Bishop Statement on Immigration Executive Order
WASHINGTON – Following the signing of President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:
CLICK HERE for video
“I am relieved to know that these family separation issues are being addressed. I stand ready to pass legislation that will enhance border security and give due respect to the family unit. Security and compassion are not mutually exclusive. These problems stemmed from legal uncertainly. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the ongoing effort to solve this problem the right way.”
NOTE: Rep. Bishop has submitted language included in Rep. Goodlatte’s Securing America’s Future Act (H. R. 4760) and the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018 (H.R. 6136). The Bishop provision removes impediments to the Border Patrol as they defend our borders and execute certain search and rescue operations. These search and rescue operations often take place when immigrants find themselves stranded in desert borderlands without proper provisions like food and water.
=======================
What Happened? Assessing the Singapore Summit
by Mel Gurtov
“Peace and prosperity,” “lasting and stable peace,” “peace regime,” “denuclearization,” “new US-DPRK relations”—these fine words and phrases dominate the joint statement of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un. Yet it’s difficult to describe in a concrete way what they agreed to actually do. The joint statement stands as one of hope, nothing more, similar to the tone of the Pyongyang Declaration between Kim Jong-un and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in. The Trump-Kim statement has nothing of substance to say about denuclearization, a Korean peninsula at peace, normalization of US-North Korea relations, economic or military incentives, verification of promises, and schedules for implementation.
Whatever substantive agreements were reached took place between Trump and Kim alone, without any top advisers. And here’s where the trouble begins: the contrary claims that are bound to emerge about who promised what. Already, North Korean state media are saying that Trump promised to ease sanctions, whereas Trump insisted that sanctions will continue. Trump said US military exercises will be suspended, but surely many kinds of small-scale joint exercises with South Korea’s military will go on. And what about Kim’s promise of denuclearization? Does it apply to US nuclear-capable ships and planes in East Asia that comprise extended deterrence? Will “denuclearization” mean anything at all?
The joint statement is thus fair game for critics of Trump, myself included. Yet I have to acknowledge that for all the weaknesses not only of the statement but also of Trump’s entire approach to dealing with North Korea—the sanctions, the threats, the boasts, the ignoring of experts, the false claims about previous administrations’ policies, the insensitivity to South Korean and Japanese interests—in the end we are better off having had the summit than not. Surely no one wants a return to trading threats and insults, with use of a nuclear weapon a possibility.
Still, the summit was more photo-op than peace building project. Some observers believe, with good reason, that Kim Jong-un outfoxed Trump—elevating North Korea’s international standing, obtaining a suspension of US military exercises, and gaining sanctions relief from China in exchange for a repetition of previous North Korean promises to denuclearize. Trump can respond that getting to denuclearization is a lengthy “process”—a word he used quite a bit recently, and certainly not one John Bolton likes. But the process should have preceded the summit, with diplomatic engagement paving the way to agreement on step-by-step de-escalation of tensions and time points for establishing diplomatic relations and reducing nuclear weapons in a verifiable way.
Now Trump must, and fairly soon, show that his “terrific relationship” with Kim is paying off, not just on the nuclear issue but also with regard to improved North-South Korea relations, North Korea’s missiles and cyber war capabilities, and repression of human-rights. Otherwise, his gamble will have failed and he will look like a fool for having tried. As he acknowledged after the summit, “I think he’s [Kim] going to do these things. I may be wrong. I mean, I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey, I was wrong.’ I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.” Yes, he will.
Trump has already created yet another problem: his effusive praise of Kim Jong-un. Ignoring the North Korea gulag and the Stalinist character of Kim’s regime, Trump has actually said (twice) that Kim “loves his people,” assured us that Kim is “very honorable,” and expressed appreciation for the difficult job Kim has had maintaining order in his society. Such extraordinarily ignorant and politically explosive comments speak to Trump’s fascination with dictators and envy (previously expressed about Putin and Xi Jinping) for their iron-fisted rule. Too bad he can’t find equally laudable words for democratic leaders.
Thus, Donald Trump’s effort to create a diplomatic triumph that might divert attention from the Russia investigation may implode early. He has the monumental job of convincing Americans, including many in his party, that the Singapore summit solved the problem of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and took the measure of a dictator. His undeserved reputation as a deal maker is about to be sorely tested.
--end--
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University.
=====================
Happy Fathers Day?
by Wim Laven
The hypocrisy of American Values was front and center for Fathers Day in 2018. The U.S. government has taken at least 2,000 children from their parents since Donald Trump’s administration implemented policy changes about six weeks ago. Trump has incorrectly claimed that this is the fault of Democrats, but it is a clear result of his “no tolerance” policy. But it isn’t clear what they are refusing to tolerate; many of those being victimized have gone through completely legal requests for asylum. The U.S. has a history of breaking up families; during slavery children would be sold with no regard for family units and the Indian Child Welfare Act was used to destroy Native American populations for more than 100 years by removing children from their families.
One wouldn’t think it a political issue. Every living First Lady condemns separating immigrant children from their parents. But Congressional Republicans like Barry Loudermilk are happy to do the lying for Trump and try to point the finger in the other direction: “Where was the outrage of the documented abuses at the border during the Obama administration? Looks like the Democrats are being hypocritical here!”Loudermilk cannot point to the Obama administration snatching thousands of children from their parents but he can attempt a misdirect. Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!
One also wouldn’t have thought the U.S. would pull out of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, but we did, or that 3000 lies later his approval ratings of 45 percent would be tied for highest of his presidency, but they are, and time will tell whether or not people accept “tender age shelters” as being anything but cruel and unusual punishment.
It is important to be clear about the roots of the problem, and the issues at hand. Are the children being held hostage in an effort to build the wall that Mexico definitely will not pay for?
In my field of conflict transformation we focus on just, humane, and nonviolent problem-solving. Clearly Trump and his team are extremely limited in this regard. The coercive approach of hostage-taking damages relationships and increases opportunity costs. This cruelty, intended to function as a deterrent, has received broad condemnation from the United Nations to the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Psychological Association. Collaborative, win-win solutions, while more time consuming and harder to negotiate, are the preferred goal of diplomacy because they are more durable, have greater follow through, generate far less blowback, and are the easiest to enforce. Ignoring human rights, on the other hand, is decidedly lose-lose.
Are asylum seekers breaking the law? Not when they properly submit and identify themselves, but have we made that process achievable? Many families make the appropriate steps and are still broken up! We need to call the liars out—all of them. Puppets like Loudermilk are lying: Obama was heavily criticized for family detention centers (1), and what Trump is doing is much different and much worse(2). Hacks in the White House or on Fox News are lying when they say there are laws that require breaking up family units “they’ve been around a long time,” but no such law exists.
We can learn much from the American Psychological Association’s statement:
“The administration’s policy of separating children from their families as they attempt to cross into the United States without documentation is not only needless and cruel, it threatens the mental and physical health of both the children and their caregivers. Psychological research shows that immigrants experience unique stressors related to the conditions that led them to flee their home countries in the first place.”
Cases illustrate this, including the death of Marco Antonio Muñoz. This father crossed the Rio Grande with his wife and 3-year-old son on May 12 near the tiny town of Granjeno, Texas, where they were taken into custody, moved to a processing station in nearby McAllen, and were denied asylum. After being separated from his family Marco died—a “suicide in custody.” Should we treat families seeking asylum differently than families trying to illegally immigrate? What was the Muñoz family fleeing, and does it matter? Do we want to force families to decide between violence at home or potentially being torn apart at the U.S. border?
The more important questions reflect values. On Fathers Day I reflected on the man who taught me love, compassion, charity, and forgiveness. “Build bigger tables not bigger fences” is tidy on a bumper sticker, our Statue of Liberty reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and I was taught these values. My father was a doctor, he lived in service to others. I learned by watching him. He treated everyone with respect and dignity. He served just like his father before him. It didn’t matter that father and grandpa were Democrat and Republican, because compassion, love, and charity weren’t political positions. I would take it further. The reason people seek asylum in the U.S., the reason families undergo the tremendous costs and risks with trying to start new lives, is that the U.S. has declared itself a melting pot where diversity is a strength. That proposition used to mean something.
Our communities are really suffering, and it is more than the medical ailments that my father used to treat. He took me to the homeless shelter with him, and I’ve not forgotten the lessons. Being homeless is hard on its own, being sick doesn’t make it any easier. Leaving your home for a better life, as a refugee, seeking asylum, fleeing violence, whatever the reason… I’ve never heard it told as an easy story. The leastwe can do is keep families together in the process. The hypocrisy has to stop; we say we care about families and values, now we’ve got to protect them. I cannot bear to imagine the consequences of allowing this persist.
Donald Trump manufactured this crisis and he could put a stop to it at any time. We need to be clear about both sets of issues in responding to this disaster. The people on both sides of the aisle need to declare that this is no place for coercive politics; asking for ransom and holding children hostage is unconscionable and will not be tolerated. Give Trump notice: we do not resort to childish bullying and terrorist tactics. We also need to be clear that we take human rights seriously. The ugly support that Trump has received for this unthinkable and entirely unnecessary cruelty is too much. Anyone who claims to care about families or honoring fathers cannot allow fathers to be pushed to heartbroken suicide, the time to speak up was yesterday.
~~~~~~~~
Wim Laven, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a doctoral candidate in International Conflict Management at Kennesaw State University, he teaches courses in political science and conflict resolution, and is on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association.
