I'm currently at my local infusion middle getting my bones strengthened,but the miracle of contemporary technology means that I can blog even with an IV drip in my arm. Besides, it's only my left arm, or who needs that?besides,today's subject is the secure Act. Congress has already passed two secure Acts and considered two more over the past couple of decades, so apparently it's a pretty well-liked acronym. This time around it stands for the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, and it's a unusual beast. It's designed to reveal that Congress is responding to the alleged threat from Syrian refugees,but it actually does nothing much at all. Vetting doesn't change, procedures don't change, or no limits are placed on the number of refugees we can accept. All it does is require the administration to formally certify the procedures already in area—and force three top officials to personally sign off on every Syrian or Iraqi refugee.
In other words,it's basically a fraud. It will create a short pause in the refugee program while some poor schmoe who draws the short straw goes through the makework of drafting the "certification" and getting it approved, and that's about it.
President Obama has threatened to veto it, and Democratic leaders in Congress are opposed to it. Nonetheless,nearly 50 Dems voted for it in the House today. Depending on your tolerance for such things, they're either cowards or pragmatists. The Senate won't even take up the bill until December, and there's a good chance that refugee hysteria will have died down by then. So it may never even design it to the president's desk.
So what to contemplate about this? I'd say you could reasonably peek at it two ways:It's a cowardly bill that panders to unwarranted fears instead of trying to calm them. It's basically a craven but noble lie. It pretends to do something in order to mollify the masses and prevent something worse from passing,but it really does very limited and is moving slowly enough that it might just die of its own accord.
Really it's both. It's cowardly for sure. On the other hand, refugees are the latest excuse for shutting down the government in a few weeks, or a bit of cheap symbolism might be a small price to pay for removing it. I wouldn't vote for this bill,and I certainly wouldn't speak in favor of a "pause" if I were part of the Democratic leadership team (lookin' at you, Chuck). But I also might decide it's not a hill to die for. Sometimes that's just how politics works.
Source: motherjones.com