New York Magazine Article
New York Times
Image from NYT
Yesterday, an immigrant from Uzbekistan identified by the name of Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented Home Depot pickup truck onto a bike path along the Hudson River, where he proceeded to mow down pedestrians and bikers at high speed. Eleven people were injured and eight people were killed, five of whom were Argentinian tourists. The truck then crashed into a school bus approximately ten blocks later.
Trump responded via Twitter by stating that Homeland Security must step up the Extreme Vetting Process and also by attacking Chuck Schumer’s “democratic” Diversity Visa Lottery Program. Trump also added that Saipov should be executed and sent to Guantanamo Bay after the immigrant asked to hang an ISIS flag in the hospital he was staying in. In my mind, President Trump is coming off as completely tone-deaf and his solutions are thoughtless.
Is there any way we can efficiently and lawfully single out foreigners who have evil thoughts about the US? Trump believes Extreme Vetting is the solution, but that brings up the question: what is Trump's idea of extreme-extreme vetting? Can the government discriminate who is allowed into the country? Under the 14th amendment, all citizens have equal protection under the laws, so they can't be singled out for race or ethnicity, unless there is a really valid reason. According to the textbook, "it is virtually impossible to show that a classification by race or ethnicity that serves to disadvantage a minority group serves a compelling public interest" (148). Do you think the reason in this case is even remotely valid? Which should be of greater importance to Americans- our national security or our rights?
19 comments:
I completely agree with you. Trump definitely does more talking than thinking. I think that there is this broad generalization that many people believe in our society today that most immigrants are inherently evil. I don't think that previous immigration restrictions have made a significant impact, so I'm unsure about whether or not doing the same thing will be more beneficial than as it was in the past. Plus, "Extreme" vetting sounds just.. weirdly immature. I tend to think that anything labeled extreme is like some crazy new type of energy drink or something so, to me, it just doesn't sound too great.
Instead of travel bans, the United States should implement merit based visas and get rid of the diversity lottery. We'll still be encouraging diversity in our country but with contributing members of society, rather than random people who may get here, not fit into society, and turn to extremism.
Americans have a real reason to be afraid of Muslim immigrants. In the last 5 years, how many acts of terror were carried out in Europe and the USA by Muslims or people who actively supported Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS? Sure, the majority of Muslims are peaceful, yet the small percentage of radicals are pushing their own agenda. Similarly, looking back at history, most Germans weren't Nazis, yet that small percent that were got their agenda pushed.
If we discuss how certain views(*COUGH* radical Islam) may not be compatible with Western values, we get labeled as Islamophobic, and suddenly the real victims are muslims because they aren't "tolerated" in the States. For whatever reason, we can call Christianity out for its backwards thoughts on abortion and homosexuality which halts progress on gay rights and abortion in the States, but when we bring up that Islam is inherently misogynistic and hates homosexuals that's where we draw the line. I don't get all the hypocrisy man.
The nebulousness of "extreme" vetting and a lack of explaining what that vetting would entail already alludes to the fact that Trump's solution is, in my opinion, a bit lacking. The vetting that we currently have is anything but lax, it is not as if we just let anyone in; of course, that is to say, it is not as if our security is infallible. However, Trump's plan for plaster the cracks strikes me as more xenophobic than effective. I would also like to point out, as explained by the NY Times article, there is a bit of a double standard in the GOP response to this tragedy and the Las Vegas massacre; its interesting how a tragedy becomes a springboard for policy when a Muslim gets involved.
While I understand the fear and am aware of statistics pertaining to ISIS's terrorist attacks, we have to also recognize that terrorism comes from all backgrounds, although recently coverage of attacks by ISIS and other affiliations have been publicized the most.
I also saw the NY Times's statement about the GOP's double standard when it comes to gun violence and ISIS-related terrorism. As the leader of our country, Trump and the GOP ought to react with the nation's best interest at heart, not when it benefits their political platform. I think Trump's call for the death sentence and accusatory language towards the justice system compromises the public's trust in our national court system, which proves dangerous when juries are supposed to be impartial. While I agree that the criminal justice system needs reform, to disregard the credibility of court judges (as Trump has done before with his travel bans) is just disrespectful.
While fear of terrorism is understandable, it should be prevented within the bounds of our laws. We should not attempt to discriminate against one race or culture, due to the 1% that act irrationally. We need Trump to see the big picture, and think before he talks. What he plans and has tried to implement, is and was morally unethical.
I also agree with Josh. The US should implement merit based visas, an idea that will both make the US stronger and make the US more diverse.
