Hey, there! Log in / Register
Steve Lynch of two minds on refugees?
By adamg on Fri, 11/20/2015 - 9:51am
Yesterday, the Dorchester Reporter posted parts of an interview with US Rep. Steve Lynch in which he seemed to indicate he was fine with the president's plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US:
His take: Of course the US can - and should - accept its share of Syrian asylum-seekers, which, considering the scope of the most acute refugee crisis since World War II, is actually quite modest.
"We can easily handle 10,000 Syrian refugees," said Lynch in an interview. "I've been to a number of these camps on the border and these are regular families: doctors and lawyers, barristers and business-owners. These are not poor and uneducated people. A lot of them are young kids and their moms. The average age is nine years old."
Then in the afternoon came the news that Lynch was one of 47 Democrats in the House to vote for a Republican measure to suspend the refugee plan. He was joined by Rep. Bill Keating; other Massachusetts representatives voted against the measure.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Sean O'Malley criticized the proposed refugee suspension:
Public officials face very difficult challenges in an obviously dangerous world today. But proposals to simply exclude Syrian refugees as such lack the balance and humanitarian perspective needed at this time. For many months now we have watched Syrian individuals and families – Muslim and Christian alike – be driven from their homes and homeland and set adrift in a chaotic world, unprepared to provide for their safety or honor their humanity. The barbaric attacks in Paris, which demand a strong response and require policies that as best possible prevent recurrence, should not be used to efface the memory of Syrians and others from the Middle East and Africa who are desperately in need of shelter, support and safety.
Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston will continue its efforts to support a national policy on immigration based on humanitarian need regardless of place of origin. We pledge our cooperation with civic officials at all levels and ask the wider support of our communities as we seek to respond to our brothers and sisters who are indeed yearning to breathe free.
O'Malley is joined by the leaders of several other churches in Massachusetts, who signed an open letter to refugee-doubter Charlie Baker:
As Christians we try to live our lives in accordance with Jesus’ Great Commandment - to love our neighbors as ourselves. We want safe homes, the freedom to worship, stable governments and opportunities to thrive. Our Syrian neighbors desire the same. Our faith also teaches us to welcome the stranger. Syrians seeking refuge, as well as the Somalians, Bhutanese, Iraqis, Central Americans and others, are neighbors worthy of our welcome and in need of our care. Our nation is founded on this welcome. We must make sure that we do not allow fear to overwhelm us, crowd out our compassion, or fundamentally change our character. We refuse to live as a Commonwealth scared of those unlike us.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
why do i have the impression that Lynch often votes with
republicans? All of our forbears were immigrants to this country
-unless we are native americans - leaving tyranny, persecution
or just wanting a better opportunity. There are too many examples of
scapegoating one person for the sake of another. Closing our
borders only feeds the terrorists.
With republicans?
He voted with 46 other democrats, but don't let that get in the way of your partisan comment.
Yes, with Republicans
242 of them, to be exact.
Lynch = Classic DINO
Seems that Massachusetts, lacking Republicans, is full of them. Look at some of the winners in the Great and General Court, like Donato.
I wished I could voted for
I wished I could vote for Lynch and I also wish he was our US Senator.
To each their own opinion.
Southie Tough Guy Scared of Widows and Orphans
Let alone did the weasel who "represents" my district in Congress vote against this window dressing so did the tough steelworker from Southie (Real Southie in Palin speak) who used to work on the high iron, blah, blah, blah.
Let's hope their Christmas messages this year are filled with platitudes about Peace and Love and Hope for all Mankind, just not you A-Rabs who might now get killed by the same people we are trying to kill.
I had tremendous respect for the work of Steve Lynch since he is really an outlier today in Congress based upon his roots and not going with the flow on the Olympics and other items. No not more.
Anybody want to back me running against Keating?
sure
I will back (almost) anybody running against any of the morally repugnant cowards who voted in favor of that disgrace of a measure.
There's nothing like a
There's nothing like a politician who talks from both sides of his mouth. He claims that he wants to accept Syrian refugees, as it's the right thing to do. And now he will claim that suspending that program and intensifying background checks is in no way in opposition to his other view. And that he has strengthened our security!
By the way, that bill is ridiculous, requiring personal certification of individual refugees by the highest-ranking officials of our security and intelligence apparatus. Can we say, obstructionist? If you don't ever want to let in Syrian refugees who have gone through an 18-24 month vetting process by US government agencies and departments, US organizations, UNHCR, and other international entities, just say so.
they can't just say so!
It's not politically expedient to admit that you're a racist sack of trash. Gotta pretend it's about "security concerns."
You have a truth of 21st
You have a truth of 21st century American politics right there. Amen.
Racist? Citations please.
Racist? Citations please.
Don't hold your breath. I've
Don't hold your breath. I've never known Lynch to be racist, but he does disagree with those on the far left so he must be.
Don't you know that's how things work now a days?
I've never known Lynch to be
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I assume you can't find
I assume you can't find instances of Lynch's racism so you post nonsense.
OK, I understand.
Sorry, I fell asleep reading
Sorry, I fell asleep reading your tired, "if you disagree with the far left, they'll call you a racist" garbage.
But that's not the point of
But that's not the point of the post. You're supposed to give examples of Lynch's racism.
But you can't - shocking..
Now, sshhhh back to sleep....
But that's not the point of
And yet you said it anyway.
Ahh, still waiting....
Ahh, still waiting....
Why don't you pass the time
Why don't you pass the time by making some more asinine blanket statements about "what the left does."
derp
derp
Citation: He was the pro-bono
Citation: He was the pro-bono lawyer for racist teenagers who were harassing an Hispanic dating a white woman. And he aligned himself with a homophobic South Boston group that kept gays out of the St. Patrick's Day parade.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20130224/NEWS/302240329
You don't represent racists pro bono unless you agree with them.
You don't represent racists pro bono unless you agree with them
That's the dumbest comment I've read in a while.
So;
"you don't represent murderers pro-bono unless you agree with them"?
"you don't represent rapists pro-bono unless you agree with them"?
"you don't represent child molesters pro-bono unless you agree with them"?
He's not a public defender
It speaks volumes that he tried to throw congressional firepower at lessening the sting of consequences (unless he advised them to plead guilty on moral grounds).
More tribal bullshit.
Pro bono doesn't equal public
Pro bono doesn't equal public defender assigned and paid for by the state. See below. So yeah, there is some merit to the argument that pro bono work expresses attorneys' personal beliefs.
So by comparison, Adams
So by comparison, Adams represented the British soldiers because he agreed with them? The same John Adams that became US President?
You mean, that sick kid Chism's lawyer agrees with the crime?
Right to representation means the lawyers appointed are appointed because they agree with the crime?
I can't believe you really believe that.
Now, you really know that's not an example of Lynch's racism, don't you?
Try again please.
And, I can't believe 6 people agreed with that argument. I really find that more shocking on this site.
John Adams didn't represent
John Adams didn't represent British soldiers pro-bono, he accepted the case and charity pay, sort of a colonial equivalent of being assigned a case from the public defender's office:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/keyfigures....
There is a big difference from accepting any publicly assigned case because people can't afford to pay vs taking on a case pro bono. Following common law ideals means that everyone deserves effective counsel. Doing it pro-bono and not accepting any pay at all is another beast entirely, and could be symbolic of an attorney's personal beliefs. Look at the ACLU, they have represented some repugnant people pro bono, and it's because they truly believe in free speech.
Adams took the case because
Adams took the case because he believed in representation for all is my take.
Isn't that what public defenders are for?
Compared to lawyers representing those accused of racism because they are racist, as was the posters original post regarding Lynch.
Public defenders get paid.
Public defenders get assigned cases and are paid. Pro bono work is freely donated by an attorney. There are quite conceivable differences.
I understand that - very well
I understand that - very well.
But, back to the point, do you agree Lynch (any lawyer) is racist for representing someone accused of such?
Your question is specious and
Your question is specious and continues to ignore the significant difference between pro bono work and appointed and assigned public defenders/counsel. Respectively, one where attorneys choose what to donate their services and skills to, vs attorneys representing the indigent or bereft, as assigned by public defender offices and courts, paid a salary or at statutory rates.
If you want to ask, "is Lynch or any other lawyer racist for representing someone accused of such, pro bono?", by all means do so.
Why was he arrested for assaulting Iranians?
Anyone care to expound on his 1979 arrest for assaulting six Iranians? Charges later dropped, why?
Stevie Lynch
Patricia, I think that you're a pretty level-headed commenter here. Accordingly, I will submit this for your consideration.
My view of the Representative was formed during the time when he was still a state-level politician and he and his friends Jackie Hart and Jimmy Kelly were trying to shake the City and Commonwealth down for $150 million for a "South Boston Betterment Trust" in connection with the Convention Center project. It would have been, for all intents and purposes, a neighborhood slush fund that would have had little or no transparency or meaningful oversight and over which they would have had a tremendous amount (if not total) of control. I might have been able to live with that (in the abstract, as a ridiculously egregious example of "mitigation" or how "things get done" in politics), but for the fact that I remember being in some of the meetings and hearing the type of language used by many participants. To say that it was reminiscent of Louise Day Hicks' infamous "You know where I stand" crap is putting it nicely.
That "Stevie" went on to succeed Joseph Moakley still boggles my mind.
I was horrified to see two MA
I was horrified to see two MA names on that shameful list. Both Keating and Lynch have got to go.
Perhaps Rep Moulton will give them a piece of his mind
Also, invite him to have dinner at his home, with his refugee friends.
Rep Moulton
Actually, he has welcome refugees into his home and it is good practice for all Americans to listen and learn from those who have lost their countryjust how precious is our democracy. The land of free was defended by the Rep andthose folks who want to just close the door are allies of the enemies of America who want us afraid and isolationist so they can ruin the rest of the world.
Just to clarify, the man
Just to clarify, the man (refugee) in question worked with Moulton while Moulton was active duty. He was by no means a stranger.
We should be giving those that work with us special treatment if they do want to come to the US. My fear is we are leaving those who help us in harms way. I wouldn't want to think of the punishment they would recieved if ever found out to be helping any of the coalition forces.
Classic Lynch, he is trying
Classic Lynch, he is trying to pull a Romney, the way he did with Affordable Care Act, he supports more healthcare but this one its just not right. Or Baker on the sick days ballot initiative, when he wanted more sick days guaranteed (once it was shown to be popular, before he was all against), but its just not right wording. He and Baker should be shipped to Mississippi or New Hampshire.
When did this site become
When did this site become such a liberal rag? You people are all delusional
Many thanks, kind sir!
First time this site has ever been compared favorably to Cardinal O'Malley!
I'll be floating on air the rest of the day.
As for your question, you haven't been visiting here long, have you? It's well known in certain circles that we're worse than ISIS.
*eyeroll*
Who would have suspected that a (mostly) tech-savvy group of people living in the bluest part of the bluest state in the country would be left-leaning? My goodness, we'll have to import a bushel of FISH clones to balance out the "treat your fellow human with respect" crowd with a rousing chorus of "death to the brown people!" Otherwise, we wouldn't get to hear both sides of every issue.
Back to the Herald with you, Skippy.
It's always leaned left. Let
It's always leaned left. Let me know if you ever find any unbiased blog or web site because I think it would be the first!
Do what I do, read both and form your own opinions.
Ever since he started really
Ever since he started really deleting any comments he doesn't agree with. Or deleting entire threads that had too much reasonable responses that he was angered upon.
Let me FTFY
Ever since he started refusing to post comments that called for death and dismemberment of other commenters, that called for death of entire groups of people or that are just plain batshit insane or racist, which is something he's been doing for awhile now, along with shutting down threads where it's clear it's just people screaming at each other.
Ok fair enough. Seems like
Ok fair enough. Seems like things that are not racist and lashed out as a dirty racist comment. If it's full blown hate and racist comments I concur with you.
Refugee vote
Let's not let Rep. Keating quietly get off the hook here. He has yet to explain his vote in favor of the Syrian refugee bill, he owes this to the 9th district.
Anyone interested in running against Keating in the primary? September 20th is plenty of time to find a candidate more reflective of the people of the 9th District.
the scary part
I'm all in favor of someone calling out Keating on his profile in nutlessness moment by running against him, but ponder this nugget...maybe he IS reflective of the people of the 9th District. And many other parts of Mass for that matter. We're not as lefty as people would have you believe.
Truly hoping that I'm wrong and really hoping that most people are in agreement with Seth Moulton and Gov. Baker's heavily parsed sentiment: "we want to accept refugees but we also want to be really careful and concerned about safety." Not an objectionable statement in and of itself - but Moulton says it with an emphasis on accepting refugees and Baker says it with an emphasis on none coming in until sure it's secure. Case of neither side wanting to take too strong a position -- one violent act by a refugee (maybe not even a terrorist act) and you're the guy that let them in or you're the same as those assholes who turned away the Jews during World War II.
But as far as political sphincterlingus Baker, Keating and Lynch come out as pandering to our worst instincts, regardless of how they try and parse the meaning.
His two views are not opposed
Why can't the federal government tighten its vetting process for refugees while increasing the number of refugees settled in the United States? Yes, it would be expensive, but it would achieve the goals of the theoretic left (helping people in need) and the theoretic right (keeping America safe.)
I'll never understand why people think everything is an either-or choice.
Isn't a process that takes two years (or often more) ...
... and involves many encounters with government interviewers onerous enough. What would you add to the process? (The House added case-by-case approval of each applicant by the head of the FBI himself as well as by several other top security officials -- not a very reasonable requirement, I think).
why?
Because the existing U.S. system for admitting refugees, far from being Obama shooting two pistols in the air and yelling "DOOR'S OPEN, BOYS!", is extremely stringent. This post - from a guy who works with immigration lawyers - explains the entire process. The salient points, however:
- refugees are held, more or less, in camps while their stories are checked out. They are questioned repeatedly about why they're seeking asylum, and grilled on any inconsistencies in their story.
- many refugees want to return to their home countries, and hope for an end to whatever conflict they were escaping; relatively few in the camps make it to permanent resettlement.
- if they have family somewhere in the U.S., they might be resettled there - but really, they have no say in the matter.
- virtually every U.S. agency with anything to do with terrorist prevention will evaluate each case.
- if their story checks out, they have to go through health screenings and security clearances. They are required to pay back all travel costs incurred, starting six months after they resettle.
In short: it's a grueling process as is. The U.S. is extremely stringent in its refugee admission process, so these additional measures proposed are as unnecessary as they are cruel.
Honest question: do the same
Honest question: do the same standards apply to the flux of Central American refugees we have welcomed in the past year? I don't remember them being held for two years as many were just resettled.
Process for Iraqi and Syrian refugees....
... is already more stringent than for most other refugess. And governors and congress people ought to have known this. Having the head of the FBI personally certify every widow and orphan is an outrageous (and unworkable) addition to the hoops already required.
FBI testimony to congress
FBI testimony to congress last month on the matter:
https://youtu.be/zwC0jlJNGds?t=2m3s
And yet, he too says this bill is terrible
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/fbi-director-james-comey-refugee-...
Where was this outrage
When Obama halted the Iraqi refugee program in 2011?
I believe...
... the government found some flaws in the previous process and suspended the program until the flaws could be corrected. No one presently demanding changes (and or suspension) has identified any flaws in the current program (with the 2011 improvements) that need fixing.
standards are one thing, walking into the country is another
You mean this one? The one with floods of children walking across a river and trusting that the U.S. would give them a home, being kept in overwhelmed detention facilities, and then let out...where exactly? I haven't heard about where they've been settled. Anyway, yeah, slightly different kettle of fish, because they walked into the U.S. - still a long and difficult journey, but not the same situation as Syrian refugees. Syrian refugees who've made it to Europe by treacherous boat journeys will have to be transported here by other means - so their cases will all be examined by the U.N.
Technically, they aren't refugees
They came to the US border and applied for asylum. It might seem to be the same thing, but legally they are different.
As others have noted, Europe is dealing with asylum seekers from Syria, and the one thing that gets me is that they don't apply at the first safe place, but wait until they get to the nation of their choice (Germany and Sweden) to ask for aid. Sure, Greece cannot take all the people fleeing the strife in Syria and Iraq, but the EU should have a mechanism for dealing with this (another issue altogether.)
The Syrians apply while in refugee camps. Honestly, I am of the mind that vetting people fleeing anarchy is good, but 2 things should not be forgotten. First, they are safely out of the conflict area. Second, they situation of having so many people in these camps is not good, so a better solution is needed.
It's complicated
Good question. As others noted these are two very different situations. Syrians are recognized as refugees - one legal path for that. The elder Tsarnaev - the dad - was an asylum seeker - a different legal process. Central Americans entering this country without papers or overstaying tourist visas don't really have any legal process, although depending on their case some of them can appeal for asylum.
Attorneys could provide a better description of all of this, but one of the issues is: when is a situation in a country so bad that we consider the people who flee that country to be refugees? When are they seekers of asylum? When are they just looking for better economic opportunities? These are pretty critical questions for people fleeing Honduras right now, as the rule of law down there has broken down, the govt is totally corrupt and persecuting its own people (with our funding) and drug lords (frequently associated with "elected" officials) and gangs are killing people left and right. The murder rate in El Salvador is higher than it was during the civil war. But because the U.S. backs these governments it does not consider these victims to be refugees. However people leaving Cuba are granted special status not because of the vicissitudes they face in their country, but because a political faction here has something against that govt. Really messed up.
Were these standards applied
Were these standards applied to Irish immigrants when Christian Irish terrorists were blowing up people in the UK?
From Rep. Keating's Office
For what it's worth"
KEATING STATEMENT ON SYRIAN REFUGEE BILL
Washington, DC – Today, Rep Bill Keating, a Member of the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committees and Ranking Member on the Terrorism Subcommittee, voted in favor of H.R. 4038, the American SAFE Act of 2015. Below is his statement on the legislation.
“This legislation will enhance security over the program to assist those fleeing ISIS and the horrific and oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad. The language of the bill does not call for a suspension or pause of the program. Rather, it will add greater accountability for our top security leaders as they look to safety concerns in an area where we do not yet have the level of established intelligence we are currently looking to advance.
“Refugees are fleeing the very atrocities we are working to prevent. The U.S. is more than capable of keeping Americans safe while securely allowing people in need into this great nation, which – since its inception – has stood as a beacon for all those who yearn for a better life for themselves and their children.”
More double talk.
More double talk.
ugh
Explain to me
Explain to me why anyone would object to bringing in genuine refugees---children, old people, the injured???
Common sense says able-bodied men, especially unaccompanied men of military age, should be excluded---these guys are either cowards unwilling to fight for their countries or economic refugees. Maybe we could send the able-bodied to form a civilian rebuilding brigade that would be sent back to Syria once things clam down.
Wow you must have been a
Wow you must have been a popular guy during World War 2 when jewish refugees were trying to come here. Did you feel that the jewish men were cowards who wanted to come to the US with their family? How about Sudanese refugees?