By PETER YOUNG
It has become clear recently in Europe that anti-immigrant sentiment is growing. There is evidence of a crackdown on migrants in a number of countries which in recent months have been developing tougher border controls in an attempt to deter migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. The issue of illegal and uncontrolled immigration is now seen by many as the big challenge of the 21st century.
This coincides, of course, with the election victory of President Trump who, as expected from the long run-up to November’s poll, has taken an exceptionally strong line on illegal immigration and has already introduced tough, even extreme, measures to contain uncontrolled migration.
Given all the publicity, most people will surely be aware that through a series of executive orders the newly-elected US president has taken a firm grip of the issue by closing borders, slamming the door on refugees, threatening to deport 20 million illegal migrants – starting with criminals - and banning people from a number of Muslim-majority countries from entering America. Deportations have already begun only days after his inauguration, with migrants accused of committing criminal acts being rounded up and sent back to their countries in military planes.
Interestingly, there have also been new discussions in Europe about processing migrants and detention centres and the possibility of sending migrants to third countries. This sounds much like Britain’s proposals under a Conservative government last year to send migrants in the first instance to Rwanda for initial screening. Some EU countries have also built physical fencing at their external borders, not dissimilar to Trump’s much-publicised wall at the US southern border.
Much action in Europe preceded the latest developments in the US but it nonetheless reflects the new US president’s extreme policies though activity there is nowhere near on the same scale as in the US. There are also significant differences of style and tone. Moreover, what is happening on the continent is also well short of Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric. It appears to be driven by the new and growing support for right-wing anti-immigration political parties which have been performing well in recent elections and whose policy positions may ultimately turn out to be closer to Trump’s than some people think.
These include, for example, the AfD - Alternative for Germany – party which is eurosceptic and anti-immigration and is likely to do well in Germany’s elections next month as well as, in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally right-wing populist and nationalist party. Then there is the ruling populist and national-conservative party in Hungary with Viktor Orban at its helm together with the Dutch anti-Islam populist Freedom Party led by Geert Wilders who preaches that a new anti-immigration wind is blowing in Europe.
That said, in Europe the idea of deportations is almost anathema because it conjures up the horrors of the deportations to death camps in Germany during the Second World War. There is also the incipient fear that extreme right-wing policies involving the forced movement of people en masse might open the doors to other wider extremist policies.
The problem of uncontrolled and illegal US immigration during the last few years that happened during the watch of the hapless secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, is that not only was nothing done to stop it but that the Biden administration positively encouraged it while the process of legal migration and asylum continued – quite rightly, people say – to be a hard and demanding process. Undocumented migrants have been bussed to democratically controlled cities or to so-called sanctuary cities which have protected them from the threat of deportation. It is claimed that part of the reason for this was that the Biden government believed that such immigrants tended to vote democratic after settling in to their new destination. Now, Trump is seen to be sending a strong and clear message to the entire world that, if someone tries to break the law by entering the USA illegally, that person will face severe consequences. He campaigned on this issue and maintains he now has a mandate from voters to do something radical about it.
It is surely evident to most people that the primary task of governments is to maintain the integrity of their countries’ borders, protect the lives of their citizens, enforce their laws and keep their electoral promises. Trump has made it clear that his administration possesses the political will to get things done expeditiously and not be thwarted by what has been a partially politicized judiciary.
As so many are now saying, if you do not have a border, you do not have a country. They maintain that in both the US and the UK illegal immigration has shockingly undermined the fabric of society though, of course, not all illegal migrants are criminals who deserve to be deported. But they have already broken the law by circumventing the normal immigration channels and entering the country illegally. It is clear that a majority of voters want the government to enforce the law and to be seen to be doing so. The evidence shows that most people agree that it would be mad to have completely open borders so that people can just walk in to other countries and, without making any sort of contribution, simply take advantage of the benefits their citizens enjoy.
If the movement of people to other countries without any regulation were allowed to happen, the numbers could be limitless and, for obvious reasons, that would become unsustainable because of the inevitable extra strain on local institutions and resources. Even though in modern times the world is interconnected as never before, most agree that people should not be able to enter another country and expect to be kept by its people and be given everything while those people that live there have created wealth and prosperity for themselves and their wider community and nation. There is, of course, a moral dimension to all this in so far as it is generally accepted that there is an obligation in certain circumstances for the strong to help the weak or disadvantaged; but this has to be controlled properly.
Judging from attitudes reported in the UK press, it is the case that Britain now needs a similarly strong overhaul of policy and practice in relation to immigration. The nation has had a fine record over the years of providing a safe haven for real refugees genuinely facing political persecution and fearing for their lives in their own countries. Just two well-known historical examples include the Huguenot Protestants fleeing from France in the 17th century to Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany in the 1930s. But it is clear that many of those now trying to enter Britain are economic refugees who are typically young men primarily seeking a better life.
The big question now is whether Europe, including Britain, will gradually take its lead from the US – as so often happens in other spheres - and pursue a tougher stance on immigration, not least in dealing with the large numbers coming across the English Channel from France in small boats.
Presidential preemptive pardons undermine US democracy
It has surely come as no surprise that many people are questioning former president Biden’s action on his last day in office of issuing a number of preemptive pardons essentially to protect some leading public figures against possible retaliatory moves by his successor. Evidently, he was concerned that President Trump might target political opponents after, reportedly, having said previously that his administration would “go after them”.
Commentators in the US are saying that this is an innovative use of the presidential pardon power that could interfere with the Justice Department’s duty to enforce the law of the land regardless of politics.
According to reports, Biden has preemptively pardoned people like General Mark Milley, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Anthony Fauci, the president’s former chief medical adviser, together with the lawmakers of the House Select Committee that investigated the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. It should be noted that President Trump has also issued pardons to some 1500 persons who had been convicted, or were awaiting trial, on charges relating to that attack.
Biden has pardoned members of his own family, too. This included his son, Hunter Biden, after earlier having provided assurances publicly that he would not do so, and he issued a large number of regular pardons, involving in particular more than two thousand individuals convicted of non-violent drug offences. Apparently, overall he issued a record number of commutations and pardons.
The power of “pardons and reprieves” - though preemptive ones are rare since they have the potential to bypass justice - is vested in US presidents by Article II of the Constitution. As far as I can see, these are normally issued to provide relief to those who have been convicted of an offence and have served all or part of a prison sentence. But a president has the power to grant federal executive clemency at any time after a federal crime has been committed, and there appear to be few limits on this power so there is considerable flexibility.
However, use of preemptive pardons is surely altogether a different matter since the people concerned have not committed or been charged with any offence, nor have they been accused of one. Nonetheless, a New York University law professor argues that what may be termed strategic preemptive pardons might be prudent in a case of an incoming administration which does not appear “to follow norms of evenhandedness when it comes to prosecution” – a clear reference to the present.
Other commentators are saying that Biden’s preemptive pardons represent a “pull-back” from full commitment to democracy. They suggest that granting pardons preemptively damages the whole basis of the country’s judicial system and is thus reprehensible. So, in their view, this sort of pardon signals that “we are headed down a dark road to being a banana republic” – and they conclude that the rule of law, which is a fundamental feature of the exercise of democracy, is undermined.
Doubtless, this issue will be subject to much discussion in the coming weeks and months. It will be interesting to follow the debate.
Man’s best friend
Only dog-lovers will truly understand. Loss of a pet can be hard to bear.
This happened to my wife and me this past week when our much-loved 15-year-old Shih Tzu passed away from natural causes. In the middle of the night, his life ebbed away as we held him in our arms.
He had been suffering recently from various ailments associated with the advanced age he had reached. So we both realise that it may have been a relief for him when nature took its course. But for us left behind it has created the utter misery of losing a loved one who had been with us for many years.
Dogs can be such wonderful and loyal companions and become part of the family. Bobby was no exception. He did not have a nasty bone in his body. He always responded so readily to the love and affection we gave him and we count ourselves fortunate to have had his companionship for so long.
For us, Bobby simply made the world a better place. We already miss him terribly.
Comments
birdiestrachan 4 weeks, 1 day ago
Sorry for the loss of your dog. Some folks weep and mourn over the loss of their dogs. Cry but be grateful 15 years were good years so smiles and thanks are in order in spite of your loss
birdiestrachan 4 weeks, 1 day ago
Get another dog I know someone who would not even get another dog they just mourn their loss.. lost of dogs are in need of a loving home and owner Mr Biden was right to pardon whomever he pardoned. There is a lot of vengeance and mean spirited actions going on
Sign in to comment
OpenID