I think that the presence and fear of Muslim terrorists is undeniably existent, but still exaggerated. If you look at the past tragic acts of violence that have occurred in the recent past, there are on the same magnitude of white males who shoot up schools as there are Muslims who perform acts of terrorism. So there is no doubt that there should be more effective screening or investigations into people who pose a threat to society, but I think that at least in America this is a more generalized issue than we think. I don't disagree with the fact that Islam ideology is inherently destructive, but I think that steps should be taken in multiple areas, not just this one.
To me, Trump's idea of "Extreme Vetting" doesn't sound like a solution that directly correlates with the issue. Ethnicity shouldn't be attached to terrorist attacks because it is possible for any single person to act irrationally. Therefore, Trump's idea of "Extreme Vetting" sounds like it will discriminate certain ethnicities.
I think it's unfair to blame people who are scared of Islamic terror, as it is part of the problem to unfairly label people. I agree with Josh, as there are trends and there are big front-page news events involving Islamic terrorism. If a threat is present on a global scale, people should be aware of it. I do agree, however, that "extreme vetting," is a big confusing. Trump originally wanted merit-based visas, which would seem fine, but the truth is that merit-based is frowned upon in many places and situations, where diversity is instead the goal. For example, in college admission, it has become racist to have race-blind admission, and it is the same thing here. If a lot of people with discover-able Islamic terrorist intention are blocked from entering the U.S., people may still cry that it is racist because they are Islamic.
I also agree that the way Trump is going about this situation is not good. Instead of dealing with this problem by saying "send him to Guantanamo Bay" he should be saying "how could I try to fix this." I also think "extreme vetting" is confusing and just seems discriminatory
I think there is no way to successfully weed out the terrorists in a population without being able to have some prejudice before hand. We've had a history of these types of America and in Europe, so our perception to the Muslim minority will be different. It is a shame that his had to happen. because it is events like these that shape our thoughts about we think about a certain type of people. Saying that though, I do emphasize the importance of national safety over our rights.
While his fear is understandable to some degree, I agree that Trump needs to think more before he acts. "Extreme vetting" is too vague and not even close to a legitimate solution, and will only lead to the exact discrimination we've been trying to avoid for decades (but since it's Trump I don't think he cares).
The country cannot simply sacrifice either national security or rights of citizens to secure one or the other. I see many people have noted that it is unfair to discriminate against all immigrants coming in based off the acts of the few immigrants that come in intending harm. However, these few people have the capacity to hurt a large amount of people. In this situation, even just one individual took 8 lives and injured more. The consequences of letting one individual roam free with access to more resources and a well thought out plan could breed a catastrophe. While the number of people hurt by these type of incidents pales in comparison to the whole of the United States, our policies have been about protecting the minority. President Trump's solution does seem a bit lacking as others have said, and I do agree that merit-based visas should be implemented.
I've read about a machine learning system used in Britain that identifies terrorists based on financial transactions, behaviors, travel, contacts, insurance policy, ethnicity, religion, etc, to within 99.99 percent accuracy. I'm not sure if the US uses a similar system (the only info we get is through government leakers such as Snowden, the rest is covered up). We know that the current immigration system checks a variety of factors, but other than that, the algorithm being used is not accessible. Is the use of privacy invading IT the answer? Is this working, or is it just a useless privacy invasion?
In response to Josh...
I would agree that a merit system would be in order, however, I would disagree that the current lottery system is encouraging the acceptance of "random people who may get here, not fit into society, and turn to extremism" into our country. To think this is to misunderstand the process of the lottery system. According to a PBS broadcast, the lottery system does, in fact, randomly select people from *within the lottery* to be admitted to the US on a diversity visa. However, to even be admitted into this lottery requires extensive background checks: each person who applies for the visa is thoroughly investigated, including vetting for criminal records and other forms of misconduct. One of the people being interviewed said that they even dug up evidence from when US soldiers asked her whether she believed in democracy or capitalism from when she was a very young girl, had hardly even learned what the words 'democracy' or 'communism' meant. Thus, in many ways, the current lottery system is a form of "merit" system, in that people cannot be admitted to the lottery without proper qualifications. Trump's description of "extreme vetting," as Cameron said, is very nebulous and, like many of his policy positions, lacks any semblance of substance.
