White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday said that State Department officials who don't like President Trump's Muslim ban can "either get with the program or get out."
(Photo: C-SPAN)
Jan 30, 2017
First of all, those objecting to a White House executive order which sowed "chaos, heartbreak, and resistance" at airports across the United States over the weekend are blowing things "out of proportion." And secondly, those inside the government who oppose President Donald Trump's blanket ban on guests, immigrants, and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries have just two choices at this point: get in line or get lost.
Those were the two key takeaways from remarks by White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday afternoon when asked to account for the controversial ban and a draft dissent cable put forth by State Departments employees, and obtained by news outlets, officially challenging the order.
The internal memo (pdf)--which is marked "sensitive but unclassified" and that dozens of career employees have or are expected to sign as a formal registration of dissent--argues that the hastily ordered ban "runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants."
As of Monday morning, reports the Washington Post, "edits and signatures were still being collected in advance of submitting the memo to State Department leadership."
At an early afternoon press briefing, Spicer said the ban imposed by Trump has been "blown way out of proportion" and dismissed those challenging it, including any State Department officials who might back the dissent cable.
"I think they should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer responded when asked if the administration was aware of its circulation and what he thought of those who might back its message.
Beyond the core moral objections, the letter from the career diplomats argues that Trump's ban is actually counterproductive in terms of its claimed purpose, which is to keep the American people more safe. According to the document:
Despite the Executive Order's focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the United States on an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. Rather, the overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens--individuals who have been living in the United States for decades, if not since birth. In the isolated incidents of foreign nationals entering the U.S. on a visa to commit acts of terror, the nationals have come from a range of countries, including many (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) which are not covered by the Executive Order.
"We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people--men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe," the memo concludes. "And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects our American values, and which would make the Department proud."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
First of all, those objecting to a White House executive order which sowed "chaos, heartbreak, and resistance" at airports across the United States over the weekend are blowing things "out of proportion." And secondly, those inside the government who oppose President Donald Trump's blanket ban on guests, immigrants, and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries have just two choices at this point: get in line or get lost.
Those were the two key takeaways from remarks by White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday afternoon when asked to account for the controversial ban and a draft dissent cable put forth by State Departments employees, and obtained by news outlets, officially challenging the order.
The internal memo (pdf)--which is marked "sensitive but unclassified" and that dozens of career employees have or are expected to sign as a formal registration of dissent--argues that the hastily ordered ban "runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants."
As of Monday morning, reports the Washington Post, "edits and signatures were still being collected in advance of submitting the memo to State Department leadership."
At an early afternoon press briefing, Spicer said the ban imposed by Trump has been "blown way out of proportion" and dismissed those challenging it, including any State Department officials who might back the dissent cable.
"I think they should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer responded when asked if the administration was aware of its circulation and what he thought of those who might back its message.
Beyond the core moral objections, the letter from the career diplomats argues that Trump's ban is actually counterproductive in terms of its claimed purpose, which is to keep the American people more safe. According to the document:
Despite the Executive Order's focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the United States on an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. Rather, the overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens--individuals who have been living in the United States for decades, if not since birth. In the isolated incidents of foreign nationals entering the U.S. on a visa to commit acts of terror, the nationals have come from a range of countries, including many (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) which are not covered by the Executive Order.
"We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people--men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe," the memo concludes. "And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects our American values, and which would make the Department proud."
First of all, those objecting to a White House executive order which sowed "chaos, heartbreak, and resistance" at airports across the United States over the weekend are blowing things "out of proportion." And secondly, those inside the government who oppose President Donald Trump's blanket ban on guests, immigrants, and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries have just two choices at this point: get in line or get lost.
Those were the two key takeaways from remarks by White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday afternoon when asked to account for the controversial ban and a draft dissent cable put forth by State Departments employees, and obtained by news outlets, officially challenging the order.
The internal memo (pdf)--which is marked "sensitive but unclassified" and that dozens of career employees have or are expected to sign as a formal registration of dissent--argues that the hastily ordered ban "runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants."
As of Monday morning, reports the Washington Post, "edits and signatures were still being collected in advance of submitting the memo to State Department leadership."
At an early afternoon press briefing, Spicer said the ban imposed by Trump has been "blown way out of proportion" and dismissed those challenging it, including any State Department officials who might back the dissent cable.
"I think they should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer responded when asked if the administration was aware of its circulation and what he thought of those who might back its message.
Beyond the core moral objections, the letter from the career diplomats argues that Trump's ban is actually counterproductive in terms of its claimed purpose, which is to keep the American people more safe. According to the document:
Despite the Executive Order's focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the United States on an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa. Rather, the overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens--individuals who have been living in the United States for decades, if not since birth. In the isolated incidents of foreign nationals entering the U.S. on a visa to commit acts of terror, the nationals have come from a range of countries, including many (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) which are not covered by the Executive Order.
"We do not need to place a blanket ban that keeps 220 million people--men, women, and children--from entering the United States to protect our homeland. We do not need to alienate entire societies to stay safe," the memo concludes. "And we do not need to sacrifice our reputation as a nation which is open and welcoming to protect our families. It is well within our reach to create a visa process which is more secure, which reflects our American values, and which would make the Department proud."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.