OPINION
4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
OUR VIEW
Natalie St. John/EO Media Group
Aida Moradi Ahani’s parents encouraged her to overcome lim-
itations imposed on Iranian citizens — particularly women. She
seized an opportunity last month to use a valid visa to travel to
Oysterville, as the Trump administration tussled with federal
courts in an effort to block all citizens from several Muslim-major-
ity nations from coming to the U.S.
Cross-cultural
exchanges can
strengthen ties
I
ranian writer Aida Moradi Ahani’s determined effort to come
to the U.S. for a writing residency in Oysterville is a perfect
example of precisely why we should remain engaged with
all the rest of the world, including nations about which we have
valid misgivings.
As described in a story Friday, Moradi Ahani was fully autho-
rized by both the U.S. and Iranian governments to come here
for a month of work on her second novel, along with conversa-
tions and connection-building with American writers. President
Donald Trump’s ban on all travel from Iran and several other
Muslim-majority nations upended her plans. Then, when a
Seattle judge temporarily blocked the Trump ban, Moradi Ahani
wasted no time in jumping on a plane for the long, multileg
flight from Tehran to the outer coast of Washington state.
Such audacity is always to be commended and bodes well for
her continuing success as a creative writer, for which courage is
an essential trait.
Trump has now revised his travel ban, removing our ally Iraq,
but reimposing it on citizens from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia,
Sudan and Libya.
Bunching all a nation’s citizens together with its ruling gov-
ernment is always a bad idea. We ourselves bitterly and correctly
resent it when an innocent American is held hostage or subjected
to indignities in some foreign place as a form of protest against
something our government has done. We expect it to be under-
stood that individuals aren’t individually responsible for their
leaders’ deeds and misdeeds.
At the same time, most of us also understand care is war-
ranted in screening travelers, especially from nations where wars
and insurrections are ongoing and where enemies of the U.S.
may wish to do us harm. A blanket ban on complete nationali-
ties, however, will alienate entire societies in ways that may be
hard to overcome. Traveler screening must be smart and nar-
rowly construed to apply to government officials, agents and
those specifically identified as posing potential danger.
Our caution must not be so overblown as to prohibit all travel
here by neutral and friendly foreigners, no matter where they are
from. There is nothing quite so shameful and unchristian (and
un-Islamic) as turning away innocents seeking shelter or to learn
about our culture. Past mistakes, like internment of Japanese-
Americans and our refusal to welcome some European Jewish
refugees, must never be repeated.
Generations of cross-cultural exchanges — including formal
efforts like the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs and informal ones like the Willapa writing
workshop — have strengthened our ties to the world, built alli-
ances and dispelled false notions about one another. Such con-
nections do not increase our risk, but diminish it. Few visit the
U.S. without being impressed, enlightened and often charmed.
The benefits that accrue to us from foreigners coming here is
best exemplified by the fact that repressive regimes go to con-
siderable lengths to keep their citizens from experiencing all we
have to offer. We will do well to take the opposite tack, offering
our great nation’s hospitality to as many who wish to visit in a
spirit of friendship.
A 2010 report by the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy
emphasizes this point:
“Given the strategic importance of improving America’s rela-
tionship with the Muslim world, building bridges and partner-
ships between citizens of the United States and of predominantly
Muslim societies should be accorded the utmost policy prior-
ity. Just as U.S. leaders invested heavily following World War II
in building ties between emerging leaders in the United States
and those in Europe and Japan, so today we need an ambitious
undertaking of similar scale and scope — drawing on the ener-
gies of governments, private corporations, philanthropic institu-
tions, nonprofit organizations and ordinary citizens — focused
on predominantly Muslim societies.”
This approach, not slamming our door, is the way to go.
AP Photo/Eric Gay
Jose Gutierrez, center, joins other clergy and supporters during a prayer rally for immigrants on the steps
of the Texas Capitol last Tuesday in Austin. Faith leaders and activists gathered to pray that a love of
neighbor would guide and shape Texas policies about sanctuary cities.
A ‘sanctuary city’
seizes the moment
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
New York Times News Service
ANTA ANA, Calif. — Cities of
immigrants, it’s time. Time to
declare yourselves sanctuaries. To
wear the label proudly, defiantly,
even if the White House and its allies
threaten you and utter all kinds of
falsehoods against you.
President Donald Trump is in
power; his nativist ideology is now
fully armed and operational. He laid
it out with alarming clarity in his
“America first” address to Congress
last week, painting unauthorized
immigrants as vicious criminals, and
refugees as dangerous undesirables,
using both groups as scapegoats and
targets. The homeland security secre-
tary, John Kelly, has given his boss
a battle plan. Immigration and Cus-
toms Enforcement and the Border
Patrol are carrying it out, combing
the country, seizing and terrifying
the innocent.
The sweeps, arrests and intimi-
dation share a brutal randomness. A
young “Dreamer” gives a news con-
ference after her father and brother
are detained — and is arrested her-
self. ICE stakes out a courthouse to
grab a survivor of domestic violence.
Border agents ask a planeload of pas-
sengers — on a domestic flight — to
show their papers.
Many people are confused by the
term “sanctuary city,” which has no
strict definition. Trump uses it as an
epithet to mean immigrant-loving
communities that allow alien crimi-
nals to roam free. Used that way, the
label is false; no city can suspend
the rule of law or keep out the feds.
But rather than tolerating such slan-
der, cities should seize back the term,
defining sanctuaries as places that
stand for reason in the face of over-
reaching, unjust and often lawless
federal enforcement.
They should do what Santa Ana,
California, has done. It is a city of
335,000, in the heart of Orange
County, whose City Council has
passed one of the boldest and most
far-reaching sanctuary ordinances in
the state. In a county that has long
been known as a haven of white
Republicans, Santa Ana is a mixed-
race, mixed-income, All-American
S
Cities should seize back
the term, defining sanctuaries
as places that stand for reason
in the face of overreaching,
unjust and often lawless
federal enforcement.
town. Its population is about 46 per-
cent immigrant, and its mayor and
its six City Council members are all
Latino.
When the council gave final
approval to its sanctuary ordinance
in January, by a 6-0 vote, it was
the culmination of months of per-
suasion by residents who feel the
force of Trump’s anti-immigrant
threats intimately. They argued that
Latino and Asian families, includ-
ing many unauthorized immigrants
with citizen children, have fought
for a foothold in this country and
deserve to live in safety and peace.
They pointed out that using the
local police as immigration enforc-
ers takes them away from their pri-
mary responsibility, the safety of the
community. It wastes crime-fight-
ing resources. It costs too much.
And it’s constitutionally dubious
for localities to detain people for no
other reason than an administrative
request from ICE.
The ordinance is duly respect-
ful of the law, in a spirit that honors
the Constitution and residents’ civil
rights. It declares that none of its
provisions are to conflict with “any
valid and enforceable duty and obli-
gation imposed by a court order or
any federal or applicable law.” But it
also makes clear that the city will not
cooperate in any federal immigration
dragnet. The feds may do what they
will, but Santa Ana wants no part of
it. It will not allow the use of city
resources or personnel to assist in
these efforts unless required by state
or federal law. Nor will the city share
“sensitive information,” protecting
the privacy of its residents, whatever
their immigration status.
Police chiefs and sheriffs across
the country understand such reason-
ing; 63 of them recently sent a letter
opposing Trump’s effort to conscript
them for his immigration crackdown.
Santa Ana’s decision took cour-
age, given Trump’s heated language
about “vicious” immigrant crimi-
nals and his threat to rob sanctuary
cities of federal funds. It’s not clear
that he can or will follow through.
But for Santa Ana, other financial
implications were more immedi-
ate: The city had a deal with ICE to
house immigrant detainees in its jail
for $340,000 a month; that contract
has been canceled. The city accepted
the hit, realizing how inappropriate
it would be to call itself a sanctuary
while profiting from Trump’s depor-
tation policies.
Success has encouraged the res-
idents of Santa Ana to consider the
next steps. Now that we’re a sanc-
tuary city, what else should we do?
How about finding lawyers to help
people in detention fight deporta-
tion? A resolution to examine the
issue came before the council the
other night. Students, lawyers and
community members waited through
hours of legislative minutiae for a
chance to testify. At about 12:30 in
the morning, the resolution passed
unanimously.
The opposition in California
to the Trump administration goes
well beyond a blue island in histor-
ically red Orange County. The state
Legislature is considering a strong
sanctuary bill, the California Val-
ues Act, to prohibit the use of state
resources for immigration enforce-
ment. Like Santa Ana’s ordinance,
the Values Act would have the force
of law. Pressure for sanctuary pol-
icies is strong in Los Angeles, too,
even though its mayor, Eric Garcetti,
has at times been wary of the label.
Nervous politicians should get over
their qualms. While they have been
tiptoeing, the Trump administration
has been moving.