Day: June 19, 2018
Less heat, more light
@JonEHecht tweeted yesterday:
Kelly: We need to do it for security, but the kids will be fine, don’t worry.
Trump: We’re only doing this cause Democrats made us do it.
Sessions: The Bible told us to do it.
Miller: Hell yeah we’re doing it.
Nielsen: We’re not doing it! Fake news!
The Administration has dug a deep hole for itself since early spring by separating “unlawful” immigrant children from their parents. It appears to be doing this not only for people who cross the border illegally, but also for those who present themselves to border officials seeking asylum, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to their homelands. The above justifications, while not quotes, are reflections of what different Administration officials have said to justify a policy most of the US views as inhumane and unjustified, even if a Republican plurality supports it.
The underlying political purpose is all to clear: President Trump is using the separation and detention of children as leverage to get Congress to pass an immigration bill that is consonant with his priorities: funding for the border wall, an end to family reunification (he calls that “chain migration,” aka what his wife did to get her parents into the US), and replacement of the visa lottery (which ensures diverse immigrants) with a new system of “merit-based” (i.e. as white as possible) immigration. These changes are unlikely to pass before the November election, but if they don’t the Administration will use immigration issues to mobilize turnout of its increasingly loyal base.
There is room for lots of debate on immigration, which has always been a sensitive issue in the US and elsewhere. But it is important to distinguish between those who come illegally into the US and those who come seeking refuge, either as refugees or asylum-seekers. Neither are unlawful immigrants: they are people seeking to avail themselves of humanitarian provisions in US and international law. There are also remarkably few of them who make it to the US. This year we may not take in more than half the 45,000 refugees that the Administration has set as a ceiling. This is a small fraction of the about 1 million legal immigrants to US admits yearly.
I know a number of Syrian asylum seekers who have been here for years. While their cases have not yet been adjudicated, let there be no doubt: each of them would be at risk if forced to return to Bashar al Assad’s Syria. The defected diplomats and the leaders of early non-violent demonstrations for democracy in Syria would be obvious targets for persecution. The day may come when they can return, but only to a Syria where democracy and rule of law have replaced the brutality of a cruel and unforgiving personal dictatorship. There is no sign of that on the horizon.
In the meanwhile, my Syrian friends and many others who are admitted as refugees or seek asylum in the US are benefiting our country enormously: they help us all to understand what is going on abroad, they work hard to support their families once they get work permits, they pay their taxes, and they enrich our cultural and social life. They are people trying to survive a period of exile that will surely last longer than they would like, but that redounds to our benefit.
The bigger immigration issue concerns people who cross the border illegally, often for economic reasons. I understand people who worry about that, but the number of unauthorized people living in the US has declined since the beginning of the Obama Administration (which coincided with the depths of the financial-crisis induced recession). And they are not responsible for a disproportionate share of crimes, which are committed more often by those born in the US. To talk of them as “infesting” the US, as the President did today, is an effort to mobilize the Republican base, not an effort to encourage a reasonable approach to a difficult issue. Immigration needs less heat and more light.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Funding foreign policy
I’ve decided to crib today. Here is the American Foreign Service Association testimony on State and USAID funding prepared for the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Committee on Appropriations of the the United States Senate. Read it to see why I would rely on others so unashamedly:
If there is one thing that unites Americans, it is support for maintaining our country’s global
leadership role. In fact, polls consistently show that 9 in 10 Americans support strong U.S.
global leadership. Such leadership is unthinkable without a strong professional Foreign Service
deployed around the world protecting and defending America’s people, interests, and values.
Each day, American leadership is being challenged anew by rivals who hope to out-compete us
and adversaries who want to see us fail. We cannot let that happen. If the United States retreats,
we leave a vacuum that will be filled by others who do not share our values or interests.
Walking that back–reclaiming American global leadership, once lost–would be a daunting and
uncertain task, in short, a grave risk we should not take.
The United States has enjoyed a position of unprecedented global leadership in our lifetimes. This
leadership was built on a foundation of military might, economic primacy, good governance,
tremendous cultural appeal–and the diplomatic prowess to channel all that power, hard and soft, into global leadership that has kept us safe and prosperous at home. For a tiny percentage of the overall budget, the Foreign Service builds the relationships that get America’s business in the world done and keeps threats at bay, whether forming alliances to combat terrorism, protect our
borders, or open markets.
The President makes the case clearly in the 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS): “The United
States faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats that have
intensified in recent years.” The NSS goes on to conclude that the United States “must upgrade
our diplomatic capabilities to compete in the current environment.” Despite the acknowledgement of the heightened threats our country faces and the recognition of the need for upgraded diplomatic capability to prevail in this environment, the 2019 State/USAID budget request proposes cutting the State Department by 28 percent. Such a drastic cut would amount to a voluntary retreat from the world stage and a diminution of American global influence.
AFSA has consistently made the case that maintaining robust diplomatic capability is vital to preserving the global leadership role Americans overwhelmingly support. Congressional
appropriators agreed and rejected plans to slash the 2018 State/USAID budget. AFSA is extremely grateful for those expressions of support from members of Congress and we are encouraged that both chamber’s FY19 302(b) allocations also reject deep cuts and restore funding to previous year’s levels. We would like to see these funding allocations upheld throughout the budget bill’s markup and possible passage into law. With all the threats facing our country, now is not the time to abandon the field and forfeit the game to our adversaries.
Despite the rejection of deep cuts to the State Department’s overall budget, State’s Congressional
Budget Justifications for the fiscal years 2008-2016/2017 show that spending on core diplomatic
capability, i.e., the reporting, analysis, and advocacy our diplomats perform overseas, has declined over the last decade. If we compare FY2008, the last full year of the Bush 43 Administration, to FY2016 and FY2017, the decline in funding is significant—from one dollar in 2008 to just 77 cents in 2016 and 2017, in non-inflation adjusted terms. This erosion of America’s core diplomatic capability must be reversed to avoid ceding America’s global leadership role to rising powers, such as China (which increased spending on diplomacy by 40% over the past five years, while ours decreased by 33 percent, from $7.4 billion in 2013 to $4.9 in 2018.)
Congress can begin to shore up underfunded core diplomatic capability by first looking at increasing the deployment of our diplomats abroad. The State Department has taken steps to free
up talented mid-level officers who had been in Washington roles supporting the many special
envoys that had proliferated in the Department in recent years. Now, it’s time to shift those officers and positions back out to the field where they can be most effective and where they can
fulfill the Department’s mission. With just an additional $100 million in the “overseas programs” line item of the Diplomatic & Consular Programs account, State could fully fund the overseas deployment costs of 300 existing mid-level Foreign Service officers.
The National Security Strategy is also crystal clear on the vital role of diplomats: “Our diplomats must be able to build and sustain relationships where U.S. interests are at stake. Face-to-face
diplomacy cannot be replaced by technology. Relationships, developed over time, create trust and shared understanding that the United States calls upon when confronting security threats, responding to crises, and encouraging others to share the burden for tackling the
world’s challenges.“ Our nation’s diplomats and development professionals belong in the field
promoting the rule of law and improving legal frameworks that would enable American
companies to compete and thrive, defending against pandemics, and so much more of the high value diplomacy that keeps the United States safe and prosperous.
We would like to partner with our congressional supporters to ensure that today, and 15 or 20
years from now, U.S. diplomats are still on the field, deployed around the world, protecting and
promoting U.S. interests. Diplomatic presence is the outward manifestation of America’s intention to lead not just militarily, but economically, politically, and culturally as well. We erode our nation’s diplomatic power at our own grave peril. We should not, in a dangerous world, abandon the field to our adversaries.
RSS - Posts
