Over Reactions to Seven Country Immigration Ban by Trump: Yet Rhetoric Needs Shift Away From Being Anti-Muslim

The left and certain elements of the human rights activist community are blowing a gasket on Trump’s new border ban on refugees, visitors and immigrants coming from seven countries. They have over done it, even wildly at times. A new tone is also needed ensuring immigration reform discussion, debate and policy is not caught up in religious discrimation, real or fake.

First let us see what the critics are exactly and highly complaining about as taken from the website “quint”

“The order bars the entry of foreign nationals from certain countries for 90 days. While no countries are specifically named in the order, it refers to a statute that would apply to seven Muslim-majority nations: Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iran. There is an exception for certain types of visas, including for diplomats and the United Nations.”

Note that the reference is to 7 countries that are Muslim majority. If the goal were to keep Muslims out and be truly discriminatory, then all 47 Muslim majority countries would be in the ban. I see no discussion in the media about this fact.

There are also exceptions in the executive order. A number of seemingly legitimate exceptions of properly vetted refugees from Iraq have got got caught up in the administrative transition is sad and has resulted in a court order and a suit.

The bureaucracy is never perfect and some can often act with excess caution. I remember when my boarding pass stub got separated from the other half even though I showed both halves together, one Homeland Securitu person, I think, almost stopped me from lining up to the check-in counter at La Guardia airport in New York City. Generally, I think Homeland Security does a great job under very demanding circumstances.

I am sure the administration will get the kinks worked out with their ban. I am not fully sure why these seven countries have been chosen while Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have not been or non Muslim North Korea or certain Central American countries and even Cuba.

I just think a more overall stepped up vetting process is needed to be reviewed against both terrorism and criminality but then I do not have all the US government risk analysis that hopefully was used before such a ban order was signed.

However, President Trump in the election campaign said a pause on some forms of immigration was needed so as to give time and review for getting a better handle on US border security. This makes sense as he is highly worried about stopping terrorism events in the US of which there have been increasing numbers both in America and the overall West.

This ban is for only 90 days on immigration and may be his attempt to fulfilling this election promise to protect America from the riskiest countries. He has every right in winning the election to do so.

Even though it is temporary and a sensible review, again the Trump hating to overly sceptical main media has gone bonkers even playing up sometimes small, special interest oriented demonstrations inclusive of those who would open the refugee gates. We saw what the result of that was in Germany, an open refugee policy which now the German finance minister has called a big mistake. Can these demonstrators get it?

Meanwhile, what I call is the “hysterical” faction of the left and Democratic Party are calling Trump a fascist and inferring he is a Muslim hater. He is not. He should though ban all criminals and extremists from coming into America who spread hate and are abusive to constitutionally guaranteed human rights and take the time to refashion immigration policy and border control against what I would think are more than these 7 countries.

That policy should be strengthened against White supremacists or any other racist or supremacist groups and individuals or even extreme Zionists promoting violence against Arabs and Palestinians and men and women haters of the extreme promoting violence against the other gender, for example. America is the land of freedom, human dignity and equality and should keep striving for that.

Even though Islamic extremism is in focus, fascists to totalitarian communists threatened America in the past and have had bans against such groups. Was that wrong and discriminatory given the risks those countries dominated by such ideologies posed at one time? I have one view on US immigration. Keep all of the haters and violent and war criminals out including those promoting female genital mutilation. And absolutely send violent illegal immigrants and serious criminal non-US citizens back to their original countries. No one can argue against such sanity.

Meanwhile, critics of the ban on the seven should take a step back and provide proportional, reasonable criticism. An anti-hate and anti-extremist immigration policy with appropriate extra focus on certain higher risk countries is acceptable but they do not have to be all Muslim ones, I would think.

Even the province of Quebec probably came close to such a definition of requiring increased US border vetting when the violent separatist group, the FLQ was bombing, kidnapping and killing in the Montreal area. You can bet along the Quebec border, serious vetting was going on to prevent the cross border travel of these extremists.

Did that mean the US government was anti-French Canadian. Of course it was not but if only a presidential executive order to increase vetting against Quebecers wanting to enter the US had been issued, it might have given an image of the White House being overly suspicious and prejudice towards Quebers over other jurisdictions and groups.

Optics still has importance so these policies on sensitive executive orders on immigration and might benefit from upfront explanations as to why they might not be discriminatory, in this case against Muslims.

Such a policy with clear transparent standards, void of religious targeting, is what is needed. The legal system including the courts will hopefully do their job where there is administrative and policy overstep. I do not believe this administration will be fascistic in its immigration policy but it could focus its tone somewhat more in taking the religious aspect out of some of its rhetoric.

I believe this is slowly being done with the elimination of the ridiculous idea spoken in some quarters during the election campaign of a ban against Muslims entering the country. That was really dumb.

Like Clint Eastwood, the famous actor said, sometimes Trump says dumb things but largely his overall policies are sound. I also believe they are mutating where need be in the right direction with the support of the largely excellent people around him. His cabinet may be one of the potentially most competent ever but may need some to time to get on top of ensuring the proper administration of his orders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *