R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Submitted By Gale Fieldman:

As an attorney and resident of a section of East Hampton with a large immigrant population I am extremely concerned about what appears to be the willingness of local officials to employ extra judicial enforcement of Mr. Trump’s anti immigrant executive orders.
The following issues must be addressed:

1.     Will law enforcement detain individuals without warrants solely based upon their appearance absent any evidence  of their criminal activity as was done in Arizona with disastrous results?

2.     What is the definition of “criminal activity” for the purpose of this order? Are law officers left to their own devices to make such a definition since none has been offered to date, even by “Tweet”.

3.     Will minor traffic violations be elevated to the level of criminal activity, contrary to New York law, as a pretext for detention of individuals who appear to be immigrants?

4.     Will law enforcement seek legal support under Attorney General Schneiderman’s guidelines for noncompliance with  the executive order? Local authorities must consider the considerable cost of legal action they will inevitably incur should they  attempt to comply with this executive order which is extremely unpopular among many of your constituencies. The executive order offers no financial aide to compensate  local governments for such litigation costs.

5.     Will law enforcement resources in our communities be side tracked away from their real duties to implement an arbitrary  partisan political policy that has not been vetted,  reviewed or even clearly defined by any federal, state or local legislative body?

Our communities and our law enforcement personnel deserve answers to these questions before  this policy can be constitutionally implemented.

 Say goodbye to net neutrality and higher prices to access the Internet.  The Trump administration’s agenda includes higher costs for internet access and to permit your Internet experience to be subject to the whims of your Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Optimum or Verizon.  Until now, rules that effectively made “net neutrality” the law of the land.  That’s about to change.

First, what is net neutrality?  Basically, as its name indicates, net neutrality guarantees an Internet that is a free and open platform.  Users are able to use their bandwidth however they want and Internet service providers cannot discriminate (through increased cost or better access) in favor of any particular web site.  Rather, an ISP must give each website equal footing in reaching their users.

Now, President Trump has tapped Ajit Pai, an outspoken critic of net neutrality, to become Chairman of the FCC, the agency responsible for enforcing and promulgating rules governing the Internet.  Commissioner Pai opposes consumer protection, from the net neutrality rules to consumers’ right to online privacy.  His basic position on net neutrality is that enforcement of net neutrality rules is unfair to Internet Service Providers, and he has an agenda to undo those rules.

What does this mean to you?  First, don’t be fooled by laws touted as providing “Internet freedom,” as was tried in the past.  Undoing the guarantee of net neutrality will allow ISPs to deliver content differently depending on the service by, for example, creating tiers of service that would have consumers (you and me) pay for priority access instead of bandwidth speeds.  Suppliers also would be free to charge high-bandwidth content providers (or more popular sites), like Netflix, more to carry their content, or they could charge users, like you and me, extra to access Netflix.

Ultimately, the effect of undoing net neutrality rules will make Internet access more expensive.  Over time, one can only assume that websites (like Netflix) will pass on to us the costs they may pay for high-speed access.  In addition, it would become more difficult to view websites that can’t (or won’t) pay for high-speed access.

You can do something about this.  Contact your Congressional representatives and tell them that you don’t want to pay any more to your cable company or telephone provider for supplying what is now a necessary utility just like your electricity service.  If you live in Congressional District 1(which includes the East End), call Congressman Zeldin’s Riverhead office at 631-209-4235.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath

In response to Zeldin’s non-response, the following letter was sent, with 30+ signatories

Dear Rep. Zeldin:

Bruce A. Colbath
5 LongWoods Lane
East Hampton, NY 11937
631-324-8633
917-902-0555
bcolbath42@gmail.com

Dear Representative Zeldin:

I appreciate your responses to my emails concerning Mr. Trump’s Executive Order (EO) concerning the ban on entry into the United States from individuals seeking entry from seven specific countries. Unfortunately, I am dismayed by the many mischaracterizations contained in your responses. Briefly:

First. The very premise of the EO,“Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry…,” and your characterization of its purpose as ensuring that “the American people know with confidence that any individual being granted admission does not pose a threat to our security,” does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny.

In a study performed by an immigration expert at the Cato Institute (https://www.theatlantic.com/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361), the total number of Americans killed from 1975-2015 by terrorists from the seven countries covered by Mr. Trump’s ban is – zero. In stark contrast, terrorists from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon alone were responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans. Yet, incomprehensibly, these countries are not among those from which entry is banned. Real danger emanated from these countries, yet they are ignored. So much for “prioritiz[ing] America’s security risk.”

Second. President Obama did not enact a similar policy in his first term, in contrast to your statement. Soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama amended the Visa Waiver Program (a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas) to remove dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria) or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen) the seven countries targeted by the Trump ban. However, President Obama’s directives did not bar anyone from coming to the United States — it only required people from those seven countries to first obtain a visa.

Third. Contrary to your statement, green card holders have been impacted by Mr. Trump’s ban. There have been numerous reports concerning the detention of individuals who obtained permanent resident status. Even more perniciously, there are reports that administration officials deceptively coerced permanent residents to execute forms pursuant to which the targeted people surrendered this status.
Lastly. I fail to see the rationale for granting immigration priority to those of Christian or Jewish faith. Apart from the unconstitutionality of such an approach, nothing guarantees that adherence to these religious beliefs immunizes a believer from terrorism.

In short, Mr. Trump’s EO – whether temporary or not — is a cardinal sin as committed by a Constitutional representative: He has allowed the end to justify an improper means, and by doing so has isolated the US from much of the rest of the world, which puts our nation and our Armed Forces at much greater risk. You should have known better than to support such a travesty.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath
Cc: Mark Woolley (mark.woolley@mail.house.gov)
P.S. Joining me in this are the following CD1 constituents:
Carol O’Rourke
Jeanne Frankl
Bette & Larry Smith
Ilissa Meyer
Bill Taylor
Kammy Wolf
Max & Tina Plesset
Jose B. D’Santos
Sue & David Avedon
Rameshwar Das
James MacMillan
Betty Mazur
Arthur Schiff
Rona Klopman
Barbara Layton
Vicki Luria Blatt
Larry Mayer
Laura Michaels
Connie Cortese
Paul & Susan McGraw Keber
Arline Gidion
Michael Anthony
Mary E. Gottemoeller
Robert Brody
Gordon Herr
David Posnett
Maria Nordone

In addition, this is worth reading to understand the non-partisan nature of this threat. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/01/30/why-trumps-policies-will-increase-terrorism-and-why-trump-might-benefit-as-a-result/?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=41723566

Dear Rep. Zeldin:

I am so ashamed of the immigration order issued by Mr. Trump. Even more shocking, given your Jewish heritage, is that you actually support this ban – on helpless people simply looking to avoid sinister and deadly oppression. As you must be painfully aware, Jews experienced a similar fate almost 80 years ago. And, in one of the most shameful events in US history, the US government turned its back on them – just as it is doing today with respect to refugees from similar oppression in their home countries.

On May 13, 1939, the German transatlantic liner St. Louis sailed from Hamburg, Germany, for Havana, Cuba. On the voyage were 937 passengers. Almost all were Jews fleeing from the Third Reich. Most were German citizens, some were from Eastern Europe, and a few were officially “stateless.” This emigration was the result of efforts by the German government to accelerate the pace of forced Jewish emigration. It also hoped to exploit the unwillingness of other nations to admit large numbers of Jewish refugees to justify the Nazi regime’s anti-Jewish goals and policies both domestically in Germany and in the world at large.

In Cuba, hostility toward immigrants fueled both anti-semitism and xenophobia. Both agents of Nazi Germany and indigenous right-wing movements hyped the immigrant issue in their publications and demonstrations, claiming that incoming Jews were Communists. When the St. Louis arrived in Havana harbor on May 27, the Cuban government admitted 28 passengers, but refused to admit the remaining passengers or to allow them to disembark from the ship.

After Cuba denied entry to the passengers on the St. Louis, the press throughout Europe and the Americas, including the United States, brought the story to millions of readers throughout the world.

Sailing so close to Florida that they could see the lights of Miami, some passengers on the St. Louis cabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking for refuge. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department and the White House had decided not to take extraordinary measures to permit the refugees to enter the United States. A State Department telegram sent to a passenger stated that the passengers must “await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible into the United States.”

Not unlike today, the Great Depression had left millions of people in the United States unemployed and fearful of competition for the scarce few jobs available. This situation fueled anti-semitism, xenophobia, nativism, and isolationism. President Roosevelt could have issued an executive order to admit the St. Louis refugees, but this general hostility to immigrants, the gains of isolationist Republicans in the Congressional elections of 1938, and Roosevelt’s consideration of running for an unprecedented third term as president were among the political considerations that militated against taking this extraordinary step in a then unpopular cause. Roosevelt was not alone in his reluctance to challenge the mood of the nation on the immigration issue. Three months before the St. Louis sailed, Congressional leaders in both US houses allowed to die in committee a bill sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.) and Representative Edith Rogers (R-Mass.) that would have admitted 20,000 Jewish children from Germany above the existing quota.

Following the US government’s refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. The passengers did not return to Germany, however. Jewish organizations (particularly the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) negotiated with four European governments to secure entry visas for the passengers: Great Britain took 288 passengers; the Netherlands admitted 181 passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers; and 224 passengers found at least temporary refuge in France. Of the 288 passengers admitted by Great Britain, all survived World War II save one, who was killed during an air raid in 1940. Of the 620 passengers who returned to continent, 87 (14%) managed to emigrate before the German invasion of Western Europe in May 1940. 532 St. Louis passengers were trapped when Germany conquered Western Europe. Just over half, 278 survived the Holocaust. 254 died: 84 who had been in Belgium; 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86 who had been admitted to France.

The plight of the St. Louis remains one of the most shameful episodes in US history, largely because of the anti-semitic overtones.

The same irrational xenophobic themes populate the supposed rationale underlying Mr. Trump’s Executive Order denying refuge to those seeking to escape the ravages of war that has engulfed the Middle East, which largely has been the result of President Bush’s ill-fated decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no legitimate reason for the Executive Order; it is well known that the refugees who have been granted entry into the US have undergone vetting (some two years worth by more than a dozen US military and intelligence agencies) which could not be more “extreme.”

Your heritage teaches that your support for the rejection of these refugees purely on religious and national ideology should be condemned. You would be well served to follow its teachings.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath

Letter published in the Boston Globe:

LETTERS
White House ignores history in its Holocaust statement

FEBRUARY 01, 2017
YOUR EDITORIAL “A shocking Holocaust omission from the White House” (Jan. 31) was jarring. I just attended a reading of Elie Wiesel’s “Night,” a memoir of the horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald. There is no doubt that Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jewish people. In his sick view, the Aryan race was superior and all other people were expendable, the Jews being the priority. It isn’t nitpicking to distinguish the Holocaust as a singularly Jewish experience.

The statement from the White House on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which omitted the fact that the intent of the Nazis was to exterminate the Jewish people, reveals insensitivity and purposeful ignorance of history.

The suffering and pain after the Holocaust has not disappeared. Intentional infliction of mental distress is illegal.

The statement of President Trump further demonstrates the administration’s tone-deaf attitude. Therefore, we must speak louder and more often in order to be heard.
The victims’ memories require nothing less.

Steven A. Ludsin

East Hampton, N.Y.

The writer was a member of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust under Jimmy Carter and of the US Holocaust Memorial Council.