« The Weeds

The Don't-Call-It-A-Muslim-Ban

2017-01-30

Dara Lind joins Ezra and Matt to discuss Donald Trump's latest crackdown on immigrants and refugees.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
The following podcast contains explicit language: hello, welcome to the weeds boxes, policy, Pakistan, apparently network are Matthew, Glazier spent as usual by my colleague as recline, and we have brought in special guest DORA wind up for a special at the sound of the weeds. We are here to talk about some, I stick events happening in immigration policy over the weekend, Donald Trump issued an executive order which, immediately through everyone into a state of of chaos and confusion? Maybe do I can start off by just re: what did this order? What did it say share
So there are two major components to the order is a lot of stuff that is going to get worked out over the next few months, but immediately with the order did, was it banned all refugees from arriving in the? U S, four hundred twenty days, with some small exceptions, for example, if their persecuted religious minorities they're supposed to be able to and banned all immigrants, visa holders, refugees etc. From seven majority muslim countries, those are around Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, and so any in either of those two circles upon arriving in the: U S was supposed to be sent back home, they weren't even supposed to be able to get on planes to the. U S. and so when, in fact, people were arriving in the U S because they had been scheduled to do so. It caused massive panic They were being detained at airports being coerced into signing deportation papers and being in many cases, and it from seeing lawyers which was both kind of a very dramatic.
turn straighten of what the executive order was doing and also kind of just the tip of the iceberg, because of course many people have been prevented from getting The? U s it all over the next three months in the case of the country, bands and four months in the case of the refugee ban, raises, aren't giving way to get processed. The fall out secular border, has, is just so much broader than what we saw for the weekend that it's just start. So there are three different terms. People have been using to refer to this. I think it would be useful to distinguish between them is all of em contain a portion of true yes, There is what it was originally called when Donald Trump first proposed during the campaign, the Muslim ban. is the refugee ban, which is a term I've. Seen a lot of people used and abused myself, and then there is also an immigrant ban,
and can I would actually as the fourth, because I think that the way the cable is describing it as a travel ban which strikes me as massively and help out what I don't think I beg that is cables. Traditional obsession, just with things have happened at airports, great footage but which parts of the ban a chord which terms sure so I understand the instinct to call it a muslim ban because again, as you said, something that he called for during the campaign there is a strong temptation to point out the Islamophobia underpinnings, if you will of this policy, which, as we now know, was written, Lee by Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller and the White House rather than buying counter terrorism, people are not ignoble. Stephen Miller is, I think, people again and as but whose Stephen Bill Miller is. One of the I dont remember his axe is official title is one of the senior policy staff in the White House is also one of many wait. How staffers, who was a former safer for Jeff sessions, who is now the attorney General Domini and who has been in Congress one of this
just opponents of not only unauthorized but legal immigration. So just like with Steve Ben and you can kind of seed, his intellectual influence and what president trumped assigned you can see the sessions interest in keeping people who are going to be a drain on government benefits who are going to take american jobs from coming to the? U s you then Sir said to go back and we have, as you said there is the temptation called the muzzle been re meet. Let me ask about that. Four minute is, on the one hand, this is not what Donald Trump originally proposed right is. No Muslims can travel to or from the United States, but the way this structured- I don't mean to beef up about this, but it s sort of like a not all Muslims ban, the way to structured. Is you have seven muslim majority countries on which you have a full ban on immigration, but except for just minorities, which is to say non Muslims from these muslim majority countries, whilst so this is, actually one of the interesting things that I and a bunch of other people had kind of assumed that the religious minorities clause in this order was just gonna apply across the board
have actually seen some evidence that, as part of the extremely You know down the line draconian interpretation of this order that syrian Christians are getting sent back, which actually, if you look at the text of the order, the country bands don't have a loophole at an explicit. Just minorities, loophole it's just kind of air by Kazan than their religious minorities loophole comes in on the refugee, then it is theoretically possible. That does bite swearing up and down that this is going to protect Middle EAST Christians. President Chavez just signed in order that won't do that, but you he has said explicitly we're trying to protect middle eastern Christians. So on Friday you re equip exotic. Network and said example, television. So the way this works because its confusing, because there is both a ban- on refugee and there's a ban on seven countries, one of the seven countries is Syria and also the largest sort of source of refugees in the new
