Donald Trump’s transition team on Thursday denied that Trump is considering creating a registry of Muslim visitors and immigrants, but the Trump team merely distinguished a registry of Muslims from a registry of visitors and immigrants from countries with “high terrorism activity.”
“President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false,” spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement. “The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe, but the president-elect plans on releasing his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.”
Talk of a possible registry of Muslims began when Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Trump adviser, said that the President-elect’s transition team is considering reinstating a registry similar to one Kobach helped create in 2002 under the Bush administration, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The registry required male visitors and immigrants over the age of 16 from a list of several countries, most of which were majority Muslim, to register and periodically check in with officials. NSEERS was criticized for targeting Muslims, and the U.S. government stopped using the program in 2011.
Though the registry floated by Kobach does not technically target Muslims, Trump has previously seemed willing to create a registry based on religion. A year ago, Trump said that he “would certainly implement” a database of Muslims in the U.S.
Criticism of the registry described by Kobach ballooned on Thursday when a Trump surrogate said that the Japanaese internment camps created by the U.S. government during World War II provides precedent for a registry of Muslims.
“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia” Miller added.
Trump and the Trumpettes object to the word “considering.” Done deal, people. Just ask future Secretary of Homeland Security Joe Arpaio.
Sorry, but they have a point. There is a huge difference between a registry of American citizens based on their religion, and a registry of temporary US visitors (non-citizens) based on their country. I think it is important to distinguish, even for opponents of the idea.
They’re both terrible ideas, but for different reasons.
The former (a registry of citizens) is by far the more awful, un-American, and probably unconstitutional one. And yes, Trump clearly advocated it during the campaign (before issuing the retraction). But it is not what they are proposing now.
The latter (a registry of non-citizen visitors) is a lot less shocking to me. The government already knows the country of origin of all visitors on visas. It sounds as if the registry just adds the ability for the government to track location and conduct periodic interviews. Here’s why I am not shocked: I live under pretty much the same system, as an American living in Japan. I have to inform them within 14 days of any address change, and anybody renewing visas has to submit paperwork and talk to an official periodically.
I’d be a lot less disturbed by the revival of NSEERS if it were applied uniformly to all temporary residents, since this is similar to how other countries track immigrants. But applying it only to certain countries, which is a blatant proxy for a religious criterion, is the problem.
[EDIT: 2 minutes and 1 google search later, mea culpa. Most US visitors on visas already have to report address changes. So what the hell does this registry add? Now I am just confused.]
I believe there is a devil’s bargain between Ryan/McConnell and DT/Bannon which is approval of medicare voucherization and tax cuts in exchange for letting DT have a free hand to appoint as many extremists he wants to key cabinet departments. I also think a part of that bargain will be to look the other way as DT and co figure out a way to get an actual national police force w/budget and authority, which he will use to target immigrants and his other enemies. This may be a new force within Homeland Security or within an existing law enforcement agency like the FBI. There is much to fear from a DT Administration, but the ability of the executive to directly police and intimidate perceived domestic enemies is among the scariest of scenarios.
What makes you think that Trump gives a damn about protecting Medicare in the first place? His word?
A national police force would be a dire thing.