Search the Lounge

Categories

« Leon Trotsky in English | Main | Alabama Coach Nick Saban on the Relative Importance of Football and School »

August 11, 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

PaulB

My understanding is that several European and Asian nations with low infection rates have precisely this policy. As an intermediate step, you could require that all citizens and permanent residents be placed in a 14 day quarantine, although the number of people this would affect on the Mexican border could be huge.

Professional Risk Too High to Provide Name

The fact the administration is considering another ban aimed at non-white people before even considering health checks and quarantine requirements for people entering the country demonstrates the concern isn't public health. They won't even mandate masks at border crossings. Countries concerned with public health have all imposed enforceable quarantine measures on returning citizens and residents. None have given state security forces the discretion to decide which citizens were "likely exposed" as a means of keeping them out. After nearly four years of such policies, it's baffling that the starting point for any analysis of this administration's border and immigration policies isn't a presumption of racism or demographic engineering.

anon

Could it be the other way around, Risk?

MIght it be that the presumption these days should be that those accusing others of racism at every juncture are usually impugning the motives of their political or power rivals?

I constantly hear Democrats accusing Republicans of racism. But, I rarely, if ever, hear Democrats accusing other Democrats of racism or racist policies. Could it be that there are no racists in the Democratic Party?

Ediberto Roman

Thank you each for your comments. All interesting observations, from very different perspectives. Perhaps we would consider either writing on, or presenting on the matter. I remain unclear where I stand on the matter. To add to my indecisiveness here, I am struggling with an injury that causes me to take medication that has affected my ability to do further research these days. Cheers to each of you, and thank you for making me think about the matter further. Great point PaulB---perhaps you can point us to some specifics and/or cites here? Anon, I know you love to throw stones, but note, in my neutral post (I actually suspect lefty friends here would be annoyed by my somewhat supportive stance of the administration's efforts), I did not accuse anyone of racism--perhaps another read is in order--you are always so lovely in your accusations. I also would love to know who you are, and would gladly debate you on any one of my posts, pain killers or not. Cheers!

anon

Ediberto

I certainly agree that your post was not inflammatory, and that you didn't accuse anyone of being a racist.

I think where the disconnect comes is in the reaction of your "lefty friends here" who are annoyed by any stance of the administration that affects border control. It was to their sentiments that I wrote.

It is fair, I think, to remark about the accusations of racism that are directed toward any efforts by this administration to control the borders in any way, unlike the reactions, for example, of these same folks to the prior administrations efforts.

Finally, since you question my reading comprehension, let me return the favor. I was responding to "Risk" … expressly stating, "Could it be the other way around, Risk?" Risk stated: " The fact the administration is considering another ban aimed at non-white people before even considering health checks and quarantine requirements for people entering the country demonstrates the concern isn't public health."

Accordingly, unless you believe that comments on other comments is not allowed, your statement "I did not accuse anyone of racism--perhaps another read is in order" is just an unfounded jab.

PaulB

Ediberto, a cursory review with my immigration attorney, Google, Esq., did not come up with a definitive answer so I'll have to settle for two anecdotes. First a Spanish citizen in Madrid very recently wanted to visit her daughter's family in Copenhagen. Even though this should be no different than domestic travel in the US as both are Schengen area countries, the airline told her she would not be allowed to go there unless she had a Covid test less than 48 hours old and that she would further have to get to the family's apartment by private car and self-quarantine there.

Another friend is an expat in China. He wanted to come back to the US for his son's college graduation in May but could not get a flight out. He has since retired as of June 30 but has been unable to get a flight back because so few planes are allowed to come to China from the US. United has cancelled his reservation a few times, and he's now (very tentatively) scheduled to depart mid-September.

anon

See, e.g., William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
March 2016
Communicable Diseases and the Right to Re-Enter the United States
J. Nicholas Murosko
citing, inter alia, a federal statute authorizing the Surgeon General to issue exclusion orders.

As usual, Congress has authorized the very behaviors that some of its members, usually ignorantly, now so passionately decry. It seems that they are so often unaware of the legislative authority behind such actions.

In any event, in all things that are not done by Trump, the left seems to embrace granting authoritarian powers to unelected "officials." For example, to "health officers." (As usual, btw, it always will be a matter of a Trotsky and his methods, or, as described by an even earlier leading light of the left, the "junta" or "vanguard").

Is subjugation to a nearly unlimited authority of "health officers" to govern our every action wise? "Constitutional"?

If you are going to argue that barring citizens from reentry "just ain't right" because it "isn't Constitutional" do you start to sound like a, dare I say it, a Trump supporter who wants to know the rational basis for allowing "political rallies" but barring attendance at church, when the latter requires far more COVID restrictions than the former?

Of course, the whole debate can be avoided when you have reactionaries who will just start crying out "racist" over any mention of any policy of this administration, even if the policy isn't even arguably based on race.

Notice how Ediberto insulted and faulted me by falsely claiming that I "love to throw stones," but never even mentioned the comment to which I was replying. Did that comment throw stones? In what way did my response do anything but ask reasonable questions about Risk's attempt to change the subject and the ubiquity of this tactic.

In fact, instead of addressing the issues, Ediberto mistakenly claimed I was replying to his post. As yet, has not acknowledged this error.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad