Where were you born?

The new extreme vetting

I was a minority person in all the five countries where I lived, including my birth place, Iran, so minority issues always get my attention. I also lived in Eastern Europe at the time when it was still communist and had a very nice wall, the Berlin Wall. If I remember correctly, president Regan was very fond of that wall and what it represented. It was the tip of the iceberg of extensive government controls that eventually effected the lives of every citizen in Eastern Europe, not just the ones trying to cross the mine field and jump over the wall. My ten years experience in Europe left me allergic to walls, communism, and big powerful governments.

I have no doubt that the president thinks he is helping secure this country by issuing a travel ban on people based their place of birth and not based on who they are, so I will try to critic his action without questioning his motives or patriotism.

We all agree on the goal of protecting America. To that end, the first step should be to define exactly who the enemy is so we can act to defeat it.

If the enemy is defined as all "Muslims" then the president's travel ban makes perfect sense, but  it should be expanded to the countries that gave birth to the 911 attackers, like our ally Saudi Arabia. Actually, If Islam and all Muslims are the enemy then the government should block Muslims from every country in the world from entering this States, in order for that theory to work in achieving its goals. If Islam is the defined enemy then banning nationals from only seven Muslim countries would be considered a half-ass ineffective measure and a propaganda gimmick that only serves to divide the country and create more enemies for us and our soldiers overseas.

Alternatively, the United States can re-join the rest of the civilized world and identify the enemy as the actual terrorist organizations (regardless of names), like ISIS and Al-Qaida, who happen to attack Muslims thousands of times more frequently than Americans or Europeans. Granted, ISIS and Al-Qaida both claim to represent all Muslims, including the Muslims on the receiving end of their terror attacks. This is part of the ISIS propaganda and recruitment tools, so I can see no reason why the United States government would chose to echo this ISIS propaganda and agreeing with them that they represent all Muslims and Muslims are naturally expected to support them in their fight against the United States.
Supporting Data: The state department data on terrorist attacks by country--all top 10 targets of terrorist attacks are Muslims countries: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257526.htm

Why call a one-question vetting "extreme vetting"?

While I would agree that last week's sudden action on immigration was "extreme", I have a hard time understanding how it can be called "extreme vetting". Vetting can not consist of one question, "where were you born?", and still be called extreme vetting. This is extraordinary, which may be why the courts took the unprecedented step of intervening in something that was previously an unchallenged purview of the president, to decide whom to admit to this country. The initial version of the executive order didn't even exempt legal US residents (not even military personnel) and there was an attempt at airports to deport some legal residents to their countries of origin without showing just cause. An immigration ethnic cleaning of sorts since there was a blanket attempt to deny entry and deport everyone born in the designated countries, regardless of their immigration status. The only exemption was being a United States citizen, which is fortuitous for me.


Examples of how the travel ban made our country safe:

I have an old Iranian-Canadian friend who lives in Canada and works across the border in the USA. He traveled through the border almost every day for the past 18 years and has a US green card. When the travel ban was sprung over night he was asked one extra question at the border crossing, "where were you born sir?". He answered "Turkey", and all was well again. He doesn't have to change jobs or make major changes in his life, since, despite having an Iranian father, he was actually born in Turkey, the country of his mother. He lucked out and this country is safer for it.

To be clear, the travel ban was not about asking a few extra questions at border crossings, as the White House spokesman put it. This is about replacing the entire vetting system with one question-there is no alternative fact to that.

I have at least two dozen other friends and acquaintances, all professional and all European nationals, who would have been effected by the travel ban. On the celebrities side, Sir Moe Farah, was also effected by the ban. He is a Somali-British national and the four times Olympic gold medalist. He was reported to say "Queen made me a knight, Trump made me an alien". More surprising still, was to see the name of one of ISIS's most wanted enemies, an Iraqi yazidi MP who raised awareness about the yazidi women plight in Iraq and around the world. Ms.Vian Dakhil was set to receive the Lantos Human Rights Prize on feb 8th in DC for her work against ISIS. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/31/isils-most-wanted-woman-yazidi-mp-banned-collecting-award-us/

The travel ban is exempting Arab Christians--Another misrepresentation of facts

Christian Arabs maybe told that they are exempt form this birth place discrimination, but in reality they look and sound like the enemy too. Wearing a cross doesn't help it seems, as a Christian Syrian families found out when they were deported from Philadelphia despite having valid immigration visas. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/2-Syrian-families-detained-at-PHL-returned-to-Qatar.html

If the United States is to follow thru on their promised affirmative action for middle eastern Christians they would have to add "religion" as a prominent identifier for people entering this country. That would involve another round of seemingly unconstitutional behavior.

Another point worth considering is that minority Christian communities in various countries in the Middle East do not need the favor of being identified with the presidential actions against their Muslim neighbors. They have a hard enough time surviving an increasingly hostile environment without this new honor being bestowed upon them.

What about Iran?

Iran has a brutal regime which discriminates against minorities and doesn't allow freedom of expression. It is the reason more than a million Iranians escaped to the United States over the past thirty years. The hardline supreme leader of Iran declared "thank you trump for showing the real face of America". Despite the hardliners, Iran is anything but an exporter of terrorism to the USA or Europe. The regional politics and conflict with Saudi Arabia, the conflict in Yemen, Syrian conflict, etc. are too complex for a general discussion her, but any militia support by Iran can not be considered equal to supporting jihadi terrorist attacks on US soil-that has never happened.

Additionally, Shiite Iran is fighting on the side of the Syrian regime and Russians in their fight against ISIS and other Islamist jihadists. The Iranians are also involved in the fight against ISIS in Iraq.  In both cases they fight because ISIS considers all Shiites to be heretics and thus legitimate terrorist targets.

Why are the Saudis supporting the travel ban?

Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest country associated with terrorist attacks, including 911, yet it managed to keep its name off the list. The Saudi regime must also be happy that the US policies are now in line with its own policies against at least three of the countries included in the ban, especially Iran. Last, but not least, this ban would weaken the American moral standing rendering future US criticism of Saudi human right violations less of an issue. Saudi Arabia beheads tens of political prisoners every year, a la ISIS.

Silver Lining

The travel ban was no doubt a PR coup for ISIS, and created a lot a hassles for would be allies of the United States.
On the flip side, thousands of Americans spontaneously flocked to airports to demonstrate the travel ban and support the detained legal residents and immigrants. These demonstrations were so timely and persistent that even the most hostile middle eastern news outlets covered it. It showed a sympathetic side of America not often shown in the Middle East.

The Middle East was also treated to a civic lesson on separation of powers and how the president, which is usually a strong man in the Middle East, can be successfully challenged in the independent courts. They also saw that even if the president is unhappy with the ruling, he has no choice but to apply the ruling of the courts. He couldn't fire the judge or send the IRA knocking on his door accusing him, or her, of tax evasions, which happens in Iran, the Middle East in general, and even in our new would be ally, Russia.

En Fin, I never thought I would ever say this, but If I was given a choice I would now chose the communist era question "May I see your documents sir?", which sounds scarier in certain European languages, over "Where were you born Sir?", because documents can improve over time, but if the place of birth is a problem then you are screwed forever.