who is is SIRI right and there is also an explicit indefinite ban even after the hundred twenty day window expires on letting in any refugees from Syria ran at least and Syria is also one of the middle eastern countries with the largest christian population. So these everything's interactive really but in principle a christian refugee. For me Hypothetical conflict in Lebanon could be let in under the minorities, but syrian christian refugee couldn't because, even though he would be a refugee and thus entitled to the loop Paul, he would also be syrian right. not in time. That is what the text with the order says, and you know I think, we're going to see over the next few weeks, especially as you know, the kind of drama at airports. If, if that come down a little bit? Would we may start to see how this is playing out in practice on other fronts, but you know the flip side of
Now, when you called it and not all Muslims band, I think that's very important to note most of the countries that have the biggest Muslim, and populations in the? U S, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. That kind of thing are not restricted by this. there is a solid counterterrorism argument that maybe there should be a little bit attention to countries that have more connections to terrorism, but many muslim immigrants in the. U S are not being affected right now. Those countries could be added later, but my real concern with calling it a muslim ban. Is that what we ve seen over the weekend is this affecting real people's lives? and there's a lot of uncertainty about who can travel and where they should be able to travel to, and you know I think, simultaneously really important to talk about. You know the intellectual heritage of this and what president front may have in trying to do. to say there are people who this affects, who live in the? U S and it doesnt affect me there is a lot. I want to come back to write their around both intellectual heritage and what he was trying to do that there is a lot to back. But before we move from here, I do want to talk a bit about there's a party,
refugee ban and then a part that is an immigration ban. And can you just delineate those two, sir first of all, their separated in the executive order, because the immigration ban is specific to those seven countries and hypothetical countries that could be added in the future. But the refugee programme is deliberately designed so that the? U S is taking and people who are persecuted elsewhere. It is very different from other immigrant programmes. because it isn't spoke to care about. What can you do for us it supposed to be about what we can do for you and so There's been some attention span. We, as the syrian refugee crisis, has kind of become the central refugee crisis around the world to well. We should at least make sure the terrorists aren't using this there's a two years process. It takes a very long time for someone to resettle in the U S, but by cutting off refugees in particular four hundred twenty days, and
you know, then only allowing them from certain countries after that, the? U dot? S really is changing the way that it looks at this particular program that supposed to be about persecution. The immigration ban, those having countries is simultaneously much broader and a little bit narrower, because its broader in that it affects until night, green cardholder has it affects people who are here been living in the? U S on work visas who are moving here on student visas cetera, but it's also once those. Ninety days are over. In theory, those seven countries should be allowed back and people from seven hundred should be allowed back in and the U S is going making decisions based on excluding countries, whereas with the refugee ban its and you specifically white list which countries can come in so the way that those two work is very different and it's entirely possible that, after ninety is the refugee ban will last new immigration and what kind of not? What is the point of this temporary nature here? So we
figure out, what's going right, which of course, the residing or close it accords to that yeah. This is, the executive order kind of punts and when I said earlier, the inner there are things there going to be worked out over the next few months. This is the kind of thing we're looking at. The executive order implies that by the time there's ninety days are over the? U S, government will have come up with a new and somehow foolproof strategy that asks everyone and used me to come to the: u dot s. You know whether they can prove whether they're going to be a terrorist when they're here they can prove they're going to be good for the national interest kind of thing that, like this new screening process, will have been developed that all immigrants will then have to go through that's kind of the purpose there. On the refugee front, those people are also going to be subjected to that, but there is also this presumption that we can't really trust any country that is actually likely to send refuge
is because, by doing this on a country by country basis, what the? U S saying, is we will only accept refugees from countries where we can trust. There are already safeguards in place So it's basically mandating a certain level of stability, so the way that those two things are gonna have come back online is different. One is gonna be about what screening processes have we in the Eu S developed? The other is going to be Where can we as the Eu S assume that this government is simultaneously persecuting people enough that they can be refugees? and disable enough that we can trust their screening terrorists. It's worth sure, going back to that the Jeff sessions, intellectual heritage of some of that right, Clearly one strand at work here is Donald Trump. Had this idea as a primary candidate that there was a lot of Islamophobia and the republican base. So he could make this outlandish. ban all Muslims thing and it would work for him politically. So he did that and then it's kind of refined
into this category. But sessions is a really like up a profound immigration sceptic in a way that it seems like a lot of republican politicians, China play both sides of the fence on immigration for four years or have tragic, exploit it for some kind of political issue. War are specifically targeting the undocumented population, but sessions is like he's really Sesar with this summer travel visa programme has too many loopholes in it or some of these guys on manager, trend, for visas. Aren't really managers, and, it seems like, is just interested in kicking the tires of the whole system to just like fine ways to keep people out yeah Really think that can't be overstated. We are seeing the Republican Party forced to acknowledge that it can't.
Lavie, we like legal immigrants, we dont like unauthorized immigrants card with this administration. This administration has shown a willingness to restrict legal immigration, either in the name of terrorism or in the name of protecting american workers or in the name of protecting american culture and values, and we are beginning to see that with this order, sessions is often particularly skeptical of them. You D programme as are a lot of other conservatives- include including Bannon, because you know there concerned that refugees are taken too many government benefits As I mentioned, the purpose of letting refugees in is not supposed to be because they're going to make good use of dollars, but there's that kind of assumption that's the only reason to let some one into the: U S is if they're going to be good for the people who are already here. This is, I guess, gonna be defunct, but we should talk about the the extension of this to green card.
doctors, which seems like where they moved from something that people would have complained about, but that provocateur stuck into something that went too far for the system. So unless we really basic what what's a greek anyone who is not a citizen of the EU. S can, under certain circumstances, be important, but if you have legal permanent residency, which is what's called a green card to the government has exe, Did that you're going to live in the? U S? For if you want to the rest of your life as long as you don't come at a serious crime anymore, visas, are temporary and have certain conditions attached being legal. President. In a basically the process that you go through, to tell the U S, I want to stay here and have the USA. That's fine, that's cool, so legal permanent residents, do not have homes outside the. U S, and even ninety nine out of a hundred cases like they got it all the same, a passport check line as citizens, it I'd as a
That's ok, so by keeping people who have green cards from coming back to the? U S who like happened to be travelling abroad over this weekend, most people. friends than because if you ask someone who's in American, yes, some people are going to assume that its american citizens by the media, reaction of oil. If someone's lived here for ten years- and this is their home than that's fine- the idea that it is acceptable- and even a good idea, to prevent people whose home is in the? U S from coming back here makes sense if you define Americans as strictly american citizens, particularly native born citizens, and just are particularly concerned with the quota, quote inconvenience that happens for other people, but had been in political terms. I mean green cardholders have co workers Boss is at last lords and spouses and an old kinds of other alot of people. Work at Google cabbages are just
connections to mainstream the american society right. They are fully integrated member is there not the abbe, you you see them all the time in your office or your church or wherever, and it makes it a much broader circle of people are gonna, look around and say: await. This is somebody who I know, then. If you're talking about refugee yeah I mean I'd. I dont want to run the counterfactual too far here, because I do think that the reason that a lot of attention be paid to green cardholders over the weekend was because of what we found out about how this policy was developed, write em from what we know reporting now D Hs the Department of Homeland Security. Looked at the order after it had been signed on Friday night and said we dont think this applies to green cardholder and the White House had knocked yes, it as well not usually have you run things and then, of course, there were contradictory statements from members.
