By Barbara Slavin The Trump administration on Monday unveiled a revised version of its travel and immigration ban that addresses some of the flaws of a blocked first attempt but will still harm US interests even if it doesn’t survive the courts. The purported aim of the executive order is “protecting the nation from foreign […]
“VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.” — VOA Charter
So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.
By Barbara Slavin With the advent of the Trump administration, many Iran analysts feared the new president would scrap the landmark nuclear deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Little did we know that U.S.-Iran relations were about to be set back more dramatically as collateral damage in a counter-productive presidential […]
Expectations had been raised by some close to Donald Trump that the Republican presidential candidate would be softening his strident rhetoric ahead of Wednesday night’s policy speech about immigration.
And when it was announced he was accepting an invitation to meet with Mexico’s president Wednesday afternoon, expectations were further raised: Could Trump reverse the criticism that he cannot act presidential?
By all accounts, Trump comported himself in a manner one would expect from a world leader, standing side by side with President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City, delivering readouts of their meeting.
Responding to a question from a reporter, Trump said they did not discuss who would pay for the wall Trump, if elected president, vows to build between the two countries — and make Mexico pay for it.
After Trump left Mexico, Peña Nieto tweeted that he began the meeting by telling Trump Mexico would not pay for the wall.
And once he got to Phoenix, Arizona to deliver his immigration policy speech, it was vintage Trump, outlining a 10-point plan to aggressively attack illegal immigration, including making Mexico pay for a wall.
It was a day that left many Republicans wondering which Trump to expect.
I thought of the other places I had known, places I belonged to: Pakistan, where my father’s assassin was celebrated; India, which was busy demanding pledges of loyalty from university students. I thought of my cold, loveless relationship with Britain. Then I thought of America, and a wave of optimism came over me.
Few issues are as emotional—and call upon America’s collective morality—as immigration.
“It makes us special, it makes us strong, it’s makes us Americans.”
The words of a visibly frustrated President Barack Obama in 2014, during his announcement that he had used his executive authority to shield illegal immigrants from deportation after failing to pass a reform bill in Congress. Two years later, the United States Supreme Court takes up the battle again in The United States versus Texas, which challenges the president’s decision (via executive action) to make four million illegal immigrants legal. For border states like Texas, the reality of undocumented Mexican children showing up alone with no resources is felt daily. So it is no coincidence that Texas led the charge all the way to the Supreme Court against Obama’s solution to the country’s growing and ever more complex immigration situation.
And with Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump threatening to send immigrants back home and “build a wall” around U.S. borders, the inevitable tensions around illegal immigration have been stoked to feverish levels.
All eyes are on the court.
It takes a lot to uproot oneself (and family), arrange travel via a trafficker, step onto a boat with a few possessions and no guarantees.They are called migrants or refugees—or both. Whichever term comes to mind, they are all people, many looking to improve their lot in life. But most, experts say, are running from instability and violence. According to the United Nations, the recent wave of migrants represents the largest dislocation of people since the Second World War. The estimated number of migrants in Europe runs in the hundreds of thousands, up to over a million registered asylum seekers. Thus, the term “migrant crisis,” which is useful shorthand, but doesn’t allow for the scale and scope of human suffering involved. As Europe struggles to cope with the influx (via the sea from Turkey or Libya into Greece or Italy, for the most part), America is bracing for the expected spillover.
The United States does not have sole responsibility for Afghan refugees, but it does have special responsibility for some, as a result of our long military intervention there. In particular, it should take responsibility for the safety of Afghans who are in danger because of their association with the U.S. government, its troops and contractors.
U.S. immigration from Latin America has shifted over the past two decades….over the past decade, Mexican migration to the U.S. has slowed dramatically. Today, Mexico increasingly serves as a land bridge for Central American immigrants traveling to the U.S.
By Barbara Slavin The battle for the Republican presidential nomination this year has made many Americans squirm as they watch grown men fling potty-mouthed playground insults at each other in lieu of serious discourse. Overseas, however, concerns are mounting at the prospect of a possible presidency by New York real estate magnate Donald Trump, whose […]
To not deport those whom an immigration judge has ruled ineligible to remain in the country is to throw over any notion of enforceable immigration law. And that is an indefensible position.
President Obama has argued there isn’t a threat of terrorism from the U.S. refugee program because for individuals who apply it takes two years, “heavy vetting” and is a relatively long process. It doesn’t matter. Jihad is patient, and as ISIS has pledged, it will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
Trump is Don Rickles with the political inclinations of Francisco Franco.
For almost half a century, Cubans have received unique treatment under U.S. immigration law. So long as they set foot on U.S. soil, Cubans are all but guaranteed admission … [But] the lack of rigorous background checks has created what Florida’s Sun Sentinel calls the ‘Cuban Criminal Pipeline …’
We admit about 70,000 refugees a year. Is that the American level? Or would 700,000 be more American? And what’s the balance between prudential considerations — cost, assimilation, security — and American-ness?