Gainesville Daily Register (Gainesville, Tex.), Vol. 127, No. 144, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 22, 2017 Page: 4 of 10
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Gainesville Register and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Cooke County Library.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
4 - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
GAINESVILLE DAILY REGISTER
Opinion
Hits and misses in
I
1
I
4
\
judicial
ol
o$rreacy
A
1
4
lO
Executive order hurts Hawaii's feelings
Reprinted from the Orange County Register. Distributed by Creators.com.
Byron York
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Penny Jordan, Saint Jo
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
NATIONAL SECURITY
OP
5W
Got an opinion?
Share it
IMbyWWtaGiw
FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fax: 202-225-3486 http://thornberry.
house.gov
Gainesville Mayor
Jim Goldsworthy
Gainesville City Hall, 200 S. Rusk,
Gainesville, TX 76240, 940-665-7777
YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
President
Donald Trump
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500
www.whitehouse.gov/contact
U.S. Senator
John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Texas Governor
Greg Abbott
P.O. Box 12428, Austin, TX 78711
512-463-2000, http://gov.texas.gov
State Representative
Drew Springer
Balanced approach earns new
subscriber
I applaud your attempt to bring a more balanced
presentation of the news into our community.
If a person wants to consider but one viewpoint, there
are plenty of media outlets that willfullyencourage narrow-
mindedness.
I have just happily subscribed to the GDR.
Vice President
Mike Pence
Executive Office Building, Washington,
D.C. 20501
vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Washington, D.C. 20510,
Main: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
www.cornyn.senate.gov
U.S. Senator
Ted Cruz
404 Russell, Washington,
D.C. 20510, Main: 202-224-5922
Fax: 202-228-3398 www.cruz.senate.gov
U.S. Representative
Mac M. Thornberry
2525 Kell Blvd., Wichita Falls, TX, 76308
Main: 202-225-3706
State Senator
Craig Estes
P.O. Box 12068, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711, (512) 463-0124
Cooke County Judge
Jason Brinkley
Cooke County Courthouse, Gainesville,
TX, 76240, 940-668-5435,
jason.brinkley@co.cooke.tx.us
P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78769
512-463-0526,
Gainesville: 940-580-1770
www.house.state.tx.us/ members/
Trump's budget
There are many things to like about President Donald
Trump’s preliminary budget, but some concerns remain,
and we will have to wait a bit for more details.
Trump’s so-called “skinny” budget focused only on
discretionary spending, so it does not address big-ticket
items like Social Security, health programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid, other “mandatory” spending or
interest on the debt, which together comprise at least two-
thirds of the federal budget, though the president’s first full
budget is reportedly expected in May.
The spending plan would make a dent in the budgets of
a number of departments, including cuts of 31 percent ($2.6
billion) to the Environmental Protection Agency, 29 percent
($10.9 billion) to the State Department, particularly for
foreign aid, 16 percent ($12.6 billion) to the Department of
Health and Human Services and 14 percent ($9.2 billion) to
the Education Department.
The Department of Homeland Security would actually
see an increase of 7 percent ($2.8 billion), and the
Department of Veterans Affairs would get a 6 percent ($4.4
billion) boost, primarily due to a $4.6 billion increase in
funding for veterans’ health care.
The budget would eliminate taxpayer funding altogether
for 19 small agencies, including the National Endowment
for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS
and NPR. These do not make up a sizeable portion of the
budget but they are emblematic of departures from the
core functions and purposes of government, which is why
Republicans have sporadically tried to defund them for
decades.
As promising as some of the proposed cuts are, they
would be swamped by additional military spending. In
fiscal year 2017, $18 billion in nondefense discretionary cuts
would be overridden by $30 million in additional military
spending and another $3 billion for beefed up border
security and immigration officers and the much-talