Ending DACA Would Make Us A Land of Broken Dreams.

Congress must act to prevent punishment of those who committed no crime.

By: Eli Verschleiser

We are in the process of a rigorous national debate on immigration in this country, and that is a positive, healthy process.

With notable exceptions in some corners who have sadly become very strident lately, most Americans recognize that open doors to new Americans, with new skills and ideas is a bedrock of our democracy.

At the same time, we can’t turn a blind eye to those who break the law by violating our borders. It’s unfair to legal immigrants, costly to states and municipalities and does not allow us to identify criminals, terrorists, the contagiously ill or fugitives from trouble in other countries. Some reform of legal immigration, including the refugee process, is also necessary.

I’m confident that a fair comprehensive reform will emerge from this debate that will keep our borders guarded but open and allow enforcement agents to concentrate where they are most needed: stopping or deporting dangerous people.

That’s one of the purposes of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that President Trump, faced with lawsuits from states on both sides of the issue, has discontinued, calling on Congress to enact a similar law as part of a reform package.

DACA’s pending refusal of new applications puts some 800,000 eligible young people ages 15-36 in danger of deportation. 

While President Barack Obama’s process for putting this policy in place via executive action was flawed (and in the eyes of many a blatant effort to shore up his political base for the 2102 election), the motive and reasoning behind it is solid.

For one thing, children who had no say in illegally entering or remaining in this country, and who have known no other place to live and may not even speak the language of their homeland, are at no fault of their own and should be allowed to stay, not suffer for their parents’ crime.

Especially not when they are living productively, getting an education, working and paying taxes, or serving in the military. The protection does not apply, obviously to “people convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety,” as stated in the guidelines. It also does not apply to people in the process of deportation proceedings.

Further, deporting DACA eligible young people, an estimated 90 percent of whom  are employed, will cost us as much as $2 billion in lost taxes, according to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. That’s in addition to court and other costs for unnecessary enforcement and deportation proceedings, estimated at $10 billion, while tying up agents who could and should be breaking up terror cells, violent gangs or drug smuggling rings.

DACA does not automatically provide a citizenship stamp or even a green card: Just protection that must be renewed every two years.

According to the New York Times, President Trump said he was acting on behalf of “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

As far as the jobs argument is concerned, unemployment is at a record low, and we shouldn’t assume the 4.4 percent who remain unaffected by job growth, of mixed ages, have been denied because of these immigrants, and that they will have the training and other capabilities to take those jobs opened by deportation.

Some say DACA provides an incentive for people to come here illegally with children. That may be true if permanently implemented, but under the current program it only applies to people who have been continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, not future arrivals.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday (9/10), Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona called for a “comprehensive” immigration reform that gives priority to keeping those engaged in Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) careers, while keeping borders secure. He said it is not “conscionable to tell young people who came here as children that they have to go back to a country that they don't know,” in particular the estimated 900 DACA-eligible members of the armed forces.

Hopefully a majority of his colleagues in Congress will agree, but with numerous debates looming over tax reform and the budget and federal relief for storm damages taking priority it will be an uphill battle to make any progress on immigration before March, when the program effectively ends.

We have adopted some backward policies and laws, creating years of non-sensible red tape. Immigration needs to be reformed from the ground up. But kicking these Dreamers out goes against the core of who we are as Americans. Their only “fault” is that their parents wanted to achieve a better life, a better hope, and a better future for them, and that’s why they have been labeled “Dreamers” -- they embody the ideal of the American Dream.

They are not so different from my grandparents who immigrated to America from Europe pursuing dreams of their own, namely the dream of thriving without the threat of religious persecution. America has always been a beacon for such people.

But deporting dreamers will dim that beacon.  As the Wall Street Journal observed, rescinding DACA betrays those who, encouraged by the government, provided personal identification and records to apply for the program. “These young immigrants have committed no crime and trusted the federal government to protect them.”

At a time when we are struggling with our international image, the last thing we need is to become known as a land of broken promises, and broken dreams.

About the author:

Eli Verschleiser is a financier, real estate developer, and investor in commercial real estate. In his Philanthropy, Mr. Verschleiser is on the board of Trustees for the American Jewish Congress, Co-Founder of Magenu.org, & President of OurPlace, a non-profit organization that provides support, shelter, and counseling for troubled Jewish youth.

