Controlling migration? both sides wrong

By Mark Scheinbaum

MIAMI (Feb. 3 The global crisis of migration, be it from Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Mexico or Haiti does not lend itself to simplistic or jingoistic solutions. In the current debate played out in the White House, international air terminals and world capitals, both major sides are wrong.

Wrong about what?

Wrong about using for political gain the plight of legitimate immigrants:  those seeking political asylum, or those simply relocating to another land to be with relatives or seek (or merely legally accept) new career opportunities.

A knee-jerk response to tightened immigration rules or transit rules belies similar and frequent actions by many governments in modern times. Americans looked the other way when U.S. citizens of Japanese heritage were put in detention camps during World War II; Rejected by Cuba and able to see the lights of Miami, many of the Jews aboard the steamship St. Louis were returned to Europe to face Nazi furnaces;  Saudi visitors taking pilot lessons but wanting to know more about taking off and flying but not landing, were allowed to survive and prosper in a Delray Beach, Florida motel before killing 3,000 workers in the World Trade Center because loosely enforced rules, and lax regulators were never up to speed on issues of national security. There is lots of blame to go around. But at this late date in an ongoing religious war against the United States, Western Culture and “non-believers” it is a tough sell and a bit intellectually dishonest to claim  that President Trump acted too soon in his term to tighten the borders.

Half of the nation agrees with him.  For sure, the folks in Ulster will tell you no government and no religion has cornered the market in hatred, violence, and blatant discrimination against profiled people.

But, moving on to an administration which thinks walls and Tweets are keys to orderly border control, it is a pretty lousy public relations move to say “only 109” people were detained when thousands were confused and inconvenienced, thousands of others frightened about their immigration status, and teachers, grandmas, and even a five-year-old separated from parents were culled from lines for scrutiny never previously sought for folks with legal documents.

Green card dilemma
What the Trump administration has missed is that the folks who already have temporary status and await a final Green Card, and those with a Green Card and work permits, have often spent thousands of dollars they needed for basic comforts to play by the rules. If they leave the USA in the first five or six months, even to see family members—and with rare and difficult exceptions—the immigration “clock” starts all over for their legal waiting periods.

Perhaps a year or 18 months later they receive documents to stay in the USA which must be renewed in another two years. This means more paperwork, criminal background checks, and often legal fees.

No one on TV mentioned that many of the same people now caught in a “tightened” vetting process from at least seven countries (identified by the Obama Administration) also had to undergo expensive physical exams offered only by specially certified Homeland Security-approved physicians.

Oh, one more thing before we suddenly “extremely” harass the wrong people– to get that Green Card you also had to report to Homeland Security for a “Biometric” examination in which you are photographed, measured, weighed and interviewed to make sure you are who you said you were and you are who you say you are, and you still are the person you are. Get it? Confused? Join the club.

Let’s review:  if you are shocked that populist and/or egotistical leaders in the U.K., USA, Germany, Hungary, Austria, or Venezuela have tightened their borders, get organized to defeat the politicians in the next round of elections. As long as they stay within an inch of juridical and administrative law it is doubtful the Courts are going to change immigration policy on appeal.

On the other hand, if you think that throwing a net over arrival gates from seven or 70 nations without well- planned differentiation of legal transients and residents versus undocumented or improperly documented passengers, you are deluding yourselves and playing a racist and discriminatory game.

Having now annoyed both sides of the argument, my caveat—having seen the killing fields of Bosnia in person in places such as Tuzla and Brcko—the larger societal danger of “getting it wrong” sits with government officials, not the airport protestors. Lax security kills people. A lax civil and human rights guarantee kills nations and total populations along with their hopes and dreams.

In his “The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House,” author John F. Harris relates the unanticipated confrontation between Noble laureate and Holocaust survivor, the late Elie Wiesel and President Clinton at the 1993 dedication of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.  Talking about why he, as a Jew, was outraged at Serbian-Christian genocide against Moslems, Wiesel turned during his remarks and looked Clinton in the eye with the remarks described below. These remarks probably changed U.S. reluctance to put troops on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina:

‘“Mr. President, I must tell you something. I have been in the former Yugoslavia last fall. I cannot sleep since what I have seen. As a Jew I am saying that we must do something to stop the bloodshed in that country. People fight each other and children die. Why? Something, anything must be done. ‘Clinton sat back in his chair with a noticeable jolt. The crowd applauded heartily, but the president clapped just once or twice, weakly.”’

Those holding signs of protest at airports perhaps need to heed the sometimes accurate advice of film maker Michael Moore and start running for public office. My guess is that Members of Congress elected from districts where first generation immigrants spoke Polish, Spanish, Yiddish, Italian, or Vietnamese have had a greater and more lasting impact on immigration rules than Executive Orders.

Those holding the ceremonial pens over the next Executive Order should just think about Elie Wiesel.

Frequent contributor Mark Scheinbaum is a political scientist and former UPI newsman who is managing director of Shearson Financial Services LLC, in Boca Raton, FL. His opinions are his own.