Remain as to whether or not it did. I think that that's a lot of the region focused on this, and I think that some of the objections that you ve seen science community from the Tec. Community are not just about green cardholder. But also about people who have high skilled work. Visas other people who are more integral. In the: U S than refugees are so it's gonna be interesting to see after green cardholders have been exempted. How much of that right? Now we have another one also pull this too I do want to say that I think a lot of the backlash. A lot of the anger comes from people who are just morally outraged, the Spirit of the Executive board. I agree with but I mean I I hear is imminent edges. I just think that's it. I just don't want as we. There are three things that happened here. It seems to me one is people hate with this stands, for this feels to them like a country, I dont, like a country, didn't recognize because America's often done things like this. This is, as Del Matthews and an amazing pieces weakened. This is fully in line with the worst of american traditions. Is nothing
usual here, one as it could. People really really are offended by this too. There is fought for whom it went too far. and now I did, it go too far. Morally, but it also went too far and away the old disrupt their business. It will disrupt our lives, will disrupt their church, their neighborhood whatever, and then the third, which I also think is not in considerable cause. You're, seeing this as a place where a lot of republicans are using it as their off ramp is it it was done in competently. In addition to one it's bad and two. It goes too far, there's also three. It was managed in an insane way The executive order itself is poorly written into basic workers. Given eight delayed start data people on plain when it was signed, there's something that happened when they landed. That was clear. It appears he didn't run it by the Office of legal counsel. If they did, they did not get a serious that on it, but is now reported, isn't it the office of Little Council did read it? They are not whether or not they said it was legal right shore, and this last part in this.
to align Dar you had about what damage it might have been trying to do. This is in order that is been structured, so poorly vit in part, its own failures, happy its weaknesses, so I created an emergency stay over the weekend on the deportations people currently here from Brooklyn Judge. I'd love to hear a bit about that because of sarcasm experience, lawyers who are just incredible angry about this order, but the one thing they are happy about was thought. The order was so badly done, they'd be easier to challenge that is absolutely I cop to having understated how vague this was. I reading over it on Friday, and especially because the and it has so much authority over refugees and because the EU has extremely brought authority to keep people from entering the EU s even if they have valid visas. Once you have a valid visa, you can still be prevented from being admitted to the Eu S, which is what we ve seen
happen over the weekend. So I assumed that this was not going to be terribly changeable and to see not one, but for federal judges on Saturday night immediately respond to challenges that, been brought with. Something bad has happened here, and we need to stop this from being enforced until the government has its act together is really startling, especially for those of us who have been following the extent to which the judicial It refers to the executive on immigration, the extent to which they refer to the executive whenever the executive can pull a national security card. This has been a really interesting tat. and in the judiciary, relationship with the executive and a lot of that has been. as even in the court hearing in Brooklyn, the government did not appear to be aware of how many people it was currently holding at airports didn't appear to be aware of all the details of how this was being implemented, and that has you know it doesn't just have political consequences for giving,
weakens off ramp. It also has set a really strong tone for what I'm sure it's gonna be ongoing litigation about this order, because it's gonna be much harder for the government to up in a hearing on the merits of the order and a month and say well, this was very carefully crafted too complex constitution. When we now know that it wasn't carefully crafted at all Jonathan Burge dean, though political scientist Bloomberg columnist. He he has this sort of coinage that he'll legs to use about the the presidential branch of government verses, Thee I could have branch and by that he means like the people who are not Senate conformable. You know who who work in the in the White House are the presidential branch and, and one of the things I think you tried to see Here- was people from the presidential branch do this? Without the input and buying from the likely
larger circle of executive red stakeholders and then led to some of that outcomes, that door was talking, I really mean it appeared that the people from the- U S, attorney's office in the Eastern District went shop at court had not developed a legal argument to me right did they got a phone call and they had to show up, but they weren't prepared, which is it a distinction from this? Not, I think, a formal legal requirement that, when you do something that you know is going to be controversial, you run it through
since department lawyers you come up with, this is what we are going to say. If we open into court, you send that memo out to the different offices, but that is the way the government does things, because if you show up at a federal judges, emergency hearing- and you don't have answers to these kinds of questions, it certainly equates an opening for the judge to to rule against you. If they want to write and when you have, it seems like www small, like a handful of people on the White House cook this up without like running by everybody, I guess because they wanted to leak or something a it seems. I gave contradictory stories coming out today as well as to why they did this way, but, like trumps, signed the order at a press conference with Secretary defence matters, who now is saying like wine and even read it, He signed it minutes after the swarm Addison,
but we think a ceremonial music just crazy. I mean it looked to me like that was a moment where they were asserting dominance over matters, were examined area then put them like sign this order, the he basically nobody saw this. I would not be surprised if he not even yet efficient is positioned in either, then they and hid the folder to him, and it's like you're in this now buddy and meanwhile John Kelly, the secretarial allowance. It was apparently on a briefing call about the order when he's on television president Trump signing it, which, given the quality, is design. I this is its given, that Madison Kelly or two of the people who many of the Trump sceptics where most confident because they saw them as being. They were. Did you even buy that, for the same reason, that Trump was attracted to the right? They have a reputation for being tough talking, general and Trump likes that swagger and the from skeptics were like well, these are principled men. They will stand up to Trump win its nest
sorry, I think we ve seen were the last week that this whole we're going to let the cabinet officials make policy is not, this happening, and it's going to be very into Ding. As a Trump White House question, what people like Madison tell it doing that Environment Bell. I think the other thing about what matters saying about the presidential versus executive branches, There are also opportunities for low level, opportunistic, both benevolence and cruelty, when you don't have policy coming down from the top and await its being clearly defined, and it is not unusual for customs and border protection agents to be very aggressive in the way that they enforce the law. It is certainly in a part of the reason why they, along with other creation agents have been politically so supportive of president Trump and some of what we saw over the weekend was what happens when people in this is an agency that doesn't have a commissioner right. Now it's come, and it has an acting commissioner, but the commissioner resigned on Thursday. There aren't many senior people at home when security, who have been
firms? What happens when they get the text of an order from the president and our kind of told do with this? What you will and kind of the stories we ve heard of people not being allowed to see lawyers of green card holders being asked if they loved their country a lot of ridiculous things that are theoretically within the governor power, but are still not something that from policy or moral perspective. You would expect people would be trained to do when. I think something we're gonna have to see. To what extent are the presidents of the Sea BP, an ice unions like the real homeland security secretary? He write. These are people who trump as a close relationship with who we know he's consulted with throughout the campaign, who are very politically supportive of him and who have of a means of communication to rank and file enforcement officers, John Kelly is a man who has a lot of respect on Capitol Hill who confirmation sailed do very easily who, because he
We on southern command, as it as a military officer, has a sort of policy connection to immigration, forest ministers, but does not have a personal relationship with the wind. File. So the officers like that and does not appear to have the personal confidence of Donald Trump pride when Trump is thinking. What should I sign this thing or not? It did not occur to him to say I might call my homeland security secretary and see what he thinks about that and you know that's gonna- be something that Kelly. He is going to have to think about right does he want to be the front man for an agency that he's not really running, which is a problem and in a lot of different cabinet departments, but We had a weekend of CHAOS Wade court orders of members of Congress showing up at airports doing tweets about how you know people were defined their orders, not listen to them and he was nowhere diminish. She didn't put him on. The Sunday shows. How
He was not as far as we know, on the phone with members of Congress. We are showing trucks humour, but he also wasn't reassuring John Mccain. He was I dont aware and then, when they finally come out with the idea that there been reversed themselves on the green cards, his name is on that statement. But you know that's like what your cabinet separate. these are therefore right is to be an intermediary when people have questions when there is confusion- and he was not put out there, either publicly or privately to do that because, apparently he's not involved in any of the relevant assuming so I do want to use. This is the moment to step back. We are, it is strange to say this. We are ten days into the term presidency, all the stuff. It has happened in ten days, and I think one thing that is that we cannot say