Mr. Verschleiser is a frequent commentator on political and social services matters.

Follow on Twitter: @E_Verschleiser

Could the Mideast Use Some ‘Trumpification’?

Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, recently spoke out against what he called the “Trumpification” of the Middle East.

“The recent massive arms deals President Trump made with the Gulf monarchies exacerbate the risk of a new arms race … I am very concerned by the dramatic escalation of the situation and the consequences for the whole region,” Minister Gabriel said.

He was referring to the White House siding with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Qatar for its evident support of Iran and jihadist terror via the Muslim Brotherhood. This has built into quite the standoff and the resulting blockade has had ripples throughout the region. The Qatari riyal has taken a beating and they are seeing compensation for the blockade. In addition to the Saudis and UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Maldives and Yemen have all cut ties with Qatar.

It's a mess all right, but with due respect to the Germans and other critics, Trumpification may not be such a bad thing. In taking a hard line against Doha, the President is continuing the Bush doctrine, that the U.S. "should make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account." Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is within his purview to try to negotiate a solution to this standoff, after the proper lesson has been learned, but despite his evident misgivings and indignation about the key role played by Trump son-in-law and key advisor Jared Kushner, he should support his boss on this.

Trump reportedly doubled down on his position in a call with Gulf region leaders. According to the White House, as reported by Reuters, “"He reiterated the importance of stopping terrorist financing and discrediting extremist ideology. The president also underscored that unity in the region is critical to accomplishing the Riyadh Summit's goals of defeating terrorism and promoting regional stability," the White House said.

"President Trump, nevertheless, believes that the overriding objective of his initiative is the cessation of funding for terrorism," it said.

In addition to its links with the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar has also nurtured ties with Israel’s most fierce enemy, Hamas, under the claim that it is trying to promote more engagement and moderation. (That claim was bolstered by a recent Hamas statement that seems to accept a two-state solution, albeit one that does not formally recognize Israel.)

Yes, it was disappointing that the president has shelved his campaign promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

But he certainly made a solid statement about Jerusalem as the first sitting president to visit the Western Wall. And there’s much else to like about the emerging Trump Middle East policy. Unlike his predecessor, he acted quickly when Syria crossed the imaginary 'red line' by gassing civilians, launching a quick and punishing airstrike.

He also seems to take the more realistic view of the region and what our goals there should be.

Writing in Politico, Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations noted that Trump’s policy “reflects a sound understanding of what the United States can achieve in the region and, importantly, what it cannot.”

Noting that Western efforts to promote democracy that led to the Arab Spring produced more fractured societies but no real change agents, Cook adds “The Trump administration seems to understand this and has pragmatically shifted American policy to achievable goals like rolling back the Islamic State and challenging Iran’s efforts to extend its influence around the region.”

Those who believe Trump, a businessman and political amateur is not a serious president with real policy goals may dismiss his Mideast stance.

But it suggests a practical view of the fight against ISIS recognizing that, other than democratic Israel, there are no other perfect allies in the Middle East.

The 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and the country has a troubling history of terror support. However, Iran is worse in that their leaders continue to make threatening statements against Israel and the US while almost surely planning to resume their nuclear arms quest as soon as they can get away with it. While he’s keeping the John Kerry-brokered nuclear deal in place for now, President Trump is avowedly pessimistic about it.

The Saudis on the other hand have growing, low-key ties with Israel based on strategic interests and common enemies.

Given the disastrous Middle East policy of Barack Obama, which entailed alienating Israel while cozying up to and placing misguided trust in Iran, and chasing pipe dreams about the spread of democracy if we just talk nicely to people and avoid saying “Islamic terror,” 

Trumpification seems to me to be potentially one of the best processes to come along in years.

Originally Published: IsraelNationalNews.com 

'Public Health Leaders' Must Condemn Terror

As the world recoils from yet another atrocity, offering platitudes of “standing with Manchester” while actually doing very little to challenge terrorism, the City University of New York’s School of Public Health is getting ready to send the wrong message to its graduates.

Linda Sarsour

Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, who has a history of inflammatory behavior toward Israel and its supporters and supports the violent intifada, will be a keynote speaker at that school’s commencement. She’ll share the stage with New York’s first lady, Chirlane McCray, and Mary Bassett, Commissioner of the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as “public health and social justice leaders.” This honor is ostensibly in recognition of her role in organizing the massive women’s march on Washington protesting against Donald Trump, in which potential cuts to health services were decried.

