Does America have a moral obligation to
resettle refugees?
Our obligation, as Trump has made clear, is to America First!
Our obligation, as Trump has made clear, is to America First!
Posted by Ann Corcoran 4/27/18
That
is the question a young opinion writer asks and answers (in the affirmative of
course!) in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on
the President’s travel ban.
The
long opinion piece in Deseret News by
writer Gillian Friedman evoked a largely negative response by readers. I
especially got a chuckle out of this comment:
From
Kansas City MO, 4/26/18, The title of tins article should be changed to”Do I
have the right to force my neighbors to pay for my Charity? , because that is
what you are really saying”
I’ve
snipped the following segments, but although we know the writer sought to
answer the question with a resounding YES!, she has some useful historic
nuggets buried between her quotes on why (she and all those she interviewed)
say we are obligated to welcome the world to America (and pay for it all too).
Deseret News: Writer Gillian Friedman graduated
from Whitman College in 2016 with a B.A. in Race and Ethnic Studies.
WASHINGTON — The first U.S. Supreme Court debate over President Donald
Trump’s so-called travel ban took place this week, and while justices won’t
make a ruling until June, the decision is playing out at a time in which the
refugee crisis in one of the impacted countries, Syria, may be getting worse.
While
missile strikes may be exacerbating the refugee crisis in Syria, the United
States has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees this year, compared to over 15,000
in 2016 and over 3,000 in 2017, according to State Department figures.
All of which leads to a pressing question: what obligation, if any,
does America have to refugees fleeing countries where the United States is
engaged militarily? The
‘Pottery Barn rule’.
There
is no legal obligation or provision in international law that requires a
country to take in refugees, even in a case of war, says Ryan Crocker, who has
served as a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon.
But despite the lack of legal obligation, Crocker says that from 1945
onward, America has played a role of “international leadership” in refugee
resettlement from countries where U.S. military forces were directly involved.
Me: The solution to that is for the US to stay out of mostly religious
squabbles in the Middle East and Africa.
The Refugee Act of 1980 enlarged
upon the 1975 legislation by standardizing resettlement services for all
refugees admitted to the United States. This act became the legal basis for
today’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
9/11 changed
how Americans felt about opening our doors wide to the Middle East and Africa
Gillian
continues….The
policy remained consistent in its approach until the 9/11 terror attacks, when the refugee program was
temporarily suspended, and then reinstated with new security protocols and
lower admission rates.
Serena Parekh, associate professor of philosophy at Northeastern
University and author of “Refugees and the Ethics of Forced Displacement,” says 9/11 had a profound impact on U.S.
attitudes toward refugee resettlement.
Yes, it did. It is when Americans woke up to the fact that migrants
from Muslim countries harbored ill-will toward us!
Parekh
says that pre-9/11, one of the central tenants of America’s approach to refugee
resettlement had been the “Pottery Barn rule,” referencing a well-known
incident in which Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush of the “Pottery Barn rule” before the invasion of Iraq.
“You
break it, you bought it,” Parekh explains.
Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker lectures
us on “who we are” as “nation of immigrants.” Crocker says that in recent years, the United
States has “sadly disengaged” from a leadership role in refugee resettlement.
“In
2017, we had 3,100 migrants drown in the Mediterranean [Sea],” he says. “How
many times can you recall a U.S. Navy vessel sailing to the rescue of a
floundering refugee boat? It’s a nice round number. Zero.” [What the hell, does he really think that our Navy men and women should
be responsible for diverting their mission and plucking Africans from boats and
then possibly being responsible for them. I can see it now—-the illegal
migrants would demand asylum in the US—ed]
Crocker says he was one of 50 senior former national security officials
to file an amicus brief in support of the state of Hawaii and the Iraqi Refugee
Assistance Project’s lawsuit against the Trump administration in the travel ban
case.
Doesn’t
it make you sick every time you hear this pablum about “nation of immigrants”
and “who we are.” Let’s hope that Crocker’s ilk remain on the fringe of
Washington policy maker circles for years to come.
Crocker
continues…..“I
firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, that’s who we are, and it’s
an obligation for those of us who feel that way to push back against those who
try to change who we are as a nation,” says Crocker. “No
matter how much lipstick you put on it, it is still a highly discriminatory
measure based on national origin and religion. And that’s why it’s in front of
the Supreme Court.”
There
is more. Looking
for something to do?
Send
a comment to Deseret
News. Click on the op-ed here,
see the other comments and then send yours! And, remember what a rare opportunity the
Trump Presidency has given us to rethink this “moral obligation” issue.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment