Sunday, January 29, 2017

None is too many ... again

The first concentration camp became operational in 1937. At least three more were opened for business over the next two years. If Germany had stayed within its own borders, then the arrest, detention and subsequent extermination of Jews would have been a domestic issue of no concern to the international community.

We know this is true because in the years leading up to WWII, the world community was given countless warnings, witnessed the abominable treatment of Jews and had ample time and opportunity to step up. With a few exceptions, the international community's answer was to close the doors to Jewish immigration.

For those who are willing to give Trump a pass on his EO because it's America's business:
NO. This is what they meant about 'never again' and 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' This... this is the time when those sayings are relevant.

For those who say not to get hysterical because it's 'temporary':
NO. It was also sudden and without warning... an election promise to handle an issue is not the same as making a proclamation and having people's lives stand still.

For those who say that Obama picked the countries and Trump just followed through:
NO. I know he wants to prove he has yuge hands, but a sweeping ban (albeit and lately clarified) is not reasoned and not helpful to the security of your nation. While I don't believe it will create more terrorists (those so inclined need no excuses) I believe those already inclined will now have more 'justification' and 'rationalization' for their insanity and that might end up in escalation.

For those who say that it isn't actually a #MuslimBan because there are other religions affected:
NO. You know who he meant. It doesn't matter if you feel Trudeau and Obama unfairly excluded Christians. This should make you even more mad because Christians are still affected.

For those of you who say they're savages who brought it on themselves:
NO. The people affected by this have been vetted, are residents, hold green cards, have family. I live within walking distance of three mosques so please don't tell me I'm being naïve.

For those who say that Saudi Arabia and its ilk take in no refugees:
YES and is that who you aspire to be?

For those of you saying that it's only right to want to secure your borders:
YES. But this wasn't the way to go. For sure put a temporary halt to new refugee claims, rethink the vetting system, do what you need to do to feel safe--- but don't say while people are awaiting their flights, or have already boarded their planes, or have gone on vacation for a couple of weeks ... they won't be welcomed in when they land. That's just insanity.

We all want a safe world. Making it unsafe and unsettling for some of its most vulnerable populations is never going to be ok with me.

For those of you who say condemnation of Trump is long do you wait before you call out a tyrant?



Anonymous said...

muslims can stay in muslim countries. islam is a pox on humanity.

Canadianna said...

Brave comment, anonymous.
Whatever you think of Islam, its followers are people. In Canada, we treat all people with respect . . . even those with kinda heinous opinions.

Anonymous said...

Happy to see you blogging again! I agree with your sentiments. I don't have an issue with strict security screening of all immigrants, refugees and even visitors from designated countries in order to protect our national security, but Trump's policy is clearly more than is necessary to protect the national interest and is anti-Islam. While Anonymous and (likely his) fellow travellers enjoy that type of rhetoric, it does our party no good to encourage it as it only breeds further intolerance. Tone matters. Pleased with responses from Chong and O'Toole. As much as I like Bernier's platform, wasn't thrilled with his response. I trust you are a signed up member - the CPC needs your perspective in this race!

Keep blogging!

- "Anonymous 2"

ericfromnewyork said...

The specific countries affected are ones in which there is no functioning trustworthy indigenous government security apparatus against which to compare the documents and identities of aspiring entrants. This is a loophole which will be exploited if left unaddressed.
Comparisons to the Nationalist Socialist party agenda in mid-twentieth century Europe are not merely grossly illogical and inapplicable, they are also obscene and offensive.

Canadianna said...

Hi Anonymous 2 - no political affiliation. Free to be me. If they hired me, I'd take it lol

Eric, the comparison might bother you, but I'm looking from the outside. There is nothing grossly illogical about questioning the worldview of our leaders. Trump has surrounded himself with notorious bigots. To suggest that their influence wasn't in full force this weekend is just silly. I don't disagree with a vetting process, a hardy one. I'm a little more than concerned that my own government wants to throw open the door willy-nilly, but if you consider what happened -- that by sudden and immediately effective edict, entry into the USA even by friendlies of these countries, was halted. They were either removed from flights before departure or have been detained upon landing --- all without Homeland Security even be aware that such an order had been signed, let alone what was in it. THAT is dictatorial. THAT is the mark of a furtive and ham-fisted leader... it is the beginning of tyranny if you let it be. As your dear neighbour, I would be remiss if I just let this pass by without comment -- and frankly, as your neighbour, someone who is affected by your president's policies and actions, I have an interest in how he governs.
I hate Trump. I never would have voted for him. This is one election if I'd have been an American, I would have sat out...and it's because of people like me, for whom BOTH candidates were exceptionally distasteful, that Trump managed to win. Once he did, I was of the mind, let him PROVE himself to be as horrible as we expect before I judge. It took about a week. There is no grace period. He is a terrible man, surrounded by terrible people, enabled by those who fear losing their jobs or losing face. I have nothing to lose. I will not pretend he is a rational man or that what he did this weekend had any semblance of sanity.