The irony is stark: It’s hard to conceive of a bigger public health threat than terrorism -- The weaponization of disaffected young people around the world via online channels, recruited to commit despicable acts in places like Jerusalem, San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, Istanbul ....the list goes on.

Sarsour, who has forged alliances with many liberal Jewish leaders, condemned the 5/22 attack on the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, calling it in a Facebook post “a whole different level of evil” for targeting children, and “sickening.”

But such statements are inconsistent with her stated support for the Palestinian intifada and the boycott-divest-sanction movement against Israel. BDS is a form of soft terrorism, as it is focused on one side of the conflict with the intention of forcing Israel into territorial concessions that are against its interests. Given Israel’s precarious geography, those concessions could ultimately cost lives on a scale bigger than any one suicide bomb.

Activists gathered outside CUNY headquarters on May 25 to demand the invitation be revoked, but that’s unlikely, given the fallout from a similar controversy in 2011, when Jewish Israel critic Tony Kushner had his honorary degree yanked under pressure.  Pro-Kushner forces prevailed and the school did a 180.

Chancellor James Milliken released a statement in April saying “the fact that Ms. Sarsour might hold views that are controversial cannot be the basis for withdrawing an invitation to speak,” while noting that the university itself “sees BDS as anathema to the values of higher education.”

But where are those values when Sarsour declares that “you can’t be a Zionist and a feminist.” Is she kidding? Where in the Middle East are women’s rights protected better than in Israel, which had a female prime minister in 1969. Maybe she would prefer the feminism of Saudi Arabia, where women can’t drive, much less run for office, or of Jordan, where they need a husband’s permission to travel.

Israel’s leaders continuously cast aside politics in the name of humanity, allowing relatives of Hamas leaders who want to destroy them to be treated in Jewish hospitals, and sending aid around the world in times of need. Arab citizens have full rights in Israel and serve in the Knesset. And yet Linda Sarsour calls Zionism “creepy.”

CUNY isn’t the only public institution sending mixed signals about terrorism and the Middle East conflict.

A Public Broadcasting System curriculum is drawing fire from conservative critics for its effort to create understanding about the motivations of suicide bombers (who should more properly be called homicide bombers.)

The lesson plan “Dying to be a Martyr,” is 10 years old and likely came to light now because the fight over federal funding for public broadcasting, which is on President Trump’s budget chopping block. But that fact should not take away from serious discussion about the content.

High-school teachers are encouraged to show their students interviews with would-be Palestinian bombers. The lesson teaches students to empathize with violent Palestinian terrorists who are willing to murder Jews in Israel and beyond.

Perhaps there is a shred of a noble intention in this program’s origins, but it is at best naive, bordering on biased. There are many peoples in the world who collectively feel aggrieved and don’t resort to terrorism and violence, and they are better off as a result.

Page Fortna, an associate political science professor at Columbia University wrote in a recent paper, highlighted in The Atlantic following the Manchester bombing, that “The disadvantages of terrorism generally outweigh its advantages.” She concluded from a detailed study of 104 recent global conflicts that terror historically hurts rather than helps a cause. “None of those that deliberately killed large numbers of civilians through terrorist attacks won its fight outright,” Fortna said.

So it’s surely in no one’s interest to promote a mindset that terrorism is an inevitable (or effective) product of an uprising against a more powerful enemy.

In defending the programming, PBS in a statement said “In no way does it condone the heinous actions of individuals who would target innocent civilians. PBS would strongly condemn any assertion that terrorism is ever appropriate.”

But just watch the video, which features a sympathetic kid who ultimately decided that God told him not to carry out an attack in an Israeli town. Everything we know about these bombers, much of it from the videos they leave behind, is that they believe God wants the exact opposite. So it’s not as much frustration with lack of a peace diplomacy but rather a twisted religious fervor (denounced by mainstream Islam) that guides these acts.

PBS’s ombudsman, Michael Getler noted in a column that “Dying to be a Martyr” contains “what I consider to be some legitimate questions about the content, or more precisely as I read it, a lack of more contextual content, within this lesson plan.” He concurs that what is missing from the curriculum is instructions for teachers to denounce suicide bombing and radical Islamic views in general,” something we might assume to be a given. Some teachers, however, might be too afraid of offending people to do that.

