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: 8996
- 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
-
Saturday, 18 March 2017Paul Hense, you seem to be ignorant to the will of US voters. Mr Trump is just fulfilling his election promises unlike other elected politicians. Personally, I think Mr Trump should change the law and not to use the EO but that's my opinion. Mr Trump represents democratically elected government whose priority is the safety of the US. If they think they need to limit migration, it's their right and have a mandate of their citizens, of course, within the legal limits - the US courts will have their say. It is too early to say whether or not Mr Trump breached the legislation.
My opinion: Look where the EU is, being blackmailed by a Turkish dictator, having countless terrorist attacks, UK leaving - all due to the "political correctness". Unelected bureaucrats steering the EU to a cliff. They don't listen to their people and they will be voted out in favour of populists.
If you cannot manage your border, you don't have a government.
Liana is entitled to her opinion as well as Michael. I respect both of them. I respect your opinion, so you respect Liana and do not judge her position in regards to Mr Trump. Support your position, that's fine but stop your subjective assessment of Liana. If I followed you way, I would have to say you are a silly and respectless person because you support the political correctness. -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Paul is talking about a ban. Liana didn't advocate or agree with a ban. Her article says the opposite actually. It's misleading to add-in and create a new truth and then talk to that constructed reality. Whilst I respect his views generally, It is interesting to see Paul can't do the same for other views. I find his comments bordering on disrespectful and maybe even defamatory. I find they are too attacking of liana, rather than keeping this as a discussion of ideas. I would suggest Paul plays the ball, not the person.
Australia has already adopted exactly what trump is trying to achieve so I'm not sure which laws Paul doesn't agree with.
Time will tell if Trump gets his way. As the other person said in their comment, it's too early to tell. -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Well said Paul
-
Sunday, 19 March 2017
RMA Perth (true attribution?)
Like a Trump suppoter, when challenged, the original statement is denied.
This is what Ms Allan wrote:
"Trump put issues of immigration of immigration high on the agenda..repeatedly raising the idea of [i]banning or restricting Muslims from migrating to America.
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".
Of course, while he attempts to bring about more blanket bans.
Many are proud he is doing what he promised before the Election. the ban is a ban (as far as he can get away with it).
Of course Trump won't disturb his business interests in a place like Saudi Arabia.
Many contributors have said "the Left" should be democratic in accepting the Trump Presidency.
For the record, 3 million US voters were disenfranchised by the Electoral College system, a record in US electoral history. There were 4.3 million MORE voters for Ms Clinton, than Mr Trump in California, and in the three rustbelt states Trump scored 77,000 MORE than Ms Clinton. Source, not Fox News, Prof Simon Chapman of the US Studies Centre, Uni of Sydney at a Australian Senate endorsed lecture a month ago. Check it out.
A discussion of ideas? Perth. That is an ABSOLUTE JOKE. Ms Allan's comments have promoted the ventilation of bigotry under the guise of public policy. Law oddly enough, has been largely ignored. I abhore bigotry, and actually, I'm surprised Ms Allan's original posting, and her endorsing of bigotry, if not encouraging which (which I firmly suggest she has), is found on a website whose concern is immigration.
Does she actually know a Muslim. Do any of her followers do?
Her views are more appropriately found on the One Nation website.
Your comment that Australia has adopted Trump's view is simply wrong in fact. How surprising. -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
I cannot help but notice that Liana wrote this article after other articles were written on MA by her colleagues stating the exact opposite. Not to mention the main media channels.
I thought the tone was moderate, but is was still not an article that would go down without controversy and attacks at her personally. And she still published it.
This takes courage. If I were a migrant looking for representation, I would choose someone like her to represent me, because I will know she doesn't get intimidated.
Liana, I would like to see you keeping posting your own view on things and be true to yourself! At the end of the day, if all people agree with you something is really wrong.
And having different tones on the same website it is refreshing and an exercise of the free speech. I will stay a member of MA as long as that happens. -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
What a lot of sycophantic nonsense (is that you Ms Allan?)
I would suspect any prospective client longing for Ms Allan to represent her with such skill, diligence, and informed view as shown over the last couple of day, WHILE PRESUMABLY NOT BEING A MUSLIM, would not be disappointed.
Such gushing praise could only come from....It's like saying Trump is a great man because he speaks his mind, says the press are all against him, blal blah blah.
Free speech? With the right to free speech comes the OBLIGATION to be informed, not to be prejudiced, to respect the rule of law (have you noticed that)?
By the way, what are Ms Allan's professional credentials? She doesn't seem to have any training in law, sociology, ethics or a number of disciplines, which I would select as mandatory for a "migration agent".
Oh, for those who comment about Trump, democracy and that he can do what he likes, he did have some help from the Russians! Oops? I didn't know they could "vote" in the US Election, but they did.