Sorry Eric, if it walks like a duck ....

Miles Lunn said...

Fully concur here. I am appalled at Donald Trump's behavior and feel far too many Conservatives are turning a blind eye simply because he is the Republican. As a small c conservative, Donald Trump is not one, he is a racist, protectionist, and narcissist. Conservatives believe in the rule of law and believe in making good evidenced decisions. Conservatives also believe in freedom and limited government, not taking away people's rights. I hope the next Conservative leader does not follow Trump's lead.

Anonymous said...

Good grief.
The law he used was written in 1952 and has been used many times, including by Obama and Carter.
How about getting some facts straight before starting the hysteria?

What a complete pantload.

Canadianna said...

Agreed, Miles. Conservatives have to make sure that after this, we can take back the 'c' word and be proud of it.

Anonymous 3 -- Hysterical is suddenly and without warning preventing people who've lived and worked in your country for years from coming back...while some of them were en route.

Hysterical is, suddenly and without warning ---- and without informing many of your highest ranking officials -- detaining people, even permanent residents, based on no real or immediate threat.

Hysterical is acting without forethought or reason... that would be what Trump did.
The rest of us are reacting to an arbitrary and irrational move by the man now in the position of 'leader of the free world'.

The law might have been on the books for years, but no reasoned man would have implemented it in this manner. Besides, in 1952 we'd never been to space, the Beatles were children, the Korean war was still on, most people didn't have televisions yet, civil rights? Um no. You want to go back to 1952?

Miles Lunn said...

Had I been an American, I actually would have gone for Hillary Clinton, but to keep her in check, would have voted GOP for congress and senate. While most nowadays vote straight tickets, ticket splitting used to be common. That way if for your chosen party they have an awful choice in anyone if the three, you can still vote them for the other two as a check. In Canada by contrast we don't have that option. Also there was the Libertarians as well as Evan McMullin in the states he was on seemed like a good choice and I was hoping he would win Utah (I would have voted for him not Clinton had I lived in Utah). For the GOP, I think John Kasich was the best choice although it seems in both parties whomever is most extreme gets the most support. I suspect the Democrats after Clinton winning will swing further left and the next leader will be more in line with Bernie Sanders who ironically due to his trade policies probably could have held the Rust Belt and thus won. Although a small c conservative, I am a very moderate one and prefer good policy over ideology.

Canadianna said...

I was hoping for McMullin in Utah too. I'd have preferred Rubio overall, but Trump's stupid childish name calling and the way each of the former nominees has responded has really ruined the GOP leadership field for a generation. Not that it matters much given what little the Democrats have to offer.

I think Biden should have run. He would have won. Hillary created the perfect storm for Trump to win. She was just that unlikeable, that tainted, that tied to the establishment. But that's the Democrats. It was her turn and she was gonna take it, damn the consequences.

Looking forward, I think what's going to happen is you're going to get a Tea Party in reverse. It'll be people with more core traditional republican ideas without all the Alt-Right bs. It'll divide the party again and that's what it needs. Any Democrat, anyone, is better than Trump.

Anonymous said...

Without warning?
You mean you missed the entire election campaign?

Should Trump say we'll give you six months to get as many terrorists into the country, then we're implementing a 90 ban?

No forethought or reason?
Seems that is also wrong, they spent lots of time on it, they just didn't announce it until it was going into effect, see the above comment about warning.

Hysterical is buying into the hysterical media bullshit.

As for the Beatles and your other gibberish...what has that go to do with it?
Do laws have 'best before' dates?

Again, why not go with facts instead of buying into the media nonsense?

Canadianna said...

You're missing the entire point... it isn't the ban, it's how it unfolded. Even Homeland Security didn't know about it as it played out on TV. It affected people who HAD been vetted and who have legitimate business in the US. There was nothing in the election campaign that could have prepared anyone for how this was rolled out. It was chaos and terrible. Many people, my self included, are not against a moratorium on immigration or refugees from whatever countries that any government believes is in its nation's interest. That's not what happened here.

Yes btw, some laws DO have best before dates. And some laws need to be used in the way they were intended, not willy-nilly as a TV spot.

By treating Green Card holders and permanent residents in such a cavalier manner, Trump actually put his own citizens abroad at risk for retaliation. What don't you understand? This isn't about legitimate concern for some threat against the US. This was a failed attempt at strong leadership. Failed, because it affected many people it shouldn't have and it was without the knowledge and input of many of the very people who would have to implement and oversee it. It isn't the media or protests that made it fail. It failed because it was extreme. It failed because it was rushed. The fact that for days it had to be clarified and literally no one knew what exactly it meant, means it failed.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I don't see you presenting any 'facts' to support your arguments.