There’s nothing healthy about either supporting terrorism outright or trying to understand it rationally, and the sooner institutions like CUNY and PBS realize that, the better off we’ll all be.

Originally Published by The Algemeiner

Left wing protests only strengthen the Right

By: Eli Verschleiser

Our country seems more sharply divided today than it has been for generations.

With a new president in the White House, only 14 percent of Democrats approve of his performance, compared with 90 percent of Republicans. The Pew Research Center has found that Americans of both parties are increasingly disapproving of a president of the opposite party, and that at the height of the election campaign 81 percent of Donald Trump supporters viewed life in America today as worse than it was 50 years ago, compared with just 11 percent who said it is better.



Among Hillary Clinton supporters’ 19 percent said life is worse, compared with nearly six-in-ten (59 percent) who said it is better.

Those divisions have been on sharp display since Trump won the election, with mass protests across the country. While mistakes have been made by the president and his staff during the breaking-in period (we can’t exactly call it a honeymoon) there have been calls for his impeachment, or worse. The media pounce on his every word and mistake.

“Not my president,” the protesters declare, while the Democrats in Congress, with their minority numbers in both houses tried feebly to block the appointment of the new Cabinet members.

Clearly, despite the loss of Congress and the White House, the Democrats have failed to learn the lessons from the populist victory of 2016. In different areas of the country, there were localized concerns but a few things united citizens in the 37 states in which a majority voted against Hillary Clinton.

Millions of Americans want to feel good about their country and want government to stay out of their lives except to provide a strong economy, protect their rights and defend them from harm. They also want borders that mean something and a prevailing sense of law and order, not condemnation of the cops and excuses for criminals.

As much as some moderate Democrats might like to take this into consideration and steer the party at least to the middle, the party is in the process of moving even further left. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 22, the Bernie Sanders wing of the party “has engaged in an intramural fight to remake the party in a more populist, liberal mold.” The goal of Sanders’ Our Revolution movement of five million, forged from Sanders surprisingly powerful presidential bid is “making party officials and elected Democrats more accountable to activists, and replacing them if they aren’t.”

That means the crowds that often take to the streets berating the police, waving Palestinian flags, supporting illegal immigration and occasionally turning violent will be steering the ship.

Will Tom Perez as newly minted leader of the party have a better clue to why so many voters find this abhorrent than his predecessor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)?

Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal said after the Democrats chose their new leader that the selection of Perez shows the party isn’t ready to do any “soul searching about what happened in 2016,” but rather wants to “bring the Sanders people and their energy into the party.”

The difference between Perez and runner-up Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) in that race, Gigot said, was not ideological but rather a choice of “insider vs. outsider,” since Perez was an Obama Cabinet member. Ellison, with his troubling history on Israel and past support of Louis Farrakhan, is now the deputy party chairman.

Trump critics say they’re outraged over rising anti-Semitism, yet they have no problem raising the banner of hate against the Jewish state by calling for either its outright destruction or its severe weakening via economic sanctions and boycotts they think will pressure Israel into relinquishing territory to the Palestinians. The same voices never seemed as perturbed when anti-Semitism rose during the Obama years.

“Where are the liberal leaders when Jewish cemeteries are desecrated and campuses are painted with swastikas and racial slurs?” asked Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat, in a statement. “How are the leaders of the Democrats communicating with and reining in their followers when these crimes are committed? It’s simple. They’re not. Instead they’ve found an easy answer: Blame Trump.

“Should the President of the United States do more to stop these crimes? Absolutely. But to blame these anti-Semitic incidents on the Trump presidency is absurd. Anti-Semitic crimes were up 9 percent from 2014 to 2015. Does former President Obama own that?”

The continued protests weeks after the inauguration are appalling, at best. Are there that many people without jobs that have so much free time on their hands?

The president should be given a chance to articulate his agenda, set the country on a new path.

So President Trump is a reality TV star, yes we knew that. But I find myself less outraged at him and his policies than I am at the relentless critics who did not want to see Barack Obama go and wanted to continue socialist policies by electing Senator Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton.

It has been nearly 30 years since a president handed the White House over to someone of the same party.

We only get one president at a time, and so the protesters should step back and acknowledge that people like me are more likely to look at what they are doing and move further to the right, not the direction they advocate.

Originally Published: The Hill