Have you wondered why? -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Paul Hense. You say: "By the way, what are Ms Allan's professional credentials? She doesn't seem to have any training in law, sociology, ethics or a number of disciplines, which I would select as mandatory for a "migration agent".
None of those disciplines are a requirement for registration as a migration agent,
I have no idea of "Ms Allan's" qualifications, other that that she is a registered migration agent, and for the matter I have no idea of yours, not that that matters except may I presume that you are a registered migration agent. -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Hello everyone and I hope that you have all had an enjoyable weekend.
Thanks Paul for sharing your view. Obviously, you have a different opinion to the one I have expressed in my blog.
I believe that governments and their executives have a primary and fundamental responsibility to keep their citizens safe, and to take steps to reduce the possibility of terrorists becoming citizens is crucial in that process. That's the point I am making. It's my view and my view alone, and I very much respect your right to disagree.
Liana -
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Weasel words Madam. So, the fact that the evil person was dressed as a Muslim on YOUR original posting, is a sheer coincidence?
Your support of Trump's anti Muslim attacks, which have nothing to do with security but dog whistle biogtted politics, were simply a coincidence?
As I have mentioned, for a NUMBER of reasons, your contentions are in fact counter productive to quelling the issue of terrorism. The policies you suggest have been rejected wholeheartedly by security experts and institutions in the US, and here. Indeed by several US Republicans.
If you took your stated responsibilites to keep Australia safe, I'd suggest you sideline racist and religiously discriminatory views, and your active support of them (which I find morally distasteful).
On a personal note. If you were a Muslim person, living in Australia, respecting "Australia's values' (a very interesting comment noting many views over the weekend), and trying to lead a normal life, how would YOU FEEL. PERSONALLY. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Peace my brothers and sisters I'm married and father of two great confidence in you I do not care Trump care of my children and my wife is has a lot of money, I do not envy but I am Algerian I want to emigrate to Australia no longer so much you wish you reconcile God willing, thank you very much
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Paul
I agree with you for while there, and agreed with some your points, but now you have gone too far. Calling a migration agent names such as racist, or stating words such as 'evil person was dressed as a Muslim' are not helpful or correct way to deal with your feeling or passion.
I don't agree that is what the original article meant to say. Not at all.
It seems you very annoyed for Liana, and cannot help harassing her. That is a troll.
I have pick up some news for us and this one taken from 'The Australian' newspaper today:
Integration core in new multicultural policy
A premium has now been placed on citizenship, with a strengthened obligation to demonstrate allegiance to Australia and English as the national language.
Australia’s national identity will be redefined along fundamental principles of integration, citizenship and unity in a pointed shift away from welfare entitlement, in the first multicultural statement by a federal government to also recognise the impact of terrorism on the nation’s social fabric.
Terrorism and border protection have been recognised for the first time as a threat to social cohesion, with an unambiguous repudiation of behaviour that “undermines Australian values”.
“Underpinning a diverse and harmonious Australia is the security of our nation,” the statement says. “The Australian government places the highest priority on the safety and security of all Australians.
“Recent terrorist attacks around the world have justifiably caused concern in the Australian community. The government responds to these threats by continuing to invest in counter-terrorism, strong borders and strong national security.
“This helps to ensure that Australia remains an open, inclusive, free and safe society. In the face of these threats, however, we do not compromise on our shared values and national unity.”
I invite you to consider if Liana is correct in some points even if you don't agree.
M Chang -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Many respondents here appear quite deliberately obtuse in masking their transparent prejudice. The US has always had stringent security protocols in place to vet visa applicants, depending on their security assessment level. If the security services identify a specific increase in threat from certain countries they simply screen visa applicants more closely. There is no need for these bans, other than for political posturing.
Death from falling out of bed, as an example, in the US dwarfs death by terrorist attack. The latter is virtually non-existent (notwithstanding the tragic Bowling Green Massacre). This despite the definition of 'terrorism' now seemingly extended to cover just about any misdemeanour.
Trump campaigned on the back of strident anti-muslim rhetoric. Some suggest that his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is a white supremacist. To propose that these executive orders are a security mechanism rather than a Muslim ban is patently absurd. Fortuntately the courts have deemed them unlawful and we can only hope that Trump does not confect a national security emergency to push through hateful legislation.
To those supporting the sentiments of this press release as just an opinion, one must also remember that there is racial and religious intolerance legislation in place in Australia. In this case, one would certainly assume that the author is genuinely concerned about national security in the US based on perceived increase in terrorist threat. However, the lead photo of what appears to be a Muslim national heading to the US seems to hint at something more sinister. -
Monday, 20 March 2017It is important to note that there was no "Bowling Green" massacre.
Literally no one in the United States was harmed in any way by any alleged terrorist incident in Bowling Green (which is in Kentucky).
This so-called "massacre" was really an incident in which two Iraqi refugees were arrested on charges of providing material support to Al Qaeda in Iraq. There has never been any evidence that anyone ever suffered any injury from a terrorist attack in BG because there never has been one.
