The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: immigration ban
Trump’s Immigration Ban Literally Harms Our Health

Trump’s Immigration Ban Literally Harms Our Health

Over the past three years, I have spent a lot of time in hospitals supporting close relatives with serious medical conditions. I've been there many mornings, afternoons and evenings, interacting with doctors, nurses and other personnel. And I often wonder: Where would hospital patients be without immigrants?

Many of the people on the front lines of the battle against the coronavirus came here from other countries. A 2018 study found that 29 percent of physicians were born abroad and seven percent are not U.S. citizens. For registered nurses, the figures are 16 percent and three percent. There is no telling how many hospital kitchen workers, IT staff and maintenance employees — all crucial to operations — are also foreign-born.

Read NowShow less
Why ISIS, Al Qaeda, And Iran’s Mullahs All Love Donald Trump

Why ISIS, Al Qaeda, And Iran’s Mullahs All Love Donald Trump

Have Americans really become a nation of gullible cowards? Sometimes it looks that way. Take President Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries. If you think it has anything whatsoever to do with protecting against terrorist attacks, then you haven’t been paying attention.

The Trump administration’s policies are designed not to deal with real problems in the visible world, but to rile up partisan ignoramuses here in the USA. Also to stimulate nativism and fear of dark-skinned foreigners, and to make Democrats appear to be defending Muslims instead of the Constitution.

Poorly thought out and incompetently drafted, to the extent that Trump’s order has anything to do with ISIS or al Qaeda terrorists, it will help them. The reasons are quite simple, and pretty much undeniable.

New York Times reporter David Zucchino spoke with Iraqi soldiers barricaded inside the city of Mosul, where they are fighting a brutal house-to-house battle against ISIS fighters for control of the country’s second-biggest city. Its outcome is crucial to breaking the terrorist insurrection for good.

“If America doesn’t want Iraqis because we are all terrorists, then America should send its sons back to Iraq to fight the terrorists themselves,” Capt. Ahmed Adnan al-Musawe said. Officers and enlisted men interviewed in Mosul unanimously described Trump’s order as a grave insult to their honor, and that of their fallen comrades.

The Iraqi commanding officer in Mosul said “This decision by Trump blows up our liberation efforts of cooperation and coordination with American forces.” English-speaking Brig. Gen. Mizhir Khalid al-Mashhadani described himself as astounded by the president’s order. He added that American officers in Iraq helping to train Iraqi forces thought it hasty and badly-considered.

It’s not for nothing that former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright described Trump’s order in a court filing as “ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained”—and an obvious impediment to persuading Muslims to resist Islamic extremism.  Meanwhile, ISIS propagandists couldn’t have been happier. They crowed that exactly as they’d alleged all along, America had now declared war on Islam.

Even Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei—a resolute foe of Sunni Arab extremism—found something to like in Trump’s bungling. “We actually thank this new president! We thank him, because he made it easier for us to reveal the real face of the United States,” he said “Now, with everything he is doing—handcuffing a child as young as 5 at an airport—he is showing the reality of American human rights.”

Never mind that the handcuffing thing falls under the heading of Fake News. Didn’t happen. Even so, Trump handed the Iranian leader a big propaganda gift even as he tried to close the door on Persian refugees from the Ayatollah’s oppressive regime. Should it matter that Iran has never been implicated in a terrorist act in the United States? Not one. Ever.

Of course it should, but to Trump’s henchmen—the president evidently never read the fool thing—it didn’t. Here in Arkansas, one of the state’s most beloved citizens, former Gov. and Sen. David Pryor, is probably alive today due to the emergency intervention of two brilliant Iranian neurosurgeons—immigrant brothers—at a Fayetteville hospital. For my money, the U.S. can’t admit enough Persian immigrants, heirs to one of the world’s oldest civilizations.

And for pretty much the same reasons all eight of my Irish great-grandparents were welcomed to America more than a century ago: poverty and oppression. A lot of people were suspicious of their religion too.

