The Dreamers’ Nightmare: Trump Rescinds DACA

President Donald J. Trump has rescinded the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which was issued by an executive order by former President Obama in 2012. DACA deals with roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents allowing them to live and work legally. The measure is a temporary one designed to give this population status until Congress passes a legislative solution for their peculiar situation.

The “Dreamers,” as they are known, are people who have grown up to become contributing members of society. They are students, workers, and entrepreneurs. The U.S. economy will be adversely affected if by the end of six months, which is the timeframe set to phase out DACA, would be deported.

Zuckerberg of Facebook, Bezos of Amazon, Cook of Apple, Robbins of Cisco, Nadella of Microsoft, Kelly of Visa are among the 400 business leaders who cautioned against ending DACA and called for protecting the Dreamers. “Our economy would lose $460.3 billion from the national GDP and $24.6 billion in Social Security and Medicare tax contributions” they have reminded.

Immigration reform is a political Football that has been punted time and again for the last few decades. Currently, there are around 12 million undocumented residents who live and work in the U.S. This vital population is needed to do the jobs Americans aren't willing to do. The simple equation is that if there was no need for them, there would not be any economic incentive for them to risk their lives by making the treacherous journey crossing the southern border.

Blame Game

Arguments suggesting that this population is causing undue economic burden are unfounded. Not to turn this into an economic discussion, but the current %4.4 is as low as any economist would hope for. Actually, the Federal Reserve can tolerate a rate as low as %4.8 without increasing the interest rate to avoid unsustainable inflation rates. Some of those 12 million undocumented immigrants find businesses that are willing to operate within that %4.4 dead-zone. Within that margin unskilled workers find employment.

The economic argument can get complicated really quick with inflation consideration and shifting demand for highly skilled workers. The undocumented population is blamed as some Americans find themselves unemployed. It's not because of the undocumented as much as they need to acquire new skills employers are seeking in their workers. Because of these factors and a multitude others, we find that unemployment is more complex to be put squarely on illegal immigrants. In fact, latest figures put their contribution at $11 billion a year toward the U.S. economy.

If the economic impact is not the catalyst for Trump’s decision then it must be that such a decision will advance the Republican party's agenda helping them solidify the gains they won in last November’s election. The Republican party currently controls the White House, the House and Senate. One would think that phasing out DACA will help those Republicans fighting tight races in the upcoming midterm elections of 2018; no, that's not it.

A dozen House Legislators who represent districts with a high concentration of Hispanic populations are opposing Trump on his DACA termination decision. Six of those 12, wrote a letter asking him to leave DACA in place. The Dreamers act (DACA) is a temporary fix for an unacceptable situation that inflicted suffering upon children of illegal immigrants. Congress is now under pressure to push the issue up their already packed legislative agenda. By any measure, passing any meaningful immigration reform will require more than 6 months. It was during the Reagan presidency in 1986 when the last meaningful immigration policy was passed, although it did not address the root causes of the illegal immigration. And now, at this juncture, immigration reform has become a pressing issue for Congress to address; let the legislative wrangling begin!

Some Republican Representatives took it upon themselves to expedite the legislative process. Republican Representative (Rep) Curbelo has filed an amendment to the anticipated spending bill to keep DACA intact. And Rep. Coffman (Republican - Colorado) is attempting to force a vote on his bill extending DACA work permits by soliciting the support of the 194 House Democrats and a few more Republicans. He is using a procedural process that is usually used by the minority to force the majority to bring bills to the floor for a vote. The “discharge petition” procedure he’s using needs a total of 218 signatures to force a vote. A very daring track to take. Numerous other procedural options are being considered to keep DACA in place for the time being. This is not to speak of the Democratic party that is looking into their options to help the Dreams.

Some 20 State Attorney Generals sent President Trump urging him to keep DACA in place. Attorney Generals have the option to resort to legal actions asking the courts to intervene. Although the courts have shot down another executive order expanded DACA called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which was yet another Obama issued an executive order in 2014. DAPA protects undocumented parents from deportation for the purpose of holding the integrity of the Dreamers’ family unit. Not a very encouraging outcome for the Dreamers.

Perhaps peaceful protests will prove to be effective. Dreamers and supporters of America’s values and history have already mobilized protesting Trump’s decision. A simple question here: what would the economic and social impact be if these 800,000 or so dreamers organized to stay at home for a week? I venture to say the nation will feel the void they typical fill.

This is a country of immigrants. This is a country that is built on trust. This is a country that always finds a way to do what is right. These Dreamers have trusted the promises given by the American government. They registered when asked. They shared their personal information as required. Because of that, they are now more vulnerable to deportation once their status runs out than other undocumented immigrants. No doubt about it, there is a pressing need for immigration reform. We need to be mindful that illegal immigrants, legal newcomers, and citizens all share the ethos of living the American dream. As a country, we must honor the promises we made to them. After All, this is not a legal question - it's a moral one.



====
original article published, 10 Sep 2017, on Al-Arabiya.net https://goo.gl/ogDb4t 

Is Trump walking the US back to social strife and inequality?

There was never a time when soldiers of conscience were able to win by waving roses alone in the face of their well-armed enemies. Yet, violence is an ineffective tool and an oxymoron. Waging war for peace is a lame justification bloodthirsty hawks might claim. In the eternal war between good and evil, today’s battle is liberals and conservatives with universal moral values versus white supremacist. This battleline became clearer when President Trump sanctioned bigotry and racism. In his response, Trump was dismissive of a white supremacist murder of Heather Heyers in Charlottesville, VA as he plowed his vehicle into a group of peaceful counter protesters. He went further by equating both sides: racist protesters with anti white supremacist counter protesters, insisting that “there is blame on both sides.”

What is worse is that the killer had adopted terrorist tools lifted from ISIS’s playbook turning his car into a weapon. A troubling development when the leader of the free world is as dismissive of such killing in a similar manner as Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Baghday and others terrorist leaders. This is a very dangerous precedent putting Trump on par with terrorist logic and rhetorical maneuvers. There is no justification Mr. President! 

If it were an oversight, then let it be known that there is no wisdom in neutrality in the face of hate; lest one sides with bigotry and injustice. Deplorable as that may seem, the political fallout never caught up to the collective outrage over this incident. Those who orbit the Trump sphere were unconvincing and slow to react. Muffled calls by Republican leaders for Trump to unequivocally denounce racism including Sen John McCain and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan seem to have enticed Trump to “correct” course days after the violence that killed Heyers and injured 19. Unfortunately, he discounted those statement of condemnation of white supremacist in an off the cuff morally ambiguous comments a mere 24hrs later. No one with an iota of moral courage dared to defy his/her boss from within the administration except for Gary Cohn, a Trump advisor who resigned in protest. What does that say about the rest of the Trump administration? 

A very telling silence, one that implicitly supports racism. Racists were emboldened to organizing last Friday under the “Patriot Prayer” march in San Francisco a group that supports Trump. In doing so, they are dismissing the sacrifice of those who fought Nazis in WWII, the leaders of conscience who marched in peaceful protests against racism throughout the civil rights era, and countless Americans who walked-the-walk demanding equality on behalf the downtrodden, disadvantaged and disenfranchised. Where is the moral high ground that America aspires to take? Presidents are expected to lead the nation to the path of unity and healing. Trump’s inability to read and follow the map of ethical and moral justice is terrifying. President George W. Bush’s first address in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9-11 was from a Washington, DC mosque. He made clear that Muslim-Americans are patriots and should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks. Trump’s words are not an issue of political party affiliation, not a communication mishap, nor is it a political snafu. This is premeditated and much more sinister. His next two major decisions confirm that: Banning transgender persons from the military and pardoning sheriff Arpaio. 

President Trump’s directive to reverse the Obama era policy of giving transgender individuals the same rights and assigning the same responsibilities as any others who vowed voluntarily to serve and possibly die in defense of the nation and its values. The same values that Trump is currently eroding by restoring discrimination and gender inequality in the military. The LGBTQ community has been fighting and making small and steady progress leading up to a recruitment equality within the military. They had to win the support of a critical mass of the American population to apply upward pressure for change culminating in former President Obama directive to the military to accept members of the LGBTQ community into the military applying the same qualification and restriction imposed on any other individuals.  Equality is achieved only when everyone is on the same footing and is afforded the same opportunities without any restrictions unrelated to function and mission. 

As for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, he was pardoned by Trump from a conviction of violating a court order to end his illegal, unholy crusade of racially profiling Latinos. "He's done a great job for the people of Arizona. He's very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration," Trump said of Arpaio. The same Arpaio who is the subject of reported abuse of his authority and unconventional violation of inmates. The list of complaints rivals the criminal RAP sheet of some of the criminals he imprisoned. Joe’s racial discrimination knows no bounds. In 2012, Arpaio held a news conference to persuade the public of Obama ineligibility to hold the presidency due to lack of qualification. The U.S. president must be born in on American soil. Sheriff Joe argued that Obama wasn’t born the U.S. and therefore doesn’t meet the requirement to hold the office. A major conspiracy theory of the “Birther Movement,” which he and Trump were two of its leading voices. Arpaio and Trump go way back “Sheriff Joe was very unfairly treated by the Obama administration," Trump confirmed. 

Both decisions were announced on Friday evening which is typically when any administration wants limited coverage of its announcement. But this Friday provided Trump with additional cover as the focus of the nation is shifting toward Hurricane Harvey and the destruction in Texas where it made landfall. The White House announcements were buried in the news.  

The timing of the announcements was not the only interesting thing about them, a more important observation is the common denominator. Both announcements specifically oppose obama policies and  are both filtered through a racial lense. Fanning the flames of racism must not be lost on congress. Senators and Representatives on the Hill are an equal and balancing branch of government. They must hold their own in the face of racism. A different approach to the political norm is in order. Collectively, they must rise above short term gains replacing it with America’s long term greater good. The current bully sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office is bound by the limits of the office. Those limits are set by the American people. Those who are willing to take to the streets must, in addition, priorities political pressure on their elected officials. Compelling them to advance the people’s will in the House and Senate. Congress must take the moral high ground otherwise they would allow for a new culture of nepotism, kowtowing and political corruption. The American people will not stand for that on the long run. If for nothing else but selfish gains and self-preservation, congress must act with urgency to help the nation heal or you will be voted out. 

My latest article, "Is Trump walking the US back to social strife and inequality? link to published version https://goo.gl/6bL9uo  on @AlArabiya_Eng

x

Nothing but hammer in Trump’s Afghanistan toolbox

Thursday, 24 August 2017

Text size A A A

Walid Jawad

In a rare primetime address to the nation on Monday, US President Donald Trump gave shape to his administration’s foreign policy approach toward Afghanistan.

In an embarrassing about-face, Trump reversed his earlier views on Afghanistan saying that “A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al-Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11”.

This is a departure from what presidential candidate Trump had called for during his election campaign, “an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan”. His stated objective now is to fight on and win.

Targeting terrorists, not terrorism

Trump delivered his address to an audience of uniformed men and women of the armed forces from Fort Myer near Washington, DC. His speech started with an acknowledgment of the sacrifices made by American soldiers to preserve the nation’s values and way of life. He pledged to give them the necessary tools and means to complete their job in Afghanistan.

Trump tried to set clear goals for victory: “Attacking our enemies, obliterating the ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge”. The wording might be a tad different, but these objectives were already part of the US policy in the region during the presidential terms of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Going after the terrorists is justified in the short term, yet it cannot be an effective long term solution for eradicating global terrorism. It is essential to first address the political causes which compel some people to choose the path of violence against civilians as a political tool for change. Terrorists take recourse to such tactics as they believe it is the most effective option – if not the only one – available to them.

Trump’s approach does not draw any medium to long term vision for resolution of conflicts not through violence but by political means. Even if the military is able to exterminate terrorists in Afghanistan and stops providing them safe havens in the region, it will not stop lone wolves from conducting terror attacks. The struggle will continue unless the root causes are addressed, an important issue that Trump neglected to address in his speech.

Trump’s approach does not draw any medium to long term vision for resolution of conflicts not through violence but by political means

Walid Jawad

The Afghanistan quagmire

The US has been fighting in Afghanistan for over 15 years, which makes it the longest running war in American history. US citizens are said to have limited appetite for lengthy engagements in overseas conflict. From a strategic standpoint, it is important for the US to finish the job that George W. Bush started in 2001. Lack of progress on this front is undermining trust in any plans or promise of success as the cost of war continues to mount along with the number of US soldiers killed in the war.

The history of Afghanistan provides a lesson which the US has found difficult to learn from. In addition, terrorists find Afghanistan’s inhospitable terrain advantageous to their cause - both geographically and politically. For many decades, it has shown that an unfinished engagement will only lead to deeper conflict and a disastrous outcome.

This long term involvement is very problematic for the US as it has to reset its policy every four to eight years in line with its presidential elections. Considering the time constraints within which presidents have to operate, Trump did not offer any clear benchmarks or time limits for assessing the progress of his approach. 

In the political vacuum left after US supported Afghan and foreign fighters (collectively called the Mujahideen) defeated the Soviet army in 1989, the country turned into a safe haven for terrorists, namely al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, the terrorist group’s leader, took credit for the 9-11 attack on the US. The moral of the story was not lost on Trump, yet he completely missed the lesson.

“We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.”

In this statement, Trump confirmed that he could not understand the difference between ‘supporting’ and ‘dictating’. Dictating how Afghans should manage the affairs of their nation will not succeed, but without financial and political support Afghanistan will not graduate from a failing state to a functioning one. Thus, terrorism will persist.

A myopic vision

Reducing the US role in Afghanistan to a military-centred one is insufficient for achieving the goals outlined by the president. The manner in which he sought the assistance of Pakistan and India seemed to lack the desired diplomatic finesse.

The influence US has on these competing nuclear powers requires a delicate diplomatic balance. Targeting Pakistan without giving it any credit will only cause resentment and resistance toward advancing US interests in the region.

Although Trump’s strategy appears short-sighted, it appears to be a major political coup. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, is standing by the Afghanistan plan. Indeed, political observers and experts breathed a collective sigh of relief when Trump retracted from his pre-election call to pull out of Afghanistan. Is it a sign of maturity, learning on the job or finally listening to the experts? It is too soon to speculate even as Trump stuck to his speech this time and resisted the urge to speak off the cuff.

But what we know about Trump is that he is all about taking on the next challenge. It is a gung-ho style of governance. However, Afghanistan and the role it plays in the region makes for a complex situation requiring level-headed plans and decision-making. Advancing US national security is a long term process.

The president’s job is to set the policy and step aside to allow qualified experts to frame the appropriate strategies. In fact, foreign policy must strike a balanced diplomatic, economic and defence strategy. It is not possible for a solely military-backed approach to deliver an effective Afghan policy.

_____________________
Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj.

Last Update: Thursday, 24 August 2017 KSA 11:47 - GMT 08:47

Obama @ the United Nation's General Assembly (UNGA 70)

I had to refer to the calendar to check that it wasn’t 2016 as President Obama gave what was a lame-duck type speech at the UN General Assembly this morning. It is not that Obama was exceptionally vague on details and lofty on ideals as he usually is. It is that he took off his Presidential hat and returned to being Professor Obama.

As Obama lectured world leaders on the benefits of democracy and the ideals of citizen driven governance, he came across as a teacher pleading with his students to “do as he says” and not as he does.

What is clear is that once again, Barak Obama, the leader of the free world, the head of the one if not the most powerful country in the world, fell short on the world stage. The American President failed to take advantage of an excellent opportunity to rise to the occasion and chart a path of American foreign policy responding to unfolding global disasters.

War crimes by ISIS (ISIL according to Obama), war crimes by Al-Assad of Syria, Iran’s homorganic terrorism strategy in the region, mass migration of Middle Eastern and African refugees, Russian expansionism, Chinese human rights violation and other issues including global diseases and hunger are but some of the challenges global leaders should forge concrete and executable strategies to resolve backed with resource commitments.

The U.S. is burdened with the responsibility to lead and thus must rise to the occasion. Obama’s sermon like pontification lacks the oomph of an elegant orator or an affective world leader. Indeed, Obama is easy on the eyes and softer on the ears when compared to George Bush, but at least we knew where the country was headed under the former presidents’ ill-informed presidency. I acknowledge Obama’s lofty ideals and his inspiring hope, I only hoped that he would able to deliver us to that hopeful utopia.  

American impotence and the ‘Born in Jerusalem’ law

Americans born in Jerusalem will not be able to list “Israel” as their country of birth. This U.S. Supreme Court-handed victory, last week, to the American administration has many layers, most obvious and relevant of which authorizes the U.S. Department of State to deny any requests by passport applicants to list "Israel" as their place of birth. If it were to list “Israel” it would implicitly confirm the status of Jerusalem as an Israeli city. Consecutive American administrations are committed to holding the fate of Jerusalem to negotiations over final status between the Palestinians and Israelis. In a world of heightened sensitivities to America’s language and gestures, such a policy has lived ramifications on the ground for both Palestinians and Israelis.

The perpetual Palestinian-Israeli conflict became fatigued a generation or two ago, its subjects weary of chasing an illusive mirage. It has over the decades morphed from a free for all wrestling match of sorts, with multiple parties engaging on military and diplomatic fronts, to one akin to a boxing match “limited” to two contenders. The travesty is the flagrant disparity between the two contending parties. It is unjustifiable to remain in the stands watching the continued humiliation of the weaker party, the Palestinians, by the much stronger and well-equipped Israelis, knowing full well the inevitable conclusion. In fact, unsavory terror organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS have used the injustice befalling the Palestinians as a rallying cry. Yet, this is exactly the policy the U.S. chose to publicly adopt, all the while imposing it upon the world stage under the guise of neutrality.

Neutrality is a euphemism for impotence

This so called “neutrality” is a mockery, leading to practical support for Israel. Since Israel’s inception in 1948, Palestinians have lost their historic land and are now negotiating for less than 22% of the land that remains. With Israel’s continued expansion; confiscation of lands and illegal settlements, Palestinians continue to vie for an independent state that would be, for all practical purposes, dead on arrival. If the U.S. would loosen the political shackles it imposes upon the process it would open the field up for a possible, although improbable, two state solution steered by the U.N.

Although the U.S. doesn’t hold the key to resolving the conflict, it plays the role of the gatekeeper, preventing the process from reaching such resolution. This political stance is not an arbitrary one, nor a proactive one. Be it Democrat or Republican, this conflict is one which both parties tiptoe around, playing it safe and attempting to strike a delicate balance between personal political gains and U.S. national interest. To that end, neither personal nor national aspirations are adequately satisfied. For one, the annual pilgrimage to gain the blessing of the American Israeli Political Action Committee’s (AIPAC) is a degrading spectacle as many politicians are willing to utter words of support that don’t emanate from a personal belief, but rather from a “conviction” for personal advancement. Having AIPAC bestow its blessing upon a politician running for election in the US prompts its supporters to contribute financially to the said candidate. Although money doesn’t win elections, votes do, a candidate will not be able to convince potential voters of his or her worthiness without serious amounts of money. The 2012 presidential elections had a reported price tag of $7 billion for the presidency and congressional races - this is especially important as we come upon an election year.

The Mideast’s destroyed pottery barn is America’s to fix

Walid Jawad

The power and influence wielded by the U.S. makes it as much of a party to the Mideast conflict, as the primary players; its policies having immediate ramifications on the outcome of the conflict. Regardless of consecutive administrations’ attempts to move the conflict closer to a just and peaceful lasting resolution, the stance of false neutrality adopted by the U.S. has and continues to do more harm than good. Although at face value the accepted wisdom of a two state solution looks “just”, it will never yield a fair outcome for the Palestinians, and will inevitably generate new grievances, eventually spilling over beyond any new Palestinian borders. Palestinian sovereignty will not be complete, their economy never flourishing, and their security a faraway dream, handicapped, beholden to Israel and the whims and fancies of its regime.

The State of Isralestine

The most worthy elements that should be taken into consideration includes the fact that Palestinians (along with other Arabs) have lost to the Israelis in numerous military confrontation over the last century (including those prior to the creation of the Jewish state); that Israel has displaced untold numbers of Palestinians along with their stateless offspring. Yet, Jerusalem is a holy city for the Palestinians; Muslims and Christians. By zooming out to bring the entire Mideast into focus, we find a region in a state of utter disarray. Thousands of miles away and across the Atlantic, here in the States, American Jews are more diverse than ever before, and many continue to actively lobby for peace and a balanced resolution to this devastating conflict. All of these points lead to one conclusion no administration can escape if it is willing to be truthful and courageous enough to preserve America's national interest and its founding ethical and moral principles: a one state solution.

There will be a price to pay, but that price will not be any more costly than the recurring price tag of war (Afghanistan, twice in Iraq, Libya, ongoing military basis in the Mideast and supplying/assisting groups in Syria), or the cost incurred by the instability of global energy prices, or resources expended in fighting terror threats by organized violent groups and/or lone wolves, not to mention increasing cyber attacks. The Mideast’s destroyed pottery barn is America’s to fix. There is no reason to tread lightly when all the eggs are cracked and in pieces. It is time for the American administration to stop straddling the fence, hiding behind an impotent concept of neutrality.

The White House must take a practical stance, even if the short-term consequences are upsetting to both Arabs and Jews alike. Israel must choose to be a democratic state as it claims, and be responsible toward the people it conquered. As such, the U.S. must return to its founding principles of not supporting religious exclusionary systems of governance. The U.S. needs to stop paying for the inadequacies and incompetence of other parties to the conflict and cease from passively contributing to the suffering of Palestinians; it is the moral and practical way forward. 
 

_____________

Walid Jawad is a former Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Department of State and a former Washington, DC correspondent. He covered American politics for a number of TV outlets since 1997. Walid holds an undergraduate degree (B.A) in Decision Science and Management Information Systems and a Masters in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. You can follow him @walidaj

published first by Al-Arabiya on June 16, 2015 http://goo.gl/E3U3R2