Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Trump gets it right in targeting terrorism and immigrationAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 8991
- 117 Comments
Trump gets it right in targeting terrorism and immigration
I find it hard to believe that nearly a quarter of 2017 is already behind us, but it’s true to say that one of the hottest topics occupying the international and Australian media over the first few months of this year has been immigration, an issue which is of course close to my heart.
Much of that commentary has been sparked by the unprecedented media furore around the inauguration and ensuing actions of new US President Donald Trump.
Throughout the course of his presidential campaign, Trump put issues of immigration high on the agenda, making the construction of a “wall” between the US and Mexico a core promise, and repeatedly raising the idea of banning or restricting Muslims from migrating to America.
As a result, he naturally attracted the ridicule of the Left, but also criticism and suspicion from the Centre and significant sections of the Conservative commentariat.
Fast forward to January 2017, and the inauguration that most pundits never believed would happen had come to pass. In the days following Trump went about taking steps to enact those controversial pre-election immigration promises.
The newly-minted president started the ball rolling on construction of a physical barrier on the US border with Mexico, and he signed an executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - which the fledgling Trump administration had identified as having the potential to export terrorists to America.
Putting aside the merits of Trump’s criteria in picking these countries and not for instance Saudi Arabia, which produced most of the 9/11 terrorists and many more since, and notwithstanding the media backlash and subsequent litigation which prevented implementation of the executive order, it is worth taking a close and calm look at exactly what Trump says he was trying to achieve.
The intention of the January executive order is clearly stated: “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
There’s hardly any cause for outrage in that.
Trump was more emotive in his own statement when he pointed out that America is a proud nation of immigrants. “We will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border,” he said.
Trump went on to point out that his order was similar to the measures introduced by President Barrack Obama in 2011, when refugees from Iraq were denied visas for six months.
“To be clear,” the President added, “this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”
And to his credit, Trump is committed to the goal. After the legal challenge to his original order, on March 6 he issued a revised document which excluded “special case” Iraq. That directive, scheduled to come into effect on March 16, has also been slapped with a nationwide restraining order following a legal challenge by the state of Hawaii.
But let’s be clear about what Trump is trying to implement. It’s not a full stop to immigration from the now six countries. It is a reasonable and responsible 90-day pause to enable the government to review and put in place the most secure policies it can to ensure it is not allowing terrorists to become residents of the US.
Put simply, what Trump is trying to do is exercise the legal requirement and moral obligation he and the head of any government has to ensure the safety and freedom of their citizens.
Whatever you think of Trump’s bombastic rhetoric and crash or crash through approach to politicking, he is getting it right on this issue. In fact, if I were a US citizen I would be outraged if my government were NOT taking such steps.
Contact Liana Allan: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Comments
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Libby, totally agree! The problem is, if they are already in the country, and are already citizens, then there's not much immigration laws can do about them, right? Obviously there are other laws which can deal with such offences, but as you know, 'some people' in high places are almost 'untouchable'. Finally, it's getting to the point where, in my view, ordinary citizens are more worried about their back pockets and how things directly impact on their family's income, than whether someone is a sexist, racist, bigot or or worse. Trump himself has been accused of such offenses, but people still voted him in, including women, as their priorities lay elsewhere (money). What do you think?
-
Friday, 17 March 2017Far more people have been killed and injured by American citizens of all varieties wielding guns than by any terrorist incidents. One could go through a litany, but need go no farther than Columbine, the massacre of the innocent 6 year olds in their own school in Newtown, Connecticut; the rampage at the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, etc etc etc. On and on it goes, there are an average of 15,000 gun deaths a year in the United States. As an issue of public safety in the US, the harm caused by guns in the hands of US citizens far surpasses the harm caused by terrorism.
As for the fact that Trump was elected notwithstanding his shameless racism, bigotry, xenophobia and misogyny (remember his well-publicised comments on the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, all I can say is what can you say: that was the decision on the day of the American electorate. Would they vote the same way today, given the giant leaps backwards this man wants to take every day? -
Friday, 17 March 2017I think you have overstepped the mark here. Your press release is ill informed and inflammatory. Your commentary is offensive. Is this is the "official" view of the Migration Alliance? I didn't sign up for this nonsense.
