Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Hundreds of demonstrators turned out Sunday afternoon at one of Edmonds’ busiest thoroughfares to make their feelings known about President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration.
People all ages lined the Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West intersection and waved at drivers in passing cars, many of whom honked their horns in support. Demonstrators also joined in chanting their opposition to the president’s order, signed last Friday, that bars entry to the U.S. for anyone from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. Many also expressed their disagreement with the president’s plan to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
According to our online news partner The Seattle Times, Trump also ordered the nation’s broader refugee program suspended for four months. The suspension is intended to provide time to review how refugees are vetted before they are allowed to resettle in the United States, The Times said. In all, Trump’s order also cuts the number of refugees the U.S. plans to accept this budget year by more than half, to 50,000 people from around the world.
Kate Nichols of Edmonds said her reason for participating in Sunday’s demonstration was simple. “Everybody deserves a happy, healthy, safe life,” she said. “We have that here and we want to share.”
Added Edmonds resident Darci Larson: “We’re here to stand up especially for people of color, our Muslim neighbors who are feeling very frightened right now,” she said, “and make sure they understand that here in Edmonds, speaking as a white person, that I’m going to stand up from them and use my privilege and my power to protect those who are being threatened.”
Larson was joined by Christine Pelletreau of Edmonds, and both of them wore their signature pink hats from last weekend’s women’s march.
“This is exhilarating, it’s uplifting,” added Merrill Meredith of Edmonds, who flashed the peace sign to drivers as they navigated the intersection. “I just think about my Muslim friends and the message it sends.”
— Story and video (via Periscope live) by Teresa Wippel
Why didn’t Edmonds get so active when Obama did it?
Obama didn’t do anything like this.
Obama chose the list of countries after he put immigration restrictions due to a growing terror threat. Trump just turned it into a temporary ban.
Yes, Obama did…in 2011, for 6 months per Iraq.
Also, one week before leaving office, Obama stopped all Cuban refugees also…..wet foot, dry foot policy originally started by Bill Clinton.
This does not represent my approval or disapproval of the policy…we need to be aware that there is a history of refugee pauses and denials…
Fact checking very important these days. Try politifact or fact check.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison/
Just by using factcheck.org , liberally slanted ‘fact checking’ website and the tag ‘trumps-faulty-refugee-policy-comparison’ description link, makes it suspect as to being neutral or slanted.
Surely there are some other websites not so slanted??
..Just sayin’
Donald, I’ll be honest I don’t know which of these may be characterized as “left leaning” but there are many articles regarding how Trump’s executive order is quite a lot different than Obama’s in 2011. I searched “Obama’s ban vs Trump’s” on Google and here are just a few hits:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/31/14444862/obama-refugee-ban-2011
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/30/fact-check-trump-refugee-policy-comparison-obama/97247418/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/trumps.refugee.ban.vs.obamas.what.is.the.difference/104298.htm
https://metro.co.uk/2017/01/30/did-obama-really-start-muslim-ban-before-donald-trump-6415102/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.88587ad4a286
SO happy to see such a nice turnout. Wish I had been able to attend, but it’s great to read about!
We are living in dangerous times! We must be prudent and diligent with our decisions of who we let into our great nation. No vetting is simply not the answer. Also, the people who drag thier kids to things like this and allow them to stand dangerously close to speeding traffic need to be more responsible parents and keep thier kids out of harms way.
Just a general reminder to all commenters that our policy requires real first and last names before comments are approved and that have a limit of three (3) all-caps words per comment.
We do vet. Quite rigorously. It takes up to two years to get a visa.
Enacting a temporary travel ban makes sense and has been done before, this is nothing new. The key is to review the process until we can ensure that we are not accidentally letting in terrorists from these terrorist infested areas. This is just common sense. The primary responsibility of executive branch is to ensure that American citizens are safe. Yes, immigration is part of america but we also owe it to our current citizens to ensure their safety and to make sure we are not being irresponsible and naive. This is our governments primary responsibility!
Well put, thankyou John.
We do vet. How would you improve this process?
If you read my comment I never stated we do not vet, or that the process needed improvement as you state. My statement was that we need to “review the process until we can ensure that we are not accidentally letting in terrorists from these terrorist infested areas.” I do not see how this is even an issue, it is complete common sense.
Being satisfied with the status quo, in regards to the safety of Americans citizens, is a dangerous way to approach issues in this ever changing and dangerous world. Terrorism is a treat, and American citizens are a target. The governments primary responsibility is to ensure our current citizens are safe.