As for the whole "Nazis were a tiny minority" idea... I firmly believe that this analogy cannot be applied here. First of all, the while it is true that only about 7-10% of people in Germany were officially registered Nazis, the actual figure was far larger. Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party (later became the Nazi party) won almost 40% of the vote in the German federal election in 1932, illustrating that far more than a minute minority of Germans supported the Nazi regime. These numbers, according to PolitiFact.com, were diluted 1) because as the Nazi empire expanded through conquest of foreign peoples, the number of Germans relative to the total number of people living under Nazi authority was diluted, resulting in a smaller percentage of relative Nazis 2) Youth, that is, all of the infamous Hitler Youth future-Nazis, are not accounted for in official party membership 3) like I said, there were a lot more people who passively tolerated or supported (in the form of votes or subscription to ideology) the Nazi regime than the numbers actually account for. Believers in radical Islam, on the other hand, only account for less than 5% of Muslims... And this statistic, unlike the claim that Nazis were a negligible minority in Germany, is legit. Beyond this, the Nazis cannot be compared with extremist Muslims. The Nazi party was a nationalist organization, that is, they supported their party on grounds of geographical/genetic superiority. Nazis largely attacked minority groups, such as homosexuals and Jews, who were percieved by them as separate from the German nation. Radical Islam, on the other hand, transcends national boundaries; the vast majority of Islamic terror is Muslim on Muslim, and does not target people racially as much as it targets them by their religion. Thus, there have been ISIS members that have committed terror attacks from all over the world, including from multiple countries in Europe, the middle east, and even the U.S. Thus, unlike the Nazi rise to power, where the majority of non-Nazis were coerced to go along with the Nazi agenda, the majority of Muslims staunchly oppose radical Islam and will continue to do so. Within the Muslim community is no herd mentality in passive support of radical terror as there was in Nazi Germany among those who feared to oppose Hitler's regime.
All of this being said, stricter background checks are not altogether a terrible idea. However, I do not think the solution is as clear-cut as Trump would have you think.
Of course it is clear that this is such a complex issue. Just to start off with the idea of screening immigrants. It is virtually impossible to make sure we're allowing in safe people versus terrorists; I believe that the fear of terrorists entering the country is deeply entrenched and will not go away any time soon, as Jason said. As the commenters above said, our vetting process is not loose and Trump's extreme vetting idea makes it seem like our immigration policies are something similar to a "let any one in" policy.
I think that it is reasonable for people to have fear of terrorist immigrants in this case as this is such a horrific murder. However, it shouldn't be up to the point where we plan on discriminating a whole race/religion just because of a few people who happened to commit acts of terror. I think a reasonable solution would be to partner up with trustworthy countries who can help the United States perform background checks on immigrants, etc so that we can possibly stop such dangerous people from their homeland itself. At this point though, it seems like even with intense background checks, we could always miss someone who has had a clean record and decides to commit a crime when they get to another country. All we can do is keep what we have, possibly improving it a little more, but not up to the point where we are violating the rights of people.
It will be impossible to single out terrorists without demonstrating prejudice of some extent. I think that today's mass shooting in Texas is a perfect example of why Trump's extreme vetting ideas won't be successful enough — the shooter, Devin Kelley, was a white male from Texas. Sure, he posted a picture of a semi-automatic rifle on Facebook which, in hindsight, should have caused some red flags to go off. But posting photos of guns obviously doesn't mean that someone is going to commit a mass shooting. A Trump-driven extreme vetting program would only further fuel people's Islamophobia, and that is the opposite of what we need right now.
Terrorists are not only Muslims. There are people from every race that make the choice to commit horrible acts of terror. Trump recognizes that radical Muslims are a problem to the security of America, but his idea of a solution is flawed and unconstitutional. Blocking out immigrants from a certain country would be prejudiced, and there is not enough evidence that it would make a huge difference in preventing terrorism in America.
To address the last question, the number one thing that Americans should be concerned about is their rights. America was founded on the principle of a very limited government, and since then, I believe the government has gained too much power in terms of economic and social issues. National security is important, but it is something that can be upheld without infringing on the rights of the people.
Americans should be concerned with terrorism, but it should be within limits. Because of Trump's extreme vetting plan it makes it seem like the United States is discriminating against all Muslims. While the intentions may be to keep terrorists out, it is also affecting all other Muslims. Denying every other Muslim entry into the United States just because a small percentage of Muslims are terrorists isn't a good way to prevent the issue. If we go along with this line of thinking, why doesn't Trump ban people from every single country in the world from entering the United States. There's always going to be a small percentage of people in each country who are terrorists, including the United States, yet we still let everyone else enter the United States.
Post a Comment