Just as Donald Trump has rocketed into prominence riding a wave of press attention, so the press now reports Americans see domestic terrorism as the top national issue, after the press has for weeks publicized domestic terrorism as a top national issue. Surprise.
As one commentator said famously in a prior election, "It's the economy stupid." For the great majority of Americans, that remains true. Foreign affairs deserves a place of attention, particularly as an experience qualification, but what to do (next) in the Middle East, while important, is profoundly complex, not suited to slogan slinging. ("Kill them all," "Send in troops," etc.) The next president, the U.S. Senate and our experts in diplomacy and military affairs should be left to figure that out.
Domestic terrorism has been made a central issue by blending it with immigration, itself a hot issue and a legitimate one, if not among the most important. More recently, anti-Latino prejudice in elements of the American electorate, veiled by the "illegality" of recent immigration, presented, at first, a similar political opportunity to unscrupulous candidates. By blending terrorism with immigration control, those candidates who found they were getting too much heat from Latino voters segued into a mode where a negative perspective on immigration was justified by its link to domestic terrorism.
The assertion that domestic terrorism is generated by immigrant Muslims, also allows a convenient bypass of the reason that tens of thousands of Americans are killed each year in America, including hundreds of deaths classifiable as terrorist casualties, carried out by Americans of a variety of religious persuasions, who should never have been allowed to own lethal weapons.
Immigration is a substantial policy issue with a confused history. By a nation of immigrants, immigration was usually seen as both a moral and economic good. The moral principles codified in the legend inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty, a commitment to welcome the oppressed and the poor, characterized 19th century policy.
These policies did not escape negative backlash. Older immigrants resented the arrival of new populations that did not have similar backgrounds. "No Irish need apply" was a notorious business window sign in the 1890s. Italian immigrants met similar hostility. Still most Americans, many with comparable family history, agree that our country should give special admission attention to victims of oppression. But how far should this go? In a world of universal awareness, the oppressed are all over the place. We can go overboard and we can fail to go far enough.
Our reception policies for oppressed refugees have a mixed score. In one of the more foolish episodes in immigration policy, we permitted anyone to come in from Cuba on the theory that Cuba was burdened with such an oppressive government that American values required all Cubans be welcomed. Fidel Castro promptly emptied his jails of common criminals.
A residue of our silly Cuban immigration policy allows any Cuban who sets foot on American soil to stay, but if the prospective immigrant is caught before he wades ashore, he is sent back. Cubans then come through free from Mexico, but refugees fleeing from lethal regimes in Central America are stopped. There is no reason to continue such inane policies, but Cubans already living in Florida, wield substantial political power and relish the expansion of their establishment.
We showed a blind spot by lagging in the level and speed of processing Afghanis and Iraqis who cooperated as translators, etc. risking sometimes certain mortal retaliation.
But it is still reasonable to think that taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees from war is not necessarily the best alternative.
For the millions who are caught up in a war they wanted no part of, is the only alternative to move in as citizens of this country or of Europe? Most will want to go home after the war. Is it cheap or wise to bring them all in as immigrants or should we be investing more in creating safe havens in their own or neighboring countries? An open-door policy looks good and is simple but maybe there are alternatives worth exploring.
John Havelock is a former Alaska attorney general and retired UAA professor of Justice. He was a White House fellow in the Johnson administration.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.