A few hours ago, the House passed the Republicans’ bill that would halt any acceptance of refugees from Syria and create additional layers of bureaucratic hoops for refugees to pass through, effectively making it impossible for them.
The refugee screening process is already very restrictive, and Republicans likely already know that. When the New York Times pressed Republicans yesterday to point out what they actually thought were the weaknesses in the process, they got no response—well, except for a poll.
When pressed, most Republicans could not specify which aspects of the rigorous refugee vetting program that they found inadequate. Mr. Ryan’s staff members cited a Bloomberg poll of 1,002 adults released on Wednesday, conducted by Selzer & Company, that found that 53 percent of those surveyed said the resettlement program should be halted.
The racist and xenophobic bill is disingenuously named American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. Security is not the purpose of the bill: its purpose is fear-mongering and catering to the basest sentiments of the population. If anything, it risks making the country less safe. In a speech the other day, the President remarked, “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for Isil [Isis] than some of the rhetoric that’s been coming out of here during the course of this debate.” Counterterrorism expert Harleen Gambhir explained this further in the Washington Post, “The Islamic State’s strategy is to polarize Western society — to “destroy the grayzone,” as it says in its publications. The group hopes frequent, devastating attacks in its name will provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities throughout the continent.” French authorities believe that the planting of a fake Syrian passport was done exactly to provoke such a backlash against refugees and the Muslim population in general.
Republicans are doing exactly what ISIS wants Western leaders to do. And although President Obama, our three Democratic presidential candidates, and senators like Elizabeth Warren have eloquently spoken about why we should continue to accept refugees (at a higher level than our embarrassingly low number), many Democrats are simply craven. And we saw that today.
The Republican bill passed easily, 289 to 137. 47 Democrats joined the GOP in voting for it, and 2 Republicans voted against it. From what I know of the two Republicans, they are just as hateful as their colleagues, if not more so–perhaps they found the bill wasn’t cruel enough.
Two members of the MA delegation—Stephen Lynch (MA-08) and Bill Keating (MA-09)—joined the GOP in this craven effort.
When we look back at history and see how the US turned away countless Jewish refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 1930s and early 1940s, we often wonder how people could have been so heartless and think it would never be the case were the same situation to happen today. But as they say, history often repeats itself.
(Condensed from a piece on the Daily Kos)
What groups will be organizing protests of Lynch & Keating? Who can we recruit to primary them?
The thought that anyone would primary them is ridiculous.
They are yours. You’ll just have to deal with them.
N/T
I don’t know about Keating, but Lynch could be vulnerable in a primary. His core constituency is dying rapidly (or cashing in because they’re house rich). We saw some challengers emerge in Boston City Council elections. I’m not saying it will happen, but it could. If it does, it will be generational as much as political.
When Lynch beat Mac D’Allesandro 2-1. Probably not enough time to get on the primary ballot this cycle, but turnout will be high thanks to Bernie v Clinton. Turnout will also be higher in 2018 when we have a (presumably) competitive Democratic primary for Governor. Boston and Quincy turned out my fellow Hibernians for more diverse voices from those two cities at the City Council level, and Brockton clearly just showed it’s pull in the special senate election, so a future leader could come from there.
That said, it’s one bad vote, and if voting against Obamacare couldn’t dent him, this probably won’t. Suffice to say, most of the Democrats in that district are the kind that like trade unions, want jobs in America, but are fearful of immigration. It’s Scott Brown territory and Gomez territory in the two Senate specials. So it’ll be uphill, but the tide is turning.
The primary for the Congress is in September so it will not share a ballot with the March 1st presidential primary.
Nomination papers come out in February for that race so legally there is still time, though it may be a tall order to get a campaign up and running.
Thanks to the bizarre alignment of our Congressional districts, Linda Dorcena Forry does not live in the MA 8th District even though she holds his former state senate seat. She is exactly the kind of challenger who could clean Lynch’s clock.
Anyone know if Sonia Chang-Diaz lives in the 8th? I think most of JP is in Lynch’s district, so she might. If so, someone convince her we need her in DC.
I always pegged her as a Capuano successor. But maybe she’s in Lynch’s district? She or Dorcena-Forry would do a great job in either district, certainly better than Lynch.
If Chang-Diaz lives in the one precinct that’s been carved out, that would a little too coincidental (along with the Lower Mills omission from that district) to be an accident.
Lynch made out pretty good in redistricting, and they screwed over Keating and Frank. Which goes to show you how long people’s memories are under the Golden Dome (Frank and Keating led rebellions against a Speaker and Senate President during their tenure there).
His last primary opponent lived in Milton which along with the increasingly majority-minority Brockton got added into Capuano’s district while Lynch got some choice suburbs from Keating, including his hometown of Quincy.
Reasons for voting for this travesty:
Xenophobia and bigotry
Extreme and almost deliberate ignorance
Political opportunism
Cowardice
Hatred of Obama and desire to embarrass him in any way possible no matter who gets harmed
I’m guessing that the middle three led to Keating’s nauseating vote
They suspended her for two weeks for the post. But good for her.
As though CNN’s correspondents aren’t inserting their opinions into the coverage ALL THE TIME. Shame on them for firing her for showing human decency.
…to not be confused with MSNBC or Fox? That comment is pretty tame in the scheme of things.
You sure? They act like Know-Nothings, but sometimes I’m concerned they really do know nothing. The number of them who publicly and spectacularly fail Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader – Civics Edition is an absolute embarrassment to this country.
I like to call this the stupid-evil dilemma.
(I’m on my phone)
To us liberals, an appeal to American values, to empathizing with the refugees, and to historical precedents is pretty moving.
It seems to me that conservatives have lost an understanding that the neocons of the Bush Administration actually sort of got right. (Amazing, no?) Namely, it is necessary for the U.S. to have Muslim allies, it is necessary for our security to have patriotic Islamic Americans, it is useful to say, “United We Stand” and really include Muslims too. It is giving in to the terrorists to demonize Muslims, and it makes us less safe if we do demonize Muslims because it foments radicalization; it does not curb it.
It’s sad to discover that Wolfowitz might be more mature than our newly minted Speaker of the House.
Not arguing with that at all. Just wanted to highlight the complete illogic of the GOP position. I linked to Warren’s speech because it makes that affirmative, morality-based argument.
He was very consistent in including Muslims in public worship, references to sacred spaces, etc as well.
And his brother clearly is going in the wrong direction. It would be really great if some national security types started speaking out against this. It’s truly shameful.
…for his fellow candidates, notably Trump who has proposed a database to keep track of American Muslims.
But I’m unsure it would make any difference. A snip of the article from today’s Globe, page A5 – wish it was A1, but I’ll take it.
Currently up to 134 comments, virtually all slamming his vote. And the couple that like it are thanking Keating for turning his back on President Obama. Heckuva job, Bill.
Keating is not getting much love on Twitter either.
Kudos to Rep. Steve Russell for his eloquent and common sense remarks about this crisis. They already wait up to 2 years to be vetted in the camps, there is no security risk posed by the refugees we let in. If anything, it is part of our national security to help Europe out which has no vetting.
… he still voted yes, which he explained as promoting a “vehicle for discussion” about the issue. WTF. You can have the discussion regardless.
He voted for the bill. He doesn’t get a (expletive) star. What matters is actions, not words, and he’s just as much of a vile racist as the rest.
I would probably delete or edit my comment to reflect the unfortunate vote which I was unaware of before posting. My bad, but it was an apparently misleading meme that lead me to that link and conclusion.
That said, there is one GOP gov still willing to take them in (not that he or any gov has a choice in the matter), also from a redder state than Charlie Baker.