confidently, is a certain theory of Trump be in moderation, as president has been proven false. I think what a lot of people believed was going to happen and the choice of people like mad Us Kelly were big part of his argument. Was it From has these maybe policy intuitions, he says a lot of things that contradict each other on the stump. He has some ideas. He had some policies. Coup is not too attached to any of them, and this was a whole take us seriously, but not literally thing and that what was going to happen as he would get in office and all of a sudden he would have the information. The president has the briefings, president, has the staff, the president has the cabinet. Secretaries of president has within this world, where information was being structured for him in a much more professional way where he felt the weight of the office and where he had adviser? Think, oh, no, it do that all the airports will fall into chaos and everybody will hate you that he would end up running a much more
cautious and thoughtful and programme magically sound version of Trump ISM, and what actually happened was the opposite. He came in looked around a bureaucracy that does not like him, as leaky is potentially hostile to him. He brought in a couple of people who are less well known and have their own public profiles, but clearly does not trust their loyalty to him, and so the thing is in fact how, Nothing is a trump ism, is being defined and drawn out to end made into programmes by the folks who are frankly to his right. Immigration policy is being fleshed out by Jeff sessions and sort of sessions were,
with acolytes the refugee and immigration ban is being done very powerfully. It seems like Steve Ban in among the just a very small group of others, and so very far from tramping moderated by the people around him in the White House. It appear cities actually retreating back into the group of people who do hold the same opinions he does, but, unlike the sort of convenience store told about tromp, which is it if you dont, like one of his opinions, don't worry too much about because he probably doesn't really hold it. This policies being flesh out by the people who do hold these opinions, who'd have thought about how to flesh out and so does an end up in exactly the same for maybe as shrub initially suggested, but it is what becomes policy and my senses. It part of frankly how you prove loyalty to trim.
Is it you? Shall you actually agree with him, and I just want to take moment on this, because I think it is profound. I think there was a theory, a lot of people had about Trump and why he would be a better present than he was a candidate. I think a lot of elite Republicans held a sorry. I think it's a core of like the Peter Keel ISM around Trump, and it is just proving to be bullshit. I think it's I ate. All of that is true. I think that there is also a kind of a cousin to that theory, which was that in our trump, was never all that interest in policy was mostly interesting, signalling and therefore the fact that he was sending in the fact that he was playing to this is Lama phobia ends in a phobia in the base. Was you know he just like the attention they were people in the room who are going to be making policy and that logic, He makes sense if you don't believe that anyone real in their heart believes that immigration is bad for the United States. I think we ve, because the Republican Party has been at doing such a balancing act over the last really decade, where
they understand, some benefits of immigration. They also understand the benefit of looking tough on immigration, and you know it being tough on immigration, the people have have assumed that any language about being tough is just rhetoric and, in practice, Republicans really care about the policy equities at play. Here. This is what a policy isn't about weighing equities, but it in the phrase America first is more, asked when describing this order, that came down over the weekend than it was in the prior week of the current presidency. This is what policy looks like when you are not considering weighing one thing against another, but assuming that the lives of people who live in the UK, states were citizens of the United States are so important that any potential harm to them is enough to be to be worth any harm done. In the rest of the world, and that's not something were used to seeing really in policy making,
if at all, and certainly not from the presidency, I think you know is useful way to understand. This is to actually look at why different people were saying in the Eightys and Ninetys, and one thing it's easy to forget is that the partisan politics of immigration were extremely different back then, and not be it's true, that the parties were less polarized over all then. But that's like not the reason why right, he had a clip by our sight of Ronald Reagan and George H, W Bush in a republican party primary debate, basically arguing about like which of them was gonna, be more welcoming to to immigrants, and you had Democrats who were very tough, a bill Clinton and ninety. Ninety six, you know, runs ass.
