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: 8992
- 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 2017Thumb up
-
Friday, 17 March 2017
Below is a list of people who were sought to complain/bitch/moan about Liana's opinion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. -
Friday, 17 March 2017
You have a shitload of people hiding behind fake names Liana.
Jill Robertson former migration agent and former MA member. -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
When Michael Arch was expressing his negative opinions on Trump policies on this forum nobody questioned his right to do so, however now when Liana expressed her opinion, it becomes 'inflammatory' and her right to express her views is questioned.
This is double standard. I support her opinion and hate this political correctness permeating our society today. -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
This exchange has been enlightening. Just to remind you, here is our Mission Statement.
Migration Alliance is a membership organisation made up of Registered Migration Agents
with the aims of:
Leading the Migration advice profession through the provision of expert advice to Government and consumers.
Providing effective representation of both the Alliance and consumers to the Government.
Providing practical assistance and support to the membership.
Fostering co-operation between members for the betterment of the Profession and to discharge the trust vested in the Profession to provide expert and independent advice to consumers in the National Interest.
Assisting the consumer through practical support to the non-commercial sector in the provision of expert pro-bono advice.
Promoting a culture of integrity. -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Liana, at last a balanced view congratulations. Did we not exercise the cease and cap some time back for family sponsored skilled visas all of them had paid the fees and suddenly they were denied - not a whimper of protest.
-
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Scott read the incorporation document. Have you read the way the wonder is blowing in Aus politics? The purpose of MA is to 'lobby fovernment'. Perhaps MA is ahead of the 8 ball waiting for Turnbull to be evicted and lobbying the right wing of the Libs. Backing the potential new leaders of this nation. Wouldn't be surprised. After all, Scott, our two immigration ministers are both right wingers. Getting on their bad side would be bad for us all. My 2c.
-
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Dear Liana,
Great article, valid points.
I think personally EVERY country should control their borders and decide who is allowed in. Reasons why:
1. Look at Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea! I found it disturbing that “little green men” appeared out of supposedly nowhere and then things go REALLY wrong. Sadly prior to this, Ukraine believed the US, UK and Russia would assist them in their sovereignty and protect their borders (it was one of the reasons they gave up nuclear weapons). And yes this war STILL continues but the media has decided to disregard it (the PC brigade has decided against these people).
2. Walls are good. It doesn’t stop legitimate people crossing borders. I know this as I crossed the US-Mexico border awhile back. Secret is to be polite and DON’T smuggle illegal items (I know it’s hard for some people, especially the polite part).
3. Australia has more extreme migration laws than the US has, we classify people as low or high risk, there are caps and there are “irregularities” with LONG processing times and as agents we make MONEY helping people comply with these laws.
4. More visas are needed equals more business for people submitting visas.
5. If people don’t like the US, if they want to they can try and visit Australia, no worries, as a commercial RMA I’m sure I’ll be willing to help them for a price.
6. As I try to tell clients, don’t worry about what people are saying, IF you have money and power sure you can do whatever you want, But if you want to save time and money you need to obey the law.
7. Business is Business, yes Support your client as long as they PAY you, and you’re NOT breaking the Law.
I’ve GOT to wonder why these people DON’T mention anything about OTHER countries like North Korea etc. Why don’t they complain about THAT wall?? -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
I back my clients. I don't panda to any area of politics. I see my job as interpreting the law on behalf of my clients. It's irrelevant who the Minister is.
-
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Cute Liana, you only put up my comment on my other comments not appearing.
I respect your right to your opinion. I accept that it is a considered opinion. I disagree with it, which is not a problem.
The issue is not the holding of an opinion; the issue is a press release from the MA which a reasonable person could believe to be the opinion of the organisation.
Ask any of the lawyer members about authority and purported authority.
Jill Robertson -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Dear Liana,
I would like to congratulate you on your press release, and your excellent Opinion piece: TRUMP GETS IT RIGHT IN TARGETING TERRORISM & IMMIGRATION.
Needless to say, you’ve echoed my sentiments entirely. Indeed! You’ve voiced the opinion of countless others in the community.
