Posted on 01/30/2017 2:04:58 PM PST by Steely Tom
Some bold and simple policies have merit; Friday’s executive order that temporarily bans the citizens of certain countries from coming to the U.S., and stops indefinitely the entry of Syrian refugees, is not one of them.
As designed and implemented, there are genuine doubts about the order’s effectiveness in meeting its stated objective of preventing terrorism. It also risks a lot of collateral damage and unintended consequences that ultimately could prove counterproductive and harmful to national security, the economy, and America’s moral authority, values and standing in the world. Even the order's merits as a domestic signal are in doubt, and it risks damaging the credibility and effectiveness of future policy initiatives from the White House.
The travel ban is succinctly stated: “To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” With immediate effect, it forbids entry for specified periods of time to citizens from seven countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).
But this is an extremely blunt approach to an important issue. Early reports on its application suggest that even long-time holders of multiyear visas for the U.S., together with green card holders and dual nationals, are are being refused entry at airports or being prevented from boarding planes destined for America. This includes people who have been living in the U.S. legally for many years, have been vetted, and are productive and integrated members of their local communities. Judging by Google, which stated that more than 100 of its employees traveling abroad are impacted by the order, it also covers tax-paying U.S.-based workers who productively contribute to national growth and, as of this weekend, were on business trips or holidays abroad. They may now be stranded.
It is not clear whether the travel ban also applies to those working at the international institutions that the U.S. hosts, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The uncertainty is enough to stop some staff from traveling abroad on business, thereby reducing the effectiveness of these institutions. Then there are the students at U.S. educational institutions, some of whom are still in the process of returning for their new terms.
No wonder so many people from across the political spectrum are questioning the executive order -- and deploring its highly discriminatory nature and the related threats to what makes the U.S. so special and so admired. The ban risks undermining the U.S.'s moral authority, along with its standing and the respect it commands. In turn, this can undermine the credibility of President Donald Trump's administration, creating potential headwinds to the effectiveness of its future measures in a wide range of areas.
I suppose that some may feel that all this would be warranted if the ban can deliver on its objective. But here, too, there are problems.
Several people have already pointed out that none of the terrorist incidents suffered by the U.S. in recent times, including the horrible Sept. 11 attacks, were perpetuated by citizens from the seven designated countries. The ban could have other harmful consequences. Some have noted that it applies to people who fought alongside American troops in dangerous situations, and includes some who acted heroically, saving our men and women in uniform. This is but one of the adverse signals that the executive order transmits to the many supporters and fans of the U.S. living in the named countries.
I understand, and very much share, the desire to reduce terrorist risks. As currently designed and implemented, the travel ban is not a good way to do so.
It's from LinkedIn.
LinkedIn is now pushing the Anti-Trump line.
This puts me in a real quandary. LinkedIn is an important marketing tool for me. But I cannot support them in any manner now.
Wish they’d just keep their mouths shut. Jerks.
Fewer muzzies helps me sleep at night. I see no down-side ;’}
Why should I care what anyone named Mohammed thinks on this subject?
Whatever, Mohamed.
LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft, which also owns the state of Washington, which is the first state to sue the president for the EO.
Gee. A Muslim trying to convince us to reduce restrictions on allowing Muslims into the country...
The medium is the message, in this case.
half of these muslims do not read the Koran, ie they go to mosques repeating the mantra of foreign governments. They are spies. They are lucky we do not execute them
Just don’t reply to political discussions
If someone specifically asks, tell the you don’t mix business and politics and religion.
Let him piss-off half HIS customers, not yours.
so....it may keep out people from the International Monetary Fund?
DOUBLE WIN!!!!
Silicon Valley has weaponized against America.
More muslim shxt from a Linkedin idiot...Mohamed El-Erian
I hate that LinkedIn members are delving into politics. A shame for what should be a non-partisan professional networking site. That said, I couldn’t be quiet. My reply: Cheers for President Trump taking action. Stopping immigrants and visitors from the countries that President Obama identified as a source of terror risks to the US is about time. No different than President Obama and other presidents did in years past. If anything, President Trump could and should have stopped all immigrants and visitors from all countries until we can be sure their entry is in the interest of the US. Politicizing this does injustice to our country, calling for unfettered access from countries that have risk of terror, suggests you may be seeking to undermine the US. Where are your loyalties?
Sounds advice.
Politics ruined Quora too, which I enjoyed greatly until last year.
Left-wingers turned it into wall-to-wall liberalism and anti-American snarkiness.
And they accuse us of politicizing things.
Like Spicer said, Just shut your mouth and listen for a while.
President Trump is doing exactly what he said he’d do while campaigning. Why is this a surprise to anyone?
He’s not doing anything that hasn’t been done before.
Sharia law is completely incompatible with the US rule of law.
I hope everyone who gets the mailing will do what I’m about to do.
Honestly, is this a major news attack on Trump that needs refuting? If not, why post it? Or post your own or some else’s’ retort with a Headline that tells the truth.
This isn’t aimed particularity at you Steely Tom but to FReepers in general.
I understand that some posts of certain published lies can help in ferreting out the truth and can be very helpful. But much of the stream of almost endless Leftist media’s published lies posted on FR often has no redeeming value, gets people pissed off and possibly demoralized, and seems sometimes to even strengthen the lie.
If you’re told a lie, don’t repeat it. Neutralize the lie by speaking the truth. Lies aren’t defeated by repeating the lie. Lies are defeated by repeating the truth. We should have our eyes on the prize - in this case, politically, what it takes to recover our Free Constitutional Republic. That should be what we major on and focus on.
We should be mostly publishing the truth on FR, not the lies and as much good news as possible to bolster morale. We should find reliable sources that have already deconstructed the lie and replaced it with the truth and with a headline that says the truth. We need much more of that on FR IMO. The key is the headline and the first few sentences because not everyone has time to drill down. The endless stream of negative, lying headlines sabotages our purpose IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.