It's about how many people he's deported and the entire modern immigration enforcement regime dates from the nineties from one Bill Clinton was president. There were Republicans who were supportive of the new, much tougher approach, but there were also a ladder. Democrats, Donald Trump in the Eightys and Ninetys was a Democrat, and he was also, if you read Dylan Matthews piece on his all books, very, very sceptical of immigration, which was not unusual for a democrat at that time he was also very Skype
of trade, which was not only not unusual but was typical of a Democrat right and, if you think about we all know this. When we talk about rust belt voters who Donald Trump won over is that like there are a lot of people who voted for Democrats historically, but who were sceptical of trade in immigration and who, when they found a Republican who was skeptical of trade in immigration, but may be supportive of social security. Medicare were like hey, I'm a republican now, but that is also Donald Trump right. Donald is not like. Paul Ryan is a guy who was schooled in the Ronald Reagan, ideological marinated and who has bobbed, and we ve done him again,
and over the years trying to find a place that, like works, politically works with the business community. Things like that, but Trump, like many Americans, has a very firm view that by foreigners are bad defended areas, the thing that has made him a republic yet and the footnote as when he swung from the Democratic Republican Party, seated so through Papua Cannons Reform Party in two thousand and two things may be on the more moral dimension of this one? Is we were not good as a country on the refugee issue before I think the Obama administration stood on this part of IRAN, the held it has been unleashed in Syria is basically unconscionable. At least I think they were not trying to not let s name we're trying to figure out ways to make the policy a little bit more humane and could increase the politics of it are very tough, but I do
I think we are in a good place on it before, but there is right now across the world, a genuine global refugee crisis. We are seeing a huge number of refugees are taking. The outflow from Syria has, destabilizing both to the Middle EAST and to Europe, which is much more dangerous trusts that actually resettling some refugees here, none of whom so far have ever tried to attack, had ever launched an attack on the United States of America and and secondarily just another emotional level. This all came down on the weekend of the Holocaust remembrance Day and which agreements previous it was a hard time for everyone for those who did not catch this, they all lives matter the Holocaust, released a statement the tenant mentioned Jews, and then, when asked about this, had a lot of people died and Holocaust, which is true, but I
come out and say as an american jus. If they had done that and then not sign that order on Friday night, I would have been much more cool with it and the fact that they then turned around and turned a bunch of people away, but as part of America is the beginning of America's history. We now think of America's this robot. Who saviour and it comes in and help to liberate the camps. But before that our history was shameful and What was shameful about it was turning away boats of jewish refugees, who and slaughtered by nazis and tubes in this order over this weekend, putting us at all politics it just it just breaks my heart like it just we are worse country than we were a little while ago and again, not because we were in such a good place. Three weeks ago, I dont think we were. I think we could have been a lot better than we were. We have literally mood from. We are trying to figure out a way to make our policy more humane we ve decided our policy should be inhumane. What may? I also think it's worth considering the seven countries in that same Wednesday, because that this
in a series of that list. Is mine bullet right, like what you have here is a guy who committed himself were Torricelli to a ban on all muslim immigration, and now it's like he can't do. That. Right is unconstitutional everybody in public and party has come out against Ed. You just can't he's not going to u cant, but he once he doesn't want to say you know. I, like I share who said that there are yours living here. We don't know how true this is, Rudy Giuliani on the Sunday shows said what happened here is Donald Trump came to him, set came to him and said: how do I do a muslim ban legally, and this is what we got ready. What else do that's another thing? That's gonna, look really bad The aim of this is not discriminatory. Would so what they ve done? Is they ve come up with like a list of countries that have a lot of Muslims in them, but there
that they can cite two lists that pre exist, the Trump administration. So that's how, for example, IRAN and nonetheless stride, because it really is a state sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department, because of financial support that they give to Hezbollah, which fair enough. But so what you have now is a exclusion of people who have a NATO eyes to dual citizens right. So if you are a dual citizen of the UK and IRAN, or of Canada and ran or of anywhere in around your barred entry under this theory, you cannot renounce iranian citizens under law, so they have banned from entering the kind free, just anybody who was support in IRAN and the left IRAN at any point for any reason, from ever coming into the United States, which includes like people,