But that was back when, whatever their shortcomings, Americans tended to be a brave, self-confident people. Today, millions of timid ignoramuses cower behind TV screens listening to a preposterous blowhard vow to protect them from a scary threat few can even define.

So should it matter that there have been zero domestic fatalities at the hands of terrorists from any of the seven countries Trump named? Well, you’d think so. Of course if the travel ban had anything to do with an actual threat, it would center upon countries like Saudi Arabia where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists originated. However, the Saudis have three things nobody in Yemen, Sudan, or Somalia can boast: oil, money, and Trump Organization investments.

So that’s out of the question. Anyway, vetting of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries is already strong, and has been ever since 9/11. The process can take years. That’s part of the reason why more Americans by far (22) were killed by cows in 2016 than by foreign terrorists (0).

 But then, as I say, this entire exercise in folly has nothing to do with resisting ISIS, a stateless band of murdering psychopaths that nevertheless poses no existential threat to Americans. Instead, it’s about atavistic fears, racial contempt and misplaced zeal for our preposterous comic-opera president.

So: Delusional or a pathological liar?

We report, you decide.

White House Will Appeal Seattle Judge’s Order Blocking Immigration Ban

White House Will Appeal Seattle Judge’s Order Blocking Immigration Ban

SEATTLE/BOSTON (Reuters) – A federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s week-old executive order temporarily barring refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The Seattle judge’s temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump’s ban, although his administration could still have the policy put back into effect with an appeal.

The White House said late on Friday it believed the ban to be “lawful and appropriate” and said the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency motion to stop the judge’s order taking effect.

Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, made his ruling effective immediately on Friday, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted straight away.

Shortly after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines to board travelers affected by the ban. The U.S. State Department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to work out how Friday’s ruling affects its operations, a spokesman told Reuters, and will announce any changes affecting travelers as soon as information is available.

Robart’s ruling followed an earlier decision by a federal judge in Boston declining to extend a temporary restraining order allowing some immigrants into the United States from countries affected by Trump’s three-month ban.

The Seattle judge’s ruling takes effect because it considered the broad constitutionality of Trump’s order. Robart also explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee celebrated the decision as a victory for the state, adding: “no person – not even the president – is above the law.”

The state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said: “This decision shuts down the executive order right now.” He said he expected the federal government to honor the ruling.

The challenge in Seattle court was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

Washington’s case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas.

Trump’s Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry.

Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on the “litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration’s use of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

The judge’s decision was welcomed by groups protesting the ban.

“This order demonstrates that federal judges throughout the country are seeing the serious constitutional problems with this order,” said Nicholas Espiritu, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

Eric Ferrero, Amnesty International USA spokesman, lauded the short-term relief provided by the order but added: “Congress must step in and block this unlawful ban for good.”

FOUR STATES IN COURT

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump’s executive order. The Trump administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton expressed skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group’s claim that Trump’s order represented religious discrimination, before declining to extend the restraining order.

The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of the seven affected countries had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of “all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States.”

The state of Hawaii on Friday also filed a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

Trump’s directive also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York, Brian Snyder in Boston and Lawrence Hurley, Lesley Wroughton and Susan Heavey in Washington; Writing by Jonathan Weber and Kristina Cooke; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Rigby)

IMAGE: People participate in prayers during an interfaith demonstration outside Terminal 4 at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York,, February 3, 2017. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

America Divided: Heartland Voters Shrug Off Global Uproar Over Immigration Ban

America Divided: Heartland Voters Shrug Off Global Uproar Over Immigration Ban

(Reuters) – Many of President Donald Trump’s core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down.

The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump’s historic upset victory — working-class residents of Midwest and the South — provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained.

In the St. Louis suburb of Manchester, Missouri, 72-year-old Jo Ann Tieken characterized the president as bringing reason into an overheated debate.

“Somebody has to stand up, be the grown up, and see what we can do better to check on people coming in,” she said. “I’m all for everybody to stop and take a breath … Just give it a chance.”

By executive order on Friday, Trump banned immigration from seven Muslim majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – and temporarily halted the entry of refugees.

In the electoral strongholds for Trump, residents seemed nonplussed about the uproar flashing across their television screens. They shrugged off concerns about botched execution, damage to foreign relations, and legal challenges across the country.

In New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other cities, Trump’s action set off an outpouring of anger.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, evoked an image of the Statue of Liberty weeping. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York teared up himself on camera as he seethed over the “mean-spirited and un-American” immigration ban.

Veterans in government agencies, including the Homeland Security and State departments, blasted Trump’s team for what they called slipshod planning and scant interagency communication, criticism the White House rejected.

At airports, security officials also struggled to consistently enforce vague rules.

But allegations of operational or administrative blunders may do little to dampen enthusiasm for a president who rose to power on a populist and protectionist platform, political analysts said.

Louise Ingram, a 69-year-old retiree from Troy, Alabama, said she forgave the new administration a few “glitches,” such as widespread confusion over treatment of green card holders, as it moved to protect U.S. citizens from attacks.

“I’m not opposed to immigrants,” she said. “I just want to make sure they are safe to come in.”

FEAR OF EUROPE

A senior Trump administration official said political considerations had little to do with the executive orders. They rather represent a reaction to the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California; the Boston Marathon bombing; and multiple attacks by radicalized groups in Europe.

“The reality is that the situation that exists today in parts of France, Germany, and parts of Belgium is not a situation that we want replicated inside the United States,” one official told Reuters.

Candace Wheater, a 60-year-old retired school cafeteria worker from Spring Lake, Michigan, also referenced the attacks in Brussels and Paris.

“Look at what’s happening in Europe,” she said. “I don’t dare travel there, out of fear.”

Steve Hirsch, 63, from Manassas, Virginia, drove to Washington’s Dulles airport on Sunday to pick somebody up, rather than to protest as hundreds of others did.

He said he supported Trump’s order. “A country is not a country if it doesn’t have borders,” he added.

He lauded Trump’s actions as a calculated step toward the larger goal of tightening border security.

“He probably went as far as he thought he could,” Hirsch said. “You can’t ban everybody in the world, but I think it’s prudent considering the conditions in certain places in the world.”

FIRM BASE OF SUPPORT

Trent Lott, a former Senate Republican leader from Missouri who is now a lawyer in Washington, D.C., said the orders made sense to “working-class Americans in the real world.”

“Out in the rest of the country, people are excited to see the president moving forward with securing the border,” he said.

University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato agreed that the weekend protests over the executive orders would not hurt Trump politically.

“His base is as firm as ever,” he said. “What he’s lost in the very early polls is the Republicans who were never Trumpers and ended up voting for Trump.”

Trump opponents have succeeded in winning some early court decisions that could undermine the practical impact of his executive orders, but Sabato said his base would perceive those as attacks from liberal elites.

Trump could eventually lose support if he fails to keep promises important to regions that supported him, such as delivering jobs to the so-called Rust Belt, the Midwestern states dotted by dying factory towns.

DEEP DIVISIONS

Whatever Trump ultimately accomplishes, his election has ushered in a new extreme of political polarization to an already deeply divided country.

“I just have not found a single person who has any neutrality at all about Donald Trump,” Sabato said.

In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 40-year-old teacher Trista Carles said she had been ordered to keep her views about Trump out of the classroom.

“We were told to be Switzerland,” she said. “We’re not allowed to take any sides or views.”

She has her own opinions, of course, and said she appreciated that Trump, in his blunt way, gave voice to them “with no sugar-coating.”

“I think it’s just too easy to get into our country and stay illegally,” she said. “I feel like he is going to – to the best of his abilities – make a lot of things he said happen.”

(Reporting by Laila Kearney in New York; Additional reporting by Diane Bartz, Doina Chiacu, Steve Holland and Lacey Ann Johnson in Washington and Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Writing by Brian Thevenot; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

IMAGE: Pro-Trump demonstrators yell slogans during protest against the travel ban imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order, at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, U.S., January 29, 2017. REUTERS/Ted Soqui