The Taystee Bread Company used to a have an advertising slogan: “Baked While You Sleep”. There have been some overnight developments in the matter of President Trump’s executive order banning travel to the U. S. by people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, or Yemen.
Events
Here are the events in the saga so far. On Friday President Trump issued an executive order putting a 90 day stay on travel by people from the seven countries listed above to the United States while the procedures for evaluating how the applications by those people are to be scrutinzed are re-examined. The action has met with scorn from many including both Republicans and Democrats. There have been demonstrations and denunciations both at home and abroad. Nearly all Congressional Democrats have come out in opposition to the EO; as of yesterday about 20 Congressional Republicans have come out against it with most of the rest remaining noncommittal.
Yesterday Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, issued a letter saying that she was directing the Department of Justice not to enforce the executive order. At Lawfare Jack Goldsmith, analyzing the letter, characterized the legal reasoning in the letter as “extraordinarily weak” and suggested that rather than being a legal statement within the AG Yates’s purview it was a political opinion and an act of insubordination.
President Trump has fired AG Yates.
There has been some flummery claiming that the firing would cripple the Justice Department, etc. but examination of the facts has revealed that claim to be preposterous.
Observations
Now some comments from me. Just to be clear, I oppose this executive order. I think it was far too broad and handled in a crude and hamhanded fashion.
Do I think it’s wrong to deal with some countries differently than others? Obviously not. The seven countries involved were deemed “countries of interest” under the Obama Administration and President Obama imposed a six month stay on travel to the United States from Iraq so it’s not completely wrong to think that President Trump’s action is a development of the policies of the Obama Administration although some are rejecting that view. I also note that with the exception of Iran the U. S. is conducting military operations in all of the “countries of interest” and it has been suggested from time to time that we have special forces operating in Iran as well. Under the circumstances I can’t help but wonder if that list isn’t an acknowledgement that is the case. Also, again with the exception of Iran, all of the countries in the list have Arab majorities. IMO there’s a much better case that the EO is anti-Arab than it is anti-Muslim.
Do I think it’s wrong to have different rules for people from some countries than others? Again, obviously not. We’ve been doing that for decades.
Do I think it’s wrong to have different rules for Muslim travelers from some countries than for non-Muslims from those same countries? I think it’s pragmatically problematic and I’ll give a tentative “Yes, I think it’s wrong” although I hasten to point out that we have had bans on travel to the U. S. by people holding certain views for decades and that between 1920 and 1965 Christians were de facto given preference in immigrating to the United States.
Do I think it’s counter-productive, even damaging, to U. S. interests? Yes. I also think that turning it into a cause célèbre is probably damaging to U. S. interests although I’m not prepared to make a quantitative or even a relative pronouncement on the subject. That’s among the reasons I think that, if the EO were to be issued at all, it should have been much narrower and handled a lot differently.
Basically, I think that the EO is a political act intended to reassure President Trump’s supporters that he was serious about what he said during the campaign. For some that will be reassuring; it will confirm the worst fears of others. It might also have been intended to demonstrate to them the limits of what he is able to do from a political standpoint as has been suggested by some but I’m not prepared to say I think that was part of Trump’s motivation.
Great post, I agree with just about all of it.
I would only add that I think this EO greatly increase the chances of domestic terrorism. Most of the recent attacks in the US have come from naturalized citizens or the children of naturalized citizens. This EO is likely to add to the sense of alienation felt by young people in certain ethnic and cultural demographic groups and will be a factor in the process of self-radicalization.
That’s something I’ve pointed out frequently, along with the observation that IMO there should be special services available to the children of immigrants. Early intervention might help some of these people.
On a more personal note I believe I should mention that I am strongly committed to the idea that I should provide in my own behavior a model for the behavior I’d like to see in others. I wish that more people felt that way.
I basically agree. Yes, we have a perfect right to decide who gets into the country. Yes, we have a perfect right to exclude people we think are potentially dangerous. I have much less of an issue with who is being excluded (blame Obama? Really?) than I do with who is not.
The WH’s argument is that these 7 countries represent a threat. If that made sense, if it were consistent they’d have an argument. But excluding Lebanon (Hezbollah’s home office) and the KSA (Al Qaeda’s home office) and the UAE (ISIS’ bankers) and Pakistan (father to the Taliban) destroys the credibility of that argument.
This was a show for the benefit of Trump’s Klan and Nazi supporters. “Look! I hurt some Muslims for you! Love me! Loooove meee! I’m the bestsest president ever!”
And excluding from the list not just the actual terrorist sponsors, but imposing it with jaw-dropping incompetence of course blew the whole game in terms of sneaking it past the American people and the world. There’s so much bad to say about the slab of rancid pork fat elected by 46% of the American people, the list could go on for a paragraph. But whatever else you can say: boy are these guys bumbling amateurs. Great to see all that businessman acumen in action.
Agree with just about all of it also. I would just modify it to say that the list of 7 countries was probably just chosen as a matter of convenience w/o that much thought. It was important to be seen doing something, not necessarily something that would accomplish anything. I would hope that in the future the Trump administration would actually talk over and vet these kinds of things with other people in govt as it is pretty clear by now that almost no one knew about this. If there was just some evidence, any evidence, that real thought was put into this and there were specific reasons for choosing those countries and leaving out Afghanistan, Pakistan and KSA, I could even support this on a temporary basis, assuming the rollout was handled competently.
Steve
Trump ran on the idea that nobody was doing anything serious about immigration or vetting refugees or Muslim terrorism within the US. His entire campaign was based on being an asshole and talking tough unlike that pussy Obama. This is what an utterly stupid person believes and we are seeing the comic results. It’s like someone on Twitter said: “a dark and gritty reboot of Hogan’s Heroes.”
I think you’re essentially correct.
” If that made sense, if it were consistent they’d have an argument. But excluding Lebanon (Hezbollah’s home office) and the KSA (Al Qaeda’s home office) and the UAE (ISIS’ bankers) and Pakistan (father to the Taliban) destroys the credibility of that argument.”
I think it’s fair to criticize Trump’s ban on this basis. However, the same criticism can be placed against just about every counter-terrorism policy over the past 1/4 century. Every administration has been inconsistent on this. The KSA, UAE, Lebanon and Pakistan are allies (frenemies actually) with which we have a lot of political, economic and military ties. We don’t hold any of those countries to the same standard as countries where we have few or no ties. In that regard, Trump – so far – is maintaining the status quo.
Rather than inconsistency, I focus my criticism on the effectiveness of the policy compared to the policy goal. In this case I think it’s counterproductive.
Additionally, as I mentioned in the other thread, this EO isn’t just about the ban or even mostly about the ban. The ban is only a small part and intended to be temporary. This EO is meant to change the standards for admission and vetting standards for US visitors. So its scope is much bigger than 7 countries and we don’t yet know how that will play out. We don’t know what those standards will be, what requirements the US will demand from other governments, and what the blowback will be except that it’s very likely that getting a visa to visit the US will be much more difficult for a lot of people, not just these 7 countries.
“I think it’s fair to criticize Trump’s ban on this basis. However, the same criticism can be placed against just about every counter-terrorism policy over the past 1/4 century. Every administration has been inconsistent on this. The KSA, UAE, Lebanon and Pakistan are allies (frenemies actually) with which we have a lot of political, economic and military ties. We don’t hold any of those countries to the same standard as countries where we have few or no ties. In that regard, Trump – so far – is maintaining the status quo.”
My God, but that would be a sensible observation. Can’t have that. Much better to self identify as a raving lunatic running in circles while shrieking about rancid pork fat.
“Every administration has been inconsistent on this. ”
Not to this degree. Other admins have slowed down refugees or immigrants. They may have temporarily stopped them from one country. No one has stopped stuff so broadly, and so ineptly.
Steve
BTW, hope everyone saw the Dutch Trump youtube. If you need a laugh, watch it.
Steve