Who were tortured in iranian jails because of their opposition activity, white people who clearly pose no threat who, I am sure Stephen Miller does not think pose the elastic kind of threat that he is talking about right? They are Muslims which in some senses a threat to the integrity of whatever America's Christian nature, but I think really there just caught up in a cynical political sham here. Right am, I saw an enquiry about this from the National Basketball Association, but this too NBA players who are citizens of the UK and Australia, but who were born in South Sudan. But South Sudan was not a country at the time that they were born. And so they may be have me, citizenship, and maybe, if they go play a game in Toronto, can't come back to the United States and the
misery and has no legal guidance to answer this kind of question and they're, not even Muslim. That's the whole point reason there were refugees from South Sudan but their casting this net for no real reason right. This not any kind of good faith on their part of an early there's a dead there's a threat. Here I mean I I there's a lot. I wanna get back on the moral thing, but the thing about Kay dual citizenship. Is the UK government put out a statement on Sunday saying UK dual citizens are fine, which is either wrong on the face of the executive order, or indicates that the UK government has made a specialty what the trap administration and we don't know that and people who are a dual citizens. The UK dont know and this is just it gets back to the carelessness of it. But it's also the very first thing, I heard about this order when I started getting rumours on Tuesday and not to blow up any particular source, but the first than I have before even knew what the specific list was was it's not gonna be a list of,
Please it's gonna mobilise anyone to get really mad first, because No one is really going to say. Oh Somalia is totally save, obviously people for a small error safe. It's a list of countries that dont kind of have the institutional presence. That's why they being called out in these bills. To begin with, it's not like Saudi. be our America has a strong alliance. It's not like Pakistan, where the? U S, s kind of a friend of mine thing going on by its created these kind of concentric circles of madness, for people who just coming from Somalia that the administration is either willing to clear up, doesn't understand or has deliberately not clear. We have to represent can someone- let you say, the moral, moral, peace yeah, I mean I want to defend the Obama administration a little bit for the last. Two years in particular, they understood that the way U S, policy was working, was making it extremely hard for anyone who had touched the syrian conflict from the U S, and they did make an effort on that and a lot of people for the last year and a half of Obama, alot of people were able to come
we note the U S was gonna had met a hundred ten thousand refugees and familiar twenty seventeen, which has huge comparative snorkel levels. I now that's. fifty thousand cause, even after the hundred twenty day ban is over the. U S is now than we able to admit twenty thousand more people over the next eight months. I wasn't over the weekend, which was terribly timed, but that's where my sisters came in, I'm sure, that's where a lot of listeners ancestors came in. To go see the statue of liberty or else island, because I was busy covering everything that has happened, but the he's in that the Holocaust thing is relevant to the EU right now is not just because it is a shameful chapter in U S history, but because after world two as Americans came to terms with the fact that they could have done more in didn't. They deliberately adopted this mantle of being the country that would welcome. Refugees and for literally the entire time from world war, two to now half of all refugees
Ben resettled permanently in a third country have been in. The United States has been an extremely important part of who we are. It's been the last bit of immigration policy that actually does reflect the pedestal on the statue of liberty, the rest of immigration policies, kind of move beyond that and to take The way it's not me, it's not clear whether this is gonna be the year or next year is gonna, be the year that Canada overtakes the? U S in terms of allowing refugees, but I think it's pretty inevitable at this point. Under this administration- and this is going to permanently changed the way that the Eu S thinks of itself. The way that the rest of the world thinks of the? U S, we, had a totally deserved mantle for the last seventy or so years that we gave up on Friday night and if you haven't taken some time to think to your about what that means. For you and your relationship to a country I would urge you to do that has been of special episode
weeds, they get a door for joining us today to our producers, a theme Shapiro any see Valdez per making. This happen we'll be back as normal low, but later this
Transcript generated on 2021-09-14.