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: 8994
- 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
-
Monday, 20 March 2017"The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.[1] The abstract noun is bigotry."
Debate.org is an opinion piece mate! not academic!! -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Interesting thread. my favourite comment so far is the desperate appeal to authority by attacking ms Allan's qualifications. Since when do you need any qualifications to have an opinion? Talk about intellectual snobbery!
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
The abject ignorance of this organisation is astonishing. The lack of any real knowledge amongst most commenting here is remarkable. I'm assuming that since it was free to join this rabble then it is equally easy to leave you behind, as you all quite rightly deserve. I'm sure any number of you will let me know if I have to do anything more than this to resign from your sorry ranks.
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Please go.
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Well Timothy
I'd leave your casual observations to you, as they are incorrect (and are basically an anti-migration diatribe).
As you should know, for the last 10 years at least, Australia's family immigration programme has been progressively wound, to be virtually non exist. You should check the Department of Immigration figures, in its annual report.
So much so, the wait for a non CPV visa is a short 50 years!
I suggest your stance is clearly one of anti migration, which simply denies history.
Now, interested observer "No, don't be a snob, you're appealing to authority". Is law included in this attack. Are statistics included in this attack. Well, isn't a resorting to AUTHORITY PRECISELY what Ms Allan wants!!! But an application of authority as she sees it, based on Trump's view. You are a fool if you believe in Trump's attempts at "policy", as they are simply a manifestation of his ego, and of some silly resorting to a past image of American greatness, which has never existed and which cannot be reclaimed.
Those who are unqualified should NOT contribute to this post, as it is not a One Nation venue. It is for professionals, I would have thought, servicing ALL migration clients.
What a joke that is, from Ms Allan and her loyal followers (and it's very hard to tell who is who!) -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Scott Patterson and Paul Hense feel free to leave. I hope MA is not a dictate of one opinion. You guys are hopeless as you still don't get it. Someone said that nicely, play the ball not the player.
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Well Noel
My question about Ms Allan's qualifications has this context.
If she has no training in any of the disciplines I mention, and knowledge and insight of them is essential to SENSIBLY and PROPERLY pursue this debate and her views, her views should properly be quarantined to One Nation's website.
Together with those who support her view.
Just think about the concept of "Australian values" for a moment. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Your comments certainly say more about you than they do about "Ms Allen".
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
It's Ms Allan again "MA Member"
I can tell, I really can tell!
But I thought your view was that opinion of ANY sort was desired, even controversial. So it's not true!!! Free speech, as long as everyone agrees with me!
What you want is a pigswill of neo-fascist views only!
Yes Michael, Mr Trump is more than happy to have Conway lie about the "Kentucky Massacre" - which wasn't as you quite rightly say - and to be silent about other forms of anti-Muslim terrorism. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Her name is Ms Allan as I understand it Noel.
Very sloppy, but still, if you object to having standards in a debate, entirely expected.
As I say, Ms Allan's comments and those of her followers are best left on ugly right wing sites such as One Nation (with their de-humaning bigotry, which presumably you agree with). -
Monday, 20 March 2017
You presume too much and your opinions are ugly.
-
Monday, 20 March 2017
Paul
On 18 March on this very blog you called her Ms Allen.
When you have a go at someone else, make sure you are perfect first
To quote you: "Ms Allen should not only get rid of her bigotry, but also learn what she purports to talk about with authority."
Please don't criticise Noel and call him sloppy. That's the pot calling kettle black.
Noel is a nice guy. -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Dear Qld RMA
Given it is the 20th now, and in the middle of a gripping game of Test Cricket, this is truly a remarkable observation of yours. A forensic skill of the greatest order!!
Seriously!
Forget the parting words of Ms Allan's original posting, that Trump is "getting it right" on arbitrarily banning certain Muslims, that it, discriminating against them on the basis of religion. But I must get the punctuation right!!
Honestly, what a wank!
Is that you Ms Allan? -
Monday, 20 March 2017
Thank you Paul…..you have PROVEN to EVERYONE that:
1. You Hate Trump.
2. You hate anyone else that does NOT think like you.
3. That you’re willing to be Abusive, Stalk, intimidate, harass people and be a Troll whenever you see fit.
You haven’t proven much knowledge of Australian Migration Law but you HAVE proven the above mentioned qualities, not sure if that is classified as a “fit and proper person” and I wonder how you are able to work with anyone let alone clients but hey, I guess when they do a Google search on you they’ll find out. I've worked with a few Lawyers luckily none have your "specific” qualities.
Thank you Liana…… you might need to save ALL these posts in case they’re needed…….. -
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
I start to worry about Paul's clients if they have different views...
I am not Liana, she is a strong personality, she doesn't need to hide her identity. I am just an ordinary RMA who does not claim to know everything and who is patiently educating himself. -
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
From the number of responses to this article, it is obviously a hot issue that many people have an opinion on.
Like so many important issues these days however, it appears impossible to have am adult debate without it turning into a name calling contest.
It seems that some people just can’t fathom that others may have a different opinion to theirs. If, heaven forbid, someone disagrees with their opinion, then they are stupid, bigots (insert any number of insults here).
If you have an opinion on the topic, express it and move on. Irrespective of how strongly you believe you are right, it is an opinion only and there is no need to insult and degrade someone because they have a different view. -
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Thank you, Raul Senise Tuesday, 21 March 2017, for your sensible comment.
-
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Can anyone advise how to quit MA... I don't see the option under 'My Account'?
-
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
you click "blue pill"
Immigration blog
Is calling someone a bigot, technically an action of bigotry?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-calling-someone-a-bigot-technically-an-action-of-bigotry