I read the New Yorker article when it was published. The 60 Minutes piece may have been a rerun.
Our immigration policy has become so distorted since 9/11 and the rise of the border miltiamen. Certainly any Iraqi who has worked and/or fought with our troops and now wants to immigrate here should be given priority refugee treatment. These people are probably better educated and motivated than many of the Soviet refugees we correctly allowed here during the Carter and Reagan administrations. We also admitted under refugee status Cubans, Vietnamese and Hun people who also were on our side in their countries' civil wars. These Iraqis are freedom fighters who deserve our gratitude. 150,000 people would increase our population by 00.05%, hardly a heavy load. We should remember JFK's words, "Pay any price, bear any burden," for freedom. 150,000 Iraqis is a small price and not a burden.
G-d knows the U.S. can't afford to betray a struggling country or people who have helped our troops and our efforts. We have seen disastrous results in other theaters when America pulls out and leaves people behind. I think there is a fear or mistrust of anyone from the region and a belief that these people are missionaries who would just as soon do us harm as help us. However, there does not seem to be any justification. Therefore, with all possible security precautions - let them in - grant them temporary protected status or let them apply for asylum. Let them experience the American way of life, and to experience freedom so that they will not have to fear freedom and its influences. Let us not forget that even if the U.S. were to abandon these same people, who lifted their purple fingers to cast thier votes for change - if not for freedom from the past, we are and will be inexorable entangled in Iraq for years if not generations to come. These people could be very valuable in terms of translation, cultural knowledge, and perhaps as emissaries to secular and religious Iraqis planting seeds of comity between nations and peoples where seeds of mistrust from an American withdrawal will already have been sewn.
It is beyond comprehension that we have become such an amoral -- and immoral -- society that we turn our backs on those who have helped us. Shame! Shame! Shame! Absolutely, let everyone who helped us -- as translator, laborer, etc. -- into the country. Is it not those who sought refuge who have made this country great!
No brainer... identical to the Vietnamese relocation - 131,000 in six months - and I was there (We airlifted most to an unused army base in Ft. Smith Arkansas and under the sponsorship of various non-profits and churches sent them on to their new homes.) The base is still there and available. hint, hint. Best to you
The sides are, as President Wilson said over billiards, right and wrong.
In this case, if those who were actually helping us need to be vetted again, it is clear why the struggle over there is not going well. In any case, those whose lives will be personally endangered by infiltration are sure to do a better job than the homeland security group, who have a smaller personal stake.
There were very few "Reds" (back when Red was bad) who came in under the Ford program. Most Jihadis would stay to fight their local foes. This is particularly one group about which we need not worry over much.
The Statue of Liberty in our beloved harbor sheds a metallic tear when she hears of such a misguided decision by State, in refusing to admit those Iraqi citizens who risked life and limb, reputation and security, to come to the assistance of the American and coalition forces in Iraq.
Until the decision is reversed, after her metallic tears are shed, the Lady in the Harbor, as befits her immigrant status would be, perhaps could be heard to mutter: "Ces fonctionnaires aux department de l'etat sont foux!"
I read the Packard article in March and felt than as I do now: "shame on us". Do whatever is necessary to expedite the review process and quickly admit on a speciel quota basis as many of these people as we can before it's too late. Unfortunately, in this skill-challenged Administration that may prove more difficult than it should be.
If we don't let these people in, what in God's name is the message that we're sending to the world and -- in a more self-serving context -- to those whose help we might need in future conflicts? As the gentleman whose "soundbite" ended the 60 Minutes segment, said, "....this is a matter of morality." And the present administration's current policy is as immoral as it is painfully and obviously imprudent.
henry- thanks for adding me to your mailings.-- the problem is even more dificult than coverad by the new yorker, 60 minutes or your essay.-- for example- even if we admitted all, how do we extract them an d when? if we do who are left behind to run a 21st century nation( don't forget- the list includes md's, professors, enginers etc)-- and more- -i'd like to see that analysis
The Iraqis in question, that is. Have we betrayed them? Yes, we have, already. Will they suffer, or even die, if left behind? That’s impossible to say: so much depends on what the next Iraqi government wants to show the world. Of course, before there is a real “next Iraqi government” there probably will be a period, lasting a few months - or a few centuries – of totally anarchic chaos. In that case, thousand of Iraqis - of all persuasions, all ethnic groups, all faiths – will die. That’s the Middle East, for you! But please, let the Middle East remain in the Middle East:
It would be an act of sheer madness to bring 150,000 Iraqis into this country!
They may be our allies over there, but here they might not. They may find that their Islamic roots require action to reform our sinful Western society, or, if truly assimilating into American life, might invite the attentions of Al Qaida or other Islamist organizations and bring a new wave of terror here.
I have always supported our taking people in who are in trouble (the Vietnamese were a prime example), whether we were the cause of their distress or not, but these people – mostly Sunni former supporters of Saddam, I would suppose, are the trouble. Let them sort out Iraq in Iraq.
Bernard Lewis said America's friends suffer such as Shia who believed Bush 1 and Vietnamese plus others, while we roll over for enemies. The Iraqiis should be allowed to emigrate with the caveat that there some kind of clearance xand follow up instituted to eliminate and monitor potential terrorists.
One of my favorite quotes if from Bernard Lewis, that the US "is harmless as an enemy, treacherous as a friend" http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/20765 .
Today's NYT has an article on this subject.
One hopes that if the Surge fails there will be put into place quickly procedures to rescue 100,000 + as Gerry Ford did.
It's too soon to give up on the Surge, and as long as it has a chance, harsh as it may seem, emigration may not be facilitated.
Cortez defeated a huge Mexican army by burning his ships, so his soldiers knew they had to win -- and they did !!
We liberate a country from a murderous, thieving despot. We then hire its citizens at vastly superior wages to assist us in our efforts to stabilize the country. The working conditions, though dangerous, are better then many could ever hope for in the toppled regime, where unemployment averaged 50%. This is not forced labor, there is no abuse because of a workers sect or tribal affiliation. There are consequences to every decision made in life. There is no certainty that the ‘cooperating workers’ face death or any retribution when the US leaves or even that the insurgents will prevail. The days of America opening its arms to all comers are over. Sorry, thank you for your work, here is your last check, good bye, move on.
My Name is Henry Stern, President of New York Civic. Please feel free to comment on our articles, and give us your feedback. What you have to say is important to us.
the Iraqi problem is compounded by the danger of a Fifth Column in the post 9/11 world.
ReplyDeleteFirst we should never lie to them and of course treat them the way we would like to be treated
ReplyDeleteLet them in. Yes.
ReplyDeleteI read the New Yorker article when it was published. The 60 Minutes piece may have been a rerun.
Our immigration policy has become so distorted since 9/11 and the rise of the border miltiamen. Certainly any Iraqi who has worked and/or fought with our troops and now wants to immigrate here should be given priority refugee treatment. These people are probably better educated and motivated than many of the Soviet refugees we correctly allowed here during the Carter and Reagan administrations. We also admitted under refugee status Cubans, Vietnamese and Hun people who also were on our side in their countries' civil wars. These Iraqis are freedom fighters who deserve our gratitude. 150,000 people would increase our population by 00.05%, hardly a heavy load. We should remember JFK's words, "Pay any price, bear any burden," for freedom. 150,000 Iraqis is a small price and not a burden.
G-d knows the U.S. can't afford to betray a struggling country or people who have helped our troops and our efforts. We have seen disastrous results in other theaters when America pulls out and leaves people behind. I think there is a fear or mistrust of anyone from the region and a belief that these people are missionaries who would just as soon do us harm as help us. However, there does not seem to be any justification. Therefore, with all possible security precautions - let them in - grant them temporary protected status or let them apply for asylum. Let them experience the American way of life, and to experience freedom so that they will not have to fear freedom and its influences. Let us not forget that even if the U.S. were to abandon these same people, who lifted their purple fingers to cast thier votes for change - if not for freedom from the past, we are and will be inexorable entangled in Iraq for years if not generations to come. These people could be very valuable in terms of translation, cultural knowledge, and perhaps as emissaries to secular and religious Iraqis planting seeds of comity between nations and peoples where seeds of mistrust from an American withdrawal will already have been sewn.
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
It is beyond comprehension that we have become such an amoral -- and immoral -- society that we turn our backs on those who have helped us. Shame! Shame! Shame!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, let everyone who helped us -- as translator, laborer, etc. -- into the country. Is it not those who sought refuge who have made this country great!
I have a long memory. Remember your friends, or you won't have friends.
ReplyDeleteNo brainer... identical to the Vietnamese relocation - 131,000 in six months - and I was there (We airlifted most to an unused army base in Ft. Smith Arkansas and under the sponsorship of various non-profits and churches sent them on to their new homes.) The base is still there and available. hint, hint. Best to you
ReplyDeleteThe sides are, as President Wilson said over billiards, right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, if those who were actually helping us need to be vetted again, it is clear why the struggle over there is not going well.
In any case, those whose lives will be personally endangered by infiltration are sure to do a better job than the homeland security group, who have a smaller personal stake.
There were very few "Reds" (back when Red was bad) who came in under the Ford program. Most Jihadis would stay to fight their local foes. This is particularly one group about which we need not worry over much.
Let them in...or take the Statue of Liberty down.
ReplyDeleteThe Statue of Liberty in our beloved harbor sheds a metallic tear when she hears of such a misguided decision by State, in refusing to admit those Iraqi citizens who risked life and limb, reputation and security, to come to the assistance of the American and coalition forces in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteUntil the decision is reversed, after her metallic tears are shed, the Lady in the Harbor, as befits her immigrant status would be, perhaps could be heard to mutter: "Ces fonctionnaires aux department de l'etat sont foux!"
I read the Packard article in March and felt than as I do now: "shame on us". Do whatever is necessary to expedite the review process and quickly admit on a speciel quota basis as many of these people as we can before it's too late. Unfortunately, in this skill-challenged Administration that may prove more difficult than it should be.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't let these people in, what in God's name is the message that we're sending to the world and -- in a more self-serving context -- to those whose help we might need in future conflicts? As the gentleman whose "soundbite" ended the 60 Minutes segment, said, "....this is a matter of morality." And the present administration's current policy is as immoral as it is painfully and obviously imprudent.
ReplyDeletehenry- thanks for adding me to your mailings.-- the problem is even more dificult than coverad by the new yorker, 60 minutes or your essay.-- for example- even if we admitted all, how do we extract them an d when? if we do who are left behind to run a 21st century nation( don't forget- the list includes md's, professors, enginers etc)-- and more- -i'd like to see that analysis
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe Iraqis in question, that is. Have we betrayed them? Yes, we have, already. Will they suffer, or even die, if left behind? That’s impossible to say: so much depends on what the next Iraqi government wants to show the world. Of course, before there is a real “next Iraqi government” there probably will be a period, lasting a few months - or a few centuries – of totally anarchic chaos. In that case, thousand of Iraqis - of all persuasions, all ethnic groups, all faiths – will die. That’s the Middle East, for you! But please, let the Middle East remain in the Middle East:
ReplyDeleteIt would be an act of sheer madness to bring 150,000 Iraqis into this country!
They may be our allies over there, but here they might not. They may find that their Islamic roots require action to reform our sinful Western society, or, if truly assimilating into American life, might invite the attentions of Al Qaida or other Islamist organizations and bring a new wave of terror here.
I have always supported our taking people in who are in trouble (the Vietnamese were a prime example), whether we were the cause of their distress or not, but these people – mostly Sunni former supporters of Saddam, I would suppose, are the trouble. Let them sort out Iraq in Iraq.
Bernard Lewis said America's friends suffer such as Shia who believed Bush 1 and Vietnamese plus others, while we roll over for enemies. The Iraqiis should be allowed to emigrate with the caveat that there some kind of clearance xand follow up instituted to eliminate and monitor potential terrorists.
ReplyDeleteYou make a profound point.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite quotes if from Bernard Lewis, that the US "is harmless as an enemy, treacherous as a friend" http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/20765 .
Today's NYT has an article on this subject.
One hopes that if the Surge fails there will be put into place quickly procedures to rescue 100,000 + as Gerry Ford did.
It's too soon to give up on the Surge, and as long as it has a chance, harsh as it may seem, emigration may not be facilitated.
Cortez defeated a huge Mexican army by burning his ships, so his soldiers knew they had to win -- and they did !!
I am outraged at the position taken by the Bush Administration and Congress; but then, I'm so disillusioned with US politics... Let them in!
ReplyDeleteWe liberate a country from a murderous, thieving despot. We then hire its citizens at vastly superior wages to assist us in our efforts to stabilize the country. The working conditions, though dangerous, are better then many could ever hope for in the toppled regime, where unemployment averaged 50%. This is not forced labor, there is no abuse because of a workers sect or tribal affiliation. There are consequences to every decision made in life. There is no certainty that the ‘cooperating workers’ face death or any retribution when the US leaves or even that the insurgents will prevail. The days of America opening its arms to all comers are over. Sorry, thank you for your work, here is your last check, good bye, move on.
ReplyDelete