Do you agree with the president's ban on refugees?
The refugee issue is the talk of the town, country, and world. We can read reasonable arguments from all sides, as well as those more emotional and less reasonable.
In a post on Ed Stetzer’s article, SI participant (and a man I respect) Jim Peet argues well that what we are talking about are matters of degrees. Everyone is for some immigration and some limitation.
So where do you stand on the president’s recent orders about this matter? Is he right on, way off, or so-so.
Poll Results
Do you agree with the president’s ban on refugees?
The president is pretty much right on. Votes: 7
The bans are okay, but should have not have been enacted for a week or two for the sake of people in transit. Votes: 3
The idea is okay, but needed to be more carefully deliberated and not so sudden. Votes: 8
Not good. Immigration needs to be controlled, but not this way. Votes: 4
We need to clear (vet) immigrants, but we should take our share. Votes: 4
This matter is too complex for me to figure out; glad I am not the president. No definite opinion. Votes: 2
We should just trust God and open the doors. Votes: 0
Other Votes: 0
- Not a ban on refugees (b/c):
- Temporary &
- Only targets some countries (yes Syria is in that list AND a major source of refugees)
- It probably is legal
- It rankles me when Executive Actions are used like this … but Obama was the master and abuser of it!
- Poorly executed and a WSJ article on this:
The administration issued its policy Friday afternoon, a time normally used in Washington to bury bad stories. Moreover, it came unaccompanied by briefing papers and talking points, and no officials immediately explained it. It took two hours before reporters received copies of the final order—and another two before White House officials answered their questions.
The policy was effective immediately, leaving hundreds of visa holders from seven countries in limbo. Some were detained as they flew into U.S. airports from abroad, others turned back or were not allowed to board their planes overseas. The administration even applied the policy to green-card holders—legal permanent residents, most of whom have studied, worked or lived in the U.S. for years. …
Now imagine if the president had waited and implemented the policy carefully and deliberately. Mr. Trump, surrounded by the secretaries of homeland security and state, delivers a presidential speech. He announces the immediate suspension of new visas for travelers from the seven listed countries, and explains clearly why they were chosen. He directs the secretaries to develop “extreme vetting” standards within 90 days, while halting Syrian refugee flows indefinitely.
Mr. Trump then adds that current visa holders from the seven countries could still travel to the U.S.—but they would be subject to additional monitoring upon arrival. None of these new rules, he reassures Americans, apply to green-card holders. After speaking, Mr. Trump has his two secretaries field questions from the press. Congressional leaders are already well-informed and able to defend the policy, because Vice President Mike Pence gave them a heads-up before the announcement.
This probably would have produced virtually all the benefits the administration sought with much less controversy. A Quinnipiac University poll last month showed that 48% of Americans favor “suspending immigration from ‘terror prone’ regions.” Only 42% oppose it.
A well-executed decision-making process and rollout might have improved those numbers, giving the administration an early political win. There likely would have been fewer, smaller protests. There would not have been stories like the one about Hameed Khalid Darweesh. The Iraqi interpreter had received a visa to come to America after working with the U.S. military for years. He was detained at Kennedy Airport over the weekend for around 18 hours.
Now here is an Executive Order we can all agree on:
http://www.startribune.com/government-reveals-over-100-000-visas-revoke…
More than 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
The number came out during a hearing in a lawsuit filed by attorneys for two Yemeni brothers who arrived at Dulles International Airport last Saturday. They were coerced into giving up their immigrant visas, they argue, and quickly put on a return flight to Ethiopia.
That figure was immediately disputed by the State Department, which said the number of visas revoked was roughly 60,000. Virginia Elliott, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department, said the revocation has no impact on the legal status of people already in the United States. If those people were to leave U.S. soil and try to return, the visas would no longer be valid.
During the hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Erez Reuveni from the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, could not say how many people with visas were sent back to their home countries from Dulles in response to the travel ban. However, he did say that all people with green cards who came through the airport have been let into the United States.
Reasonably good general concept. Implementation a mess.
Ditto Jim’s observation about overuse/heavy-handed use of the executive order power.
Given how long the previous status quo had been going on, there was no need to rush this and create so much angst, chaos, and push-back. There was going to be push-back anyway, but you can diffuse a whole lot of that by getting ahead on the messaging before rolling out an orderly change.
… but I think it was one of those things Trump promised to do “on day one” in his campaign. I guess there’s something to be said for keeping promises. On this point, the politicians’ tradition of interpreting their promises pretty loosely once in office is probably actually a good one. You don’t have all the facts when you’re campaigning, and you also don’t have a clear view of what the future will look like when you get there.
Experienced politicians, for all their flaws, tend to be better at managing perceptions.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/appeals-court-denies-motion-to-stay-halt-…
I’ve not been paying attention to the matter this week, but apparently a court put a “halt” (actually a restraining order) on the Exec Order, then the administration tried to get a stay on the halt.
Anyway, it seems to be bogged down at the moment. A good opportunity for the admin. to say “We’re going to withdraw the order and try another approach shortly” … than do it again and do it right.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Politics is like chess … the sequencing of moves is significant.
Should have played the Supreme Court announcement 1st … waited for confirmation:
Given the current 4-4 split on the Supreme Court between liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning justices, it is possible that the losing side at the Ninth Circuit won’t be able to muster the support needed among the justices for high court intervention.
An emergency stay from the Supreme Court would require agreement from five justices. A Supreme Court tie vote would leave the Ninth Circuit decision in place.
Discussion