This "massacre", which never happened, was nothing more than a propagandistic "alternative fact" (in other words, a total and complete lie) invented by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway in order to try to provide some support from Trump's attempt to ban immigration to the US by Muslims.
There is no more truth to the claim that there was a massacre in Bowling Green than there is to claims that aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1948, and that the alien invasion was then "covered up" by the US Air Force.
It is noteworthy that when 2 Indian nationals were shot in the state of Kansas and told to "get out of our country", not a word was said by Trump or his minions. Total silence.
When 6 people were slaughtered at a mosque in Quebec City, not a word was said by Trump or his minions. Total silence.
When children are killed in a botched raid in Yemen, not a word is said. Total silence.
Draw your own conclusions. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
I saw it as the opposite and as the person being accepted as they walk towards the USA flag. It not, they would have been seen walking the opposite direction, towards the viewer, and away from the flag (depicting banned /barred) which would have indeed been sinister. It is probably from Getty Images or something like that. Liana, where did you get the image from?
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Hi All,
I am a recent Immigrant from Canada.
I have lived in NZ before coming to Australia and am a citizen of NZ which gives me the fantastic privilege of "crossing the ditch" and living in working in Aus.
I left Canada 3.5 years ago (Lived in Toronto and Vancouver), I mainly left because there has been a huge demographic change over the last decade with Asian migration, both cities have surpassed the 20% (South Asian and Chinese) mark . (this was due to to very popular program that was introduced where you can "pay for play", programs like the SIV (Investor Visa) and programs like paying $1mil CAD for Permanent Residency made this problem worse.
To my knowledge, due to the fraud and misuse of the system, the programs were shut down, but the damage remained.
If you have been to these cities to live you will know of the problems ,Increased housing costs due to higher demand from influx of migrants and overseas investors with local family links, degradation of the population who can speak English, ethnic enclaves in suburbs etc etc
Sound Familiar?
These issues are now becoming a real problem here in Australia and NZ, I have seen over the last couple of years the same things that were happening back in Canada, happen here. NZ Property prices have shot through the roof as well as Australia, individuals who "invest" from overseas dump money onshore using their local asian family connections to bypass "strict" foreign investment laws.
Australia and NZ have only just recently caught on by the "next wave" of migrants coming in through programs like family sponsored streams and the like and are tightening the reins, but its too late.
Whilst its all fun and games poking fun at Trump, we are sadly in need of strong policies to keep our countries safe and of course, still liveable for future generations.
As a 45 year old male, with a high paying job of over 320k a year, it was hard for me to purchase a house worth 1.3 Mil (it was a crap suburb) but it was all I could afford. I truly feel sorry for the next generation of people growing up in countries like Australia who are the ones who are LEAST benefited by poor governmental policies of today.
Malcom Turnbull does not have a backbone because he is a lawyer and an ex investor and director of a few companies that didnt allow him to develop any leadership skills (other than the keyboard leadership skills you need to send an email).
I could say the same for NSW as the premier Gladys is also dictated by backroom politics and is also a puppet for the regime.
Peter Dutton on the other hand does not lack a backbone, he does not care what the party thinks, he is a real leader who shows who he is time and time again, defying what it is to be against the grain in politics in Australia.
There is a distinct political correctness in MA's audience and in society in general, they are made up of people from the left and people from the right (and even the centre, if you believe in fence sitting). PC culture is a by-product of fear, it serves those who are too afraid to stand up in what they believe in and also serves those who lack an opinion, they are people who like to judge others for their opinions.
PC people are not leaders, they are sheep, they follow the popular movement (being that of PC).
To those people who criticise Liana for speaking her mind you must remember this.
1. you are not a leader
2. you are PC
3. you lack any intelligence if you call someone else a bigot for holding different views to your own
4. you are most likely educated in a left orientated subject (arts, business, migration diploma etc)
Whilst you think its "ok" to call someone a racist for speaking their mind, at the end of the day.. you are the one who is a nobody for hiding behind your anonymous names and pseudonyms who are too afraid to be called for what you are... blind.
Those of who who threaten to leave MA, do so already.. don't threaten, that's what weak people do when they actually wont do anything. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Consider yourself are extremely lucky in this country.
Don't understand why Government job not reserved for Australian Citizen?
And I'm a bit worried that a (may be more) foreigner is actually working in The Defence. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Timothy Rondenhausen, you earn over 320k per annum but there is no trace of you on google, you're a recent arrival and you're deeply interested in far right Australian politics? Do you really exist? Or are you an alternative identity?
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Hi Shane,
I am in Government work, I can reveal my Department (Department of Defence) but cannot go into specifics about what my role is. My views are my own and not of my employer.
Thanks! -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Touché, whoever you are.
Immigration blog
Well said Paul