it stands to reason that they would support a form of government and politicians that holds to those values. I am saying that I personally find it at best ridiculously inconsistent and for sure the rest of the world finds it absurd that Christians can have such a dichotomy between how they think individuals should act and a government should act.
And do I really have to spell out how principles in the Sermon on the Mount apply to Syrian refugees? I can’t imagine that I do.
Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria
Also note how one mayor (Boston) spins this as a Muslim ban. (probably not the only one!): “I’m on my way to Logan Airport to join the protest against President Trump’s Muslim ban. “. He confuses concepts of “national origin” and “faith”!
Consider: There are about 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world; only 7 countries are affected by the ban.
Greg, I think it would be helpful to law out a summary argument for how the Sermon on the Mount applies to a secular 21st century democracy and its policies. I also think it would be helpful to lay out what the SoM says that would help our thinking about refugees, particularly Syrian refugees. That would give us some idea of what you find convincing.
I am agnostic on the ban. I don’t think it will help anything. I doubt it will hurt anything. I don’t think the Bible directly addresses how we as a nation should address refugees, but I would be open to an argument about it.
But so far, it’s just assertions.
It’s worth noting that while Scripture as a whole—not just the Sermon on the Mount—encourages kindness to the foreigner, the downtrodden, and the like, it simultaneously takes a very dim view of those who abuse their hosts’ hospitality by committing crimes.
Personally, this is about the view I have. Kindness to refugees? Absolutely. Be willing to show some of them the door when they abuse our hospitality? You bet. Understand that you cannot do a good background check on someone whose government is trying to kill them? You bet.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Personally the awful behavior of many Syrian men in Germany and Sweden and other places, and their lack of gratitude is enough to urge strong caution on admittance, as is the fact that Islam is not friendly to western values (even at their best).
While I would like to see some more Syrian refugees admitted to the States, I would only be for it once their political views were known. One thing to remember about the crisis is that the surrounding Muslim nations are not exactly helping them out.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
100 experienced temporary detainment at airports / As of Sunday night, no more foreign travelers in airport detention
1 special forces service member killed in Yemen
One might fault Trump’s administration for the execution of his executive order, but
[GregH]
Yes I am. I am saying that the Sermon on the Mount is sort of a basis for how Christians should operate and what values they should have. And it stands to reason that they would support a form of government and politicians that holds to those values. I am saying that I personally find it at best ridiculously inconsistent and for sure the rest of the world finds it absurd that Christians can have such a dichotomy between how they think individuals should act and a government should act.
And do I really have to spell out how principles in the Sermon on the Mount apply to Syrian refugees? I can’t imagine that I do.
Apart from the question of how the commands of the Sermon on the Mount ought to be viewed in light of Romans 13 and the like, one must then apply a passage that says nothing specific about immigration or refugees to come to a specific, concrete stance on what our immigration policy ought to be. Put gently, good luck with that one, Greg. Does it merely support limited refugee programs, or do we have to have open borders?
Either way, ought that not be placed in the context of Roman law and culture? Let’s imagine, for example, that a Christian familiar with Julius Caesar’s campaigns and the disaster at the Teutoburg forest (Arminius’ victory in 9AD) had ascended to the throne of Rome around 55AD. Would he have applied the Sermon on the Mount in such a way as to accept a lot of refugees from the territories of the Germanic tribes, Gauls, Celts, and the like?
For that matter, did Constantine nearly three centuries later? Or his successors who nominally claimed Christ as Rome struggled with barbarian invasions? (no and no)
To be blunt about the matter, the principles of the Sermon on the Mount—blessings on the poor, meek, merciful, explanation of the extent of “Thou Shalt not Kill” and “Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery”, how to pray, and the like—can be applied any number of ways vis-a-vis immigration in general and asylum seekers specifically depending on the relative weights a leader/government will place on the suffering of his own people versus those in other countries, and the burden that the additional immigrants will impose on the nation. Rome, for example, could not afford unlimited immigration from the Germanic tribes, Gauls, or Celts—it would have been national suicide. Even large numbers of refugees would have been problematic.
Maybe the plan is obvious to you, and I’m foolish for not cluing in, but a look at history does not suggest things are so black and white. If you disagree, now would be a good time to make your case. As they say in Missouri, show me.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion