How Does Trump’s Battle Won Fit Within the 40-Year Struggle With Iran?

Also, how public confusion and partisanship impact the refugee debate.

By
22

You might be tired of analysis of the Suleimani strike and Iran’s response, but it’s still arguably the most important story in the world right now. The struggle with Iran will continue, but the short-term consequences of the strike are becoming more clear. Also, I want to share a word about immigration and refugees—with a comment about the governor of my state, Tennessee’s Bill Lee. Today’s French Press:

  1. Iran’s missile strike—and the difference between a gamble lost and won.

  1. America’s immigration problem is not a refugee problem.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
22
By
Comments (22)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Belt

    Maybe one other point - The left has been deliberately muddying the terms used in the immigration debate for decades now. They are to the point where any immigrant is referred to as a refugee, regardless of status, so that they can tar anyone who disagrees with their position as heartless. If we had clearly defined definitions, we could have more honest and straightforward debate; but that's not something that left is interested in.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Truth Seeker

    Did you mean to say "now" instead of "not" in this sentence, or am I missing something? "Iran’s memory is long, it plays the long game, and it may not be initiating planning for terror strikes in response that will come well after American politicians see the linkage."

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    WKDawson

    I think you meant to write "favor" rather than "failure". ... the lighter side of "spell checker".

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    [okay, you can't edit here. got to delete and re-copy... oh well]

    "When they hear “refugee” they think of, say, the caravans from Central America or the host of illegal immigrants who arrive in the United States and apply for asylum without proper legal foundation. This is a category error."

    Is it though? I don't understand how somebody can reject a family coming here from a war torn country, but I sense the same lack of empathy when somebody sees men busting their butts to support their family and conclude, "we need to send them and their families away, and I don't care if it ruins their lives".

    In particular, when I talk to about immigration with a skeptic, it usually goes something like this:

    Skeptic: "I am against *illegal* immigration, but legal is fine"

    Me: "Okay, then you are in favor of making legal immigration easier and available to more people right, right?"

    Skeptic: "No way!"

    The notion that there are millions of legal scholars in our country upset about people crossing some arcane immigration regulations is ridiculous. Prejudice against newcomers is as old as the hills though. It's pretty clear what people are reacting to. I personally don't think there's any difference at all between refugees and immigrants (legal or not) in the emotions of most voters.

    Of course for insiders and thinkers and pundits it's a different story, and we get into the nitty gritty of legal details. I think *everybody* agrees in principle that breaking our laws is bad, but the conflicting emotions of voters is probably the reason the laws are not followed as a matter of course.

    Collapse
    1. Ann G

      It is a category error, though, and the distinctions need to be understood. If your empathy caused you to open your doors to as many immigrants as your house would hold, at some point you would hit the finite limit of your resources. So empathy can't be the only measure. Our discussions on immigration are about resources. You can see that our present resources are overwhelmed with asylum applicants and we haven't applied any increases to alleviate the year's long backlogs. We need a way to move the conversation forward to reach a consensus to act thoughtfully and using the terms properly facilitates that.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Some of the discussions about immigrants are about resources, yes, but some aren't.

        If you offered a compromise of, "we allow as many people to come to the US as they want as long as they support themselves fully" then you would take resources out of the equation entirely. That compromise would mostly *not* be acceptable to immigration hardliners since it is *not* about resources to them.

        If the conversation were only about money it wouldn't be this hard...

        Collapse
        1. Ann G

          Could you give me an example as some discussions that aren't about resources? Do you mean racism?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jason

            I certainly can. I think there are not only non-racist, but non-racial arguments for limiting immigration into any society. Immigration refreshes and renews us and is a public good, yet limits on immigration (to allow for cultural assimilation, to allow for labor market adjustment, to allow rent prices to stabilize) are reasonable - and they are not steeped in, nor do they require, xenophobic or racist intent to find support.

            In fact, outside of our very unique political context, neither favoring or not favoring immigration should be presumed as a default in any given society. We don't need to judge other countries who may, for whatever mix of unique cultural reasons and history, prefer low levels of immigration.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Anne Coulter wrote a whole book on it called, "Adios America". In that book she charged that immigration would make it so the Republicans would lose elections forever (which is why, she charges, Democrats are in favor of immigration).

            By my own estimation, her theories are now the backbone of Republican hardliner immigration (which is to say the mainstream under Trump).

            Demagoguing newcomers is as old as the hills, so it wasn't exactly an act of genius on Coulter's part to believe she could make money off of ginning up fear of them. She hit the jackpot here politically though.

            Collapse
  5. Jade Allen

    The NBA is boring. There I said it. I regret nothing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      RandyMc

      Boring...until the second half of the fourth quarter.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David French

      Blocked, muted, reported, prosecuted, AND canceled. My commitment to tolerance and pluralism has its limits!

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    “Second, in their ignorance, many Republicans are lumping together “refugees” with either asylum applicants or outright illegal immigrants. When they hear “refugee” they think of, say, the caravans from Central America or the host of illegal immigrants who arrive in the United States and apply for asylum without proper legal foundation. This is a category error.“
    ————————————-
    Great piece, David. While I already knew the difference between refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants, I was prompted to look up the refugee numbers and they are, as you indicated, quite low. 45,000 is the cap with 22,000 accepted in 2018

    Compare 22,000 to 12 million illegal immigrants which is 25,000 per month every single month for 40 years. 1,000 per day for 40 years.

    When fraud and abuse are systematically ignored and common sense oversight and protections are completely neglected, in any system, for decades, the people overseeing that system have absolutely lost the right to accuse people who are skeptical of their efforts of being ‘ignorant’ or ‘uncaring’. They have also forfeited any chance of building public support

    Step 1) do a halfway competent job

    Step 2) criticize skeptics

    “Why aren’t people supporting our well-meaning charitable programs??”

    *reloads t-shirt cannon with $20 bills

    *shakes unzipped duffle bag of cash from side of helicopter

    “I mean seriously why is everybody so mean??”

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    Good reminder about the difference between "refugees" and "asylum seekers."

    Regarding the picture, will video place your head right in the middle of those gentlemen's bodies? That could be awkward.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jon

    Good to read about Tennessee's refugee response. I'm from Utah and reminds me of Governor Herbert's comments in early December.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Paul Montagu

    One, well said about Iran and Suleimani
    Two, damn, Morant's got hops.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      He does indeed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        RandyMc

        I hope, with this Grizzlies foothold, I can make you a Tiger fan at some point before we leave and enter an ethereal existence.

        I'm proud of our governor's position.

        Collapse