Kind regards,
Larry -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
The fact of the matter Ms Allan, is that Judge Watson and previous other Judicial Officers of the US legal system have found this ban illegal, contrary to the Constitution, and discriminatory.
I find it extraordinary that anyone would defend Mr Trump's position.
But I remember you gloating when Mr Abbott attained power in 2013. Your political judgment is flawed, if you want to indulge in politics.
However where the Migration Alliance works within a legal framework, I find your current views extraordinary, although perhaps not unexpected.
I suspect many people will now cease membership of the Migration Alliance, on fairly obvious grounds. Your views are both insulting, wrong (the ban of course is against Muslim immigration, it has nothing with quelling terrorism as various contributors have shown) and out of kilter with a modern multicultural society.
Paul Hense BA LLB BSW
Accredited Specialist - Immigration Law -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Well said Paul.
Scott Patterson -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Mr Hense
With all due respect, Ms Allan did not mention a ban.
What is wrong with Ms Allan being a Liberal and being happy that her Party won the election in 2013? More than 50% of Australia would also have been 'gloating' at the same time. It astounds me that you can even recall what Ms Allan was doing in 2013. It would appear you have been saving that one up in the back of your mind to use when Ms Allan next says something that doesn't suit your political persuasion.
What's so extraordinary about Ms Allan's views, exactly? Clearly Trump was voted in by the people, so her views can't be that far off the mark. Perhaps not your views.
I suggest that because it is free to join Migration Alliance that you are wrong in your assessment that people will cease their membership. Membership gets RMAs access to many things such as less expensive CPD, less expensive insurances, and partnerships with other organisations where they can make themselves money. I am sure RMAs also enjoy reading the different opinions and ideas shared on this blog, both conservative and leftist.
Whilst I am not in total agreement with Ms Allan's position on this occasion, there are some parts which have merit.
You make statements which to you are true, which is fine, but to others, are not as 'obvious' as you make out, especially not obvious to those who agree with Ms Allan, or disagree, and simply choose to continue on with their lives.
Your post sounds a little 'holier than thou', Mr Hense. Your knowledge regarding terrorism is, with respect, quite flawed, and your 'lording it over' 'Ms Allan' is perhaps not unexpected.
When you say 'indulge in politics' you are again flawed. Ms Allan, to the best of my knowledge, is deeply involved in Australian politics. Your comments about her 'indulging' are patronising and incorrect, but not to be expected from a lawyer, who names each of his qualifications. It is all well and fair to name your qualifications, but if you are going to make comments about someone, make sure you get your facts straight, and do your research.
Finally, if you find this opinion all so extraordinary then how do you imagine that the USA President is currently Mr Trump? An accident? It is not extraordinary. It is a fact.
The silent majority voted.
Your voice, Mr Hense, might be in the minority.
My voice might be in the minority.
Either way, I respect people's opinions and don't seek to trash them and devalue their opinions.
A little common courtesy is called for, I would think.
ORDINARY MIGRATION AGENT - MIGRATION ALLIANCE MEMBER SINCE THE START -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
The fairly obvious response Ordinary Migration Agent, very ordinary, is that Trump has attempted, on several occasions, a variety of Executive Orders which are unlawful.
Fact.
Judicial Fact.
Not alternative Fact. Fact.
Unless you don't agree with the rule of law.
One would think that Ms Allan would "get it".
Ms Allen should not only get rid of her bigotry, but also learn what she purports to talk about with authority.
I'm actually surprised by the number of red neck, bigotted, views expressed here. Jill Roberton's view may well be right....there are "alternative identities" behind these posts.
So, not holier than though sir/madam or what, simply an expression of what THE LAW IS and what sound public policy should be (and I firmly suggest to any reader if you have a problem with understanding this discipline, and the role and rule of LAW, get out of being a migration agent and by a sycophant for conserative and hate politics!
Paul Hense BA, LLB, BSW
Accredited Specialist - Immigration Law -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
In terms of Ms Allan's views from 2013, no, haven't been stalking her. I simply have a good memory, to outrageous comments on a site presumably to do with Immigration Law. NOT POLITICS.
It seems your ability to recall is not as good as mine. You may need some remedial cognitive help. I'll stop now, your drivel is not worth furthermore responding to.