John, do you think it should take 90 days (120 in the case of refugees and “indefinite” in the case of Syrian refugees) to “review the process”? And did it have to be an immediate and total ban? Are we in that much imminent danger? I wish our government (Donald Trump) would answer some of these questions.
Don,
I do not claim to know how long it would take or should take. However, if one American citizens life can be saved by ensuring that we are doing things correctly, I believe it is worth the timeframe. American citizens should always be the priority of our government. It would be backwards to have a government put the needs of non-citizens ahead of the safety of its citizens. Regarding whether there is an immediate danger, I cannot say, as I do not have the level of information that our intelligence agencies have. Given the world situation, it would better to be safe then to needlessly and recklessly endanger American lives.
Right. As I suspected, you don’t know or cannot say. I agree that American citizens should always be the priority of our government. My problem is that I don’t feel that is the case with this government. Rather than answer some these questions or try in any way to allay our fears, this government allows the confusion and fear to continue. But I have a feeling that is their very intent.
And yet most of the fear mongering is coming from the media’s outright campaign to turn the public against Trump, because he has bypassed the power they’ve held over this country for at least 70 years…and they are scared now that they’ve lost it. Dozens and dozens of articles pop up every day telling us that Trump is planning an autocracy, or planning to take away civil liberties, or planning to take away baby killing rights, etc. Get a grip. Fear is exactly what those opposing Trump want. Fear is how they mobilize their base. The false crusade on “fake news” and “facts” is just another fear inspiring spin campaign they’ve started to sow division and call into question anyone who doesn’t fall into line on the anti-Trump movement. Unfortunately for the anti-Trumpers, the fear they are wielding is a blunt instrument which is not easily controlled.
I didn’t need the media to turn me against Trump. He has done a pretty good job of that on his own.
Don,
to repeat myself, in case you did not actually read my comments, I never stated I claimed to know.
America has a right to protect itself and ensure the people who want to migrate here have the right intentions. I am sure you lock your door at night to ensure you family is safe. Do you think it would be prudent to leave your door open at night and just allow whoever wanted to come into your house to walk in? That would be foolish and naive. Unfortunately the world is not a safe place.
It sounds like you believe the government is up to something nefarious by enacting this temporary travel ban.
i didn’t mean to imply that you claimed to know, or that you should know. Only our government really “knows” and they are loathe to provide answers or explanations. I do lock my door because that is prudent. But I don’t believe all persons of certain nationalities should be excluded from my neighborhood because one of them might try to come through my door. Not sure yet if the government is up to something nefarious, but I do think this ban by Trump is primarily political to show that he could do what he promised in his campaign – a Muslim ban. And I think it is a test to see how far he can push his authority.
Don,
I do not think you can say this ban is based on nationality. I believe that is a message that people, who oppose the temporary ban, have tried to create in order to play identity politics. Unfortunately identity politics always takes over the real issues and debates that this country needs to have, this past election being a prime example. I would say both sides definitely partake in political “shows” and try to pander to peoples emotions instead of rational and logical thought. Dialog and discussion, between the parties, is what is crucial to ensure we are making the best decisions. Unfortunately dialog/discussion has broken down and emotions run the show. This is no way to make wise/prudent decisions.
I believe that we, as Americans, need to wake up to the manipulations of the media and political parties. It reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. If every issue becomes pandemonium, then people will become callus and not believe anything. This will only do us a dis-service when a real issue actually happens. People will not believe there is actually a wolf..
I used the nationality analogy because my president promised that what he is doing is not a Muslim ban. But if a ban on immigrants from seven specific Middle Eastern countries is not based on nationality, I don’t know what is.
“…people, who oppose the temporary ban, have tried to create in order to play identity politics.” It is always dangerous to attribute motives to others. You appear to discount that many protest the policy out of deep conviction that it is morally wrong.
Nathaniel,
I don’t believe your statement is true, regarding assigning motives. People are assigning motives to the current administration, given your logic that is dangerous. There are obvious political motives taking place on both sides, this is very transparent and should be obvious to any person that is watching.
Regarding the protests, I never stated I discount them. based on your logic you are assigning me a motive and that is dangerous. I only question whether their actions are out of emotion, or the mob mentality. I see articles stating this travel ban is unconstitutional. Only Citizens have the protections of the constitution of the United States. As far as I can tell there are no human rights violations taking place by requiring extra screening before entering the country.
Your statement “morally wrong” seems to imply that there is a right and a wrong. Are these the same individuals that believe it is not morally wrong to abort unborn babies? This would seem to be a moral conflict. Using morals as an argument piece, when it is convenient for your argument, is dangerous.
Of course there are political motives – this is politics, and it would be strange if it were otherwise; motiveless, non-political politics? There are those among us who firmly believe that the policy is immoral, ill-considered, and counter-productive, that it is indeed “immoral” for this country, with its long history as a refuge (with notable exceptions, as when so many Jews were refused entry when fleeing from the Nazis) to slam its doors, especially so arbitrarily, given the terrorist-producing countries not on the banned list.
I’m afraid I fail to see the relevance of the possible views of some of the protesters vis-a-vis abortion, or the apparent assumption that whatever their views on that subject, a pro-choice position is in moral conflict with sympathy for refugees. Making an argument based on moral convictions is a matter of convenience? To to say so appears close to dismissing another person’s opinions out of hand as illegitimate and/or unfounded.
It is always dangerous to attribute motives to others.
Nathaniel,
It is not dangerous to attribute motives to others. In fact I would say it is prudent depending on the situation. If an individual broke into your house, would you not pass judgment on what their motives were? Is that dangerous? You by definition are passing judgment on this administrations motives by assuming it is against immigrants and is immoral. I do not think that is dangerous. In fact I would say it was prudent because it has caused you to become active and be involved.
You brought up morals implying that there is a clear right and a clear wrong regarding immigrants. I cannot see how someone can say that screening immigrants is immoral and yet also support the abortion of unborn babies. My point here was to point out hypocrisy. You cannot use morals with one argument and disregard it in another. I do not see outrage and protests regarding the 55 million babies that have been killed in the United States since 1973. To me this screams hypocrisy at the highest level and demonstrates this “outrage” is clearly politically motivated.
I’d block Saudi emigrants too. The list of “countries of concern” was compiled by the Obama admin, and seems to be a list of states that have been known to abet terrorists yet somehow failed to donate millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. I did not vote for Trump, and I do not support travel bans. However, these protesters only seem to care about the white collar Muslims trying to get jobs at Amazon, and less about those left in Yemen. Obama built upon and used the Bush Doctrine, and used the original 2001 war authorization to bomb nearly every Muslim country on the list. I remember collecting signatures in Edmonds against the bombing of Muslims in Libya, and the same people who are at this protest argued at the time that the bombs were “humanitarian aid”. Where were the protesters when Obama bombed two wedding parties with a drone, or summarily execute Abdul al-Awlaki (a 16yo American boy) by way of a kill-list? Afghanistan is effectively a ward of the United States, and woman’s rights are so poor there right now, and woman are so ostracized, that men have taken to boys and there’s a pervasive boy-rape culture there now. Where are the protesters!? 15 of the 19 hijackers in 2001 and Osama bin Ladin, himself, were Saudi’s, and the money was Saudi. Obama veto’d a House bill in an attempt to prevent 9-11 victims from seeking council against Saudi state activities. Saudi’s (with significant help from Hillary Clinton’s State Department) is actively sponsoring terrorism and creating the very refugees that we’d be forced to accept. More than half of Saudi woman have their genitals mutilated, more than 90% of woman in Somalia have been “cut”. Just because someone is a refugee, it doesn’t mean they will be good Americans or deserve to be here. We need to turn away any who opposes woman’s rights, in the right to be gay, and those reject Habeas Corpus. These people aren’t really protesting a Muslim ban. They are just upset Trump won the election and are co-opting Muslim refugee crisis.
“These people aren’t really protesting a Muslim ban. They are just upset Trump won the election and are co-opting Muslim refugee crisis” I concur with almost all you say, but that last sentence paints a lot of people with a very broad brush – perhaps unfairly?
Right on Nathaniel. Not all refugees are good people. It’s a broad brush to say “all welcome here”. To me, if you don’t believe in American Civil Rights and American Tradition, and would only come here to undermine our society, we shouldn’t permit immigration to that person. For example, Obama just deported Russians and closed embassies citing [false] evidence that they tried to undermine our election. Is that a Russian Orthodox Christian ban? I agree that over-generalizing is poor practice, but I think the broad brush is permissible considering protesters are all there for the same intellectually dishonest reason. The Troll in me is half-inclined to go to their next protest (where-ever or whenever it is) wearing a head-to-toe burka and carry a Je Suis Charlie sign.
“…considering protesters are all there for the same intellectually dishonest reason.”
And you know this, how?
The whole point of a protest is to get a whole bunch of people together to put forward the same idea. If the lay observer has no idea why they are there, then it’s a pretty sad protest. Obama has been bombing countries on the “countries of concern” list for 8 years now. I’d rather have my visa denied than my house blown up. That’s the intellectually dishonest part of this protest.