On Saturday, Gossips reported about an executive order, signed on January 25, bearing the title "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," which expanded the definition of "removable alien." Today, the Register-Star reports an incident that shows how that executive order is playing out here in Hudson: "Immigration officials detain 3 men in Hudson, defense attorney says." Each of the three men had, in separate incidents, been charged but not convicted of driving while intoxicated.
Attorney Michael Howard, who represented two of the men, one privately and the other through the Public Defender's Office, is quoted in the article as saying, "Due process requires that you have some sort of conviction. Now, they're saying you just might have to have committed a crime. . . . That's a huge, huge problem. This is a catastrophic shift in immigration policy. So while we talk about executive orders . . . banning Muslim entry, in our little community, we have tons and tons of agricultural workers and restaurant workers, and all those people are subject to deportation."
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
This means that a false arrest would merit detention, whatever that actually is. Does it mean time in the County jail before you get your hearing? That's pretty scary if you haven't done anything wrong! Hey, it's scary if you're just minding your own business. It's truly menacing.
ReplyDeleteBut this "banning Muslim entry" trope is irresponsible, and must stop.
Leaving aside that they're the same countries flagged by President Obama and the previous Congress, if these countries represent 15% of the world's Muslims, then the EO does not constitute a "Muslim ban."
But the phrase is useful because it's incendiary. It's intended to excite an already vulnerable and ill-informed segment of our society (and no, I'm NOT talking about American Muslims).
The phrase "banning Muslim entry" is sheer invidiousness, the shameful pay-off measured in political advantages. To my mind, that's menacing too.