A lot has been said about Government, the election of Mr Trump etc. Many comments show a basic ignorance of Government, that it is a combination of the Executive (Trump), the Legislature (Congress) and the Judiciary.
Mr Trump does not have unfettered power, and his rebuke by the Courts in the US has been universal. For a President who talking about "winning" (and all the time), he is a "loser".
But Ms Allan's views are to condemned, on the same basis that the US Courts have condemned Trump's attempts to ban entry to the US from several predominately Muslim countries (which Australian Courts would call indirect discrimination, Americans Courts saying directly discriminatory (most recently on the basis of Trump's own comments in Justice Watson's decision, that prior to be elected Trump said HE WANTED TO BAN MUSLIM MIGRATION (no mention of terrorism) - see Justice Watson's comments in the Hawaii decision).
For anyone who ACTUALLY wants to know about this issue, Professor Peter Strauss from Columbia University will be speaking at Sydney University this coming Monday. I suggest many of you, including the lead author, attend. Topic - President Trump and American Administrative Law.
Or, how Mr Trump will be impeached!
And "so sorry" for being an elite, I take some effort to learn, and apply, the law. I apologise to no one for that. Yep, I must be an "elite" - Pauline Hanson loves that word!
Paul Hense -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Which views of Ms Allan's would you like to condemn, specifically?
Please make sure they are views she has actually expressed and not generalist views you have about Trump in general.
You had better make sure that the views you wish to condemn are different to the laws which already operate in Australia, otherwise you will be in conflict with yourself.
Please let us all know, Paul. -
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Liana please can you explain why you are deleting people's comments but leaving all those who agree with you?
-
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Well Ordinary, or it that Liana, I'll let the US Judiciary let you know.
One - migration is the major cause of terrorism in the US - wrong, as has been pointed out by some contributors. I guess burning down Black churches, blowing up Federal Buidings doesn't count, if it's done by a White Christian.
You have accused me of not knowing about terrorism. Well, I'll tell you what experts make of what Ms Allan and Trump want/do. A blanket ban such as Trumps serves as propaganda for IS. Secondly, it alienates the Muslim community, and forces them into a ghetto mentality. ASIO states it is very important that the Muslim community be engaged with mainstream Australia, to stop radicalisation, and to advise security forces of those who are, or are inclined to radicalisation (an infintisimal fraction of the Muslim population). The American Security apparatus are at loggerheads with Trump, because his policies of a blanket ban are counterproductive - and it knows it.
So, if you want to know more how the ban encourages terrorism, I suggest YOU do YOUR own homework.
A blanket ban, and it is a ban (you say to me the "restrictions" let say imposed by Trump, is not a ban. OF COURSE IT IS. IF YOU COME FROM A PARTICULAR COUNTRY, YOU CAN'T ENTER THE COUNTRY! Temporary only, while Trump works on finalising the means. But is CLEARLY a ban (or is it an "alternative ban")).
But look, I'm sick of the prejudice on this site, and frankly, shocked by the amount of it. The contributors are supposed to work with migrants, their families etc. Really? It sounds like most of you have never had a Muslim client, wicked and evil that they are. Of course I joke (oddly enough, I never think of my many Muslim clients as Muslims, I simply think of them as...we...clients! Humans!! You, or me!! (well, perhaps not you).
There is no blanket ban based on religion in Australia. And even Dutton, an arch right winger, has stated that imposing a ban or selectivity on religion, is to be condemned.
Enough, logic and morality is wasted on you, whoever you are (Liana I suspect).
For any contributors, leave this bum organisation called the Migration Alliance, and sign up to Peter Bollard's newsletter....you'll LEARN more and won't encounter bigotry. Andit's free!
Immigration blog
Dear Liana ,
Your article is excellent , telling all the truth .
If people want to defend our democracy and civilisation and our Australian value , follow your great opinions .
Only when we remain a strong , powerful , wealthy , democratic , Christian religion based and Western culture main stream great nation , we can help more people including those genuine refugees from different culture background and religions who truly need help and who really love democracy and our country .
Those lefties , in particular from the media and left political parties , are destroying Australia .
Regards
Simon