· Valeria Montiel Fosado and Coenraad likes this comment. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
Scott Patterson: If Facebook had a 'dislike' button I would dislike your post
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
HAHAHA Noel. lucky we're not on facebook then.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Excuse my confusion Scott, I had just finished looking at Facebook when i read your post.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Political Correctness (Crap) has to be thrown into the bin where it belongs. Liana is right in not adhering to PC, and for offending people for stating the obvious. IF truth hurts, it's a great thing. Your views may not be official, but we can agree or disagree. Most agree, but some disagree, but that is OK, we can agree to disagree.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Scott - hello! It is written by me in the first person. These are my views. Not everyone will agree with me, but that's ok. Thanks for your feedback.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
If it written by you in first person maybe you should not have released under the organisation? By using the organisation to make the release and by using the organisation's marks you have portrayed your personal opinion to be that of the organisation.
· Coenraad likes this comment. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
Shane, I am elected by the organisation and was the founder of Migration Alliance in 2009. I have been on the board since that time. The MA board are allowed to have differing individual views. I don't always agree with Michael Arch's views on things and he is a fellow board member. Surely you can simply agree to disagree with my views this time? I might not agree with your views either, but that is ok. You are entitled to your views and I don't seek to ban you as a member because you don't think the same way that I do. Respect to everyone who has a view.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
I think I might end my association with MA if this is the standard of media releases. You should retract this release and make an apology... I cannot see how this opinion is the consensus of all or even representative of the members views?
· Coenraad likes this comment. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
Shane, do as you wish. It is free to join and you are free to leave. The whole purpose of MA is freedom which includes the freedom of expression and opinion.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Liana.... you are a brave lady and i think 99 % agree with you....don't worry about 1 % they won't agree with anything or anyone.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Ridiculous article. President Trump has had more than enough time to formulate policy, a ban on people entering the country is NOT the answer to the issue whether its temporary or not.
Thankfully the courts in the US have made a proper judgement based on fact. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
The courts have made no such finding, just some renegade judges action beyond their powers.
Actually I think that if you look into it President Trumps is seeking to do no more than DIBP do now when assessing visa applicants. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
Its interesting when an "opinion" becomes offensive if it is not in line with the view portrayed by the media. Don't like it, deal with it and move on.
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
17.3.17
My applaud to Liana Allan & Chris Livingston as the founders.
Migration Alliance is getting more and more adorable by RMA, I am not sure of all others, but I am certainly getting more and more impressed and appreciated.
At the beginning, Migration Alliance could be mis-understood by readers as an pro-active organization, same as many mis-understood Trump’s immigration recent policy.
And it takes courage to back Trumps immigration policy as many people think of humanity and forgot the big picture and the core. To back him openly, in particular when Liana is in the immigration industry, many advocates will only say nice things to preserve their “nice-men nice-women” images.
Who else dare to back Trump’s immigration policy in our industry ? No one else !! And good on you Liana, such a brave and frank woman in many ways.
I came across to Chris Livingston twice in Adelaide, I began to understand Chris more after his straight forward comments for many years.
Wise people can be mis-understood easily simply not many people can see matters beyond and tackle it from the beginning.
Many thanks for the hard efforts and tirelessly working together and working for us. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
Liana has an opinion. So what?
Must you ask her to apologise for her opinion, Shane Crawford, because it is not the same as yours? This article and the associated press release are clearly written by Liana Allan.
Do you expect your industry colleagues to all fall in line with your views, and unless they do they must apologise?
Have you for a second considered that there are other people, in fact, perhaps more than half of our profession who agree with Liana's views?
Is it ok to have a minority view, in the case where less than half of our profession agree? YES IT IS!
Notice how your views are still allowed to be placed up on this blog right now, despite the fact that they differ from Liana's? That's called respect for opinion. Liana is our founder and is on the board, and right now she probably has the power to remove your comments, but she does not do so. Why? Respect for your opinion I suppose.
I might not agree with all of Liana's article but I do with some of it. I don't expect an apology from her for the parts I don't agree with.
Political correctness gone mad. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
My response was removed within 5 minutes by Liana. As will this one I presume. Thankfully a more balanced and considered response has been left by her MA colleague, which she wouldn't dare remove.
Immigration blog
" In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own)"
the trouble with this statement is that those who propose such things are themselves so often guilty of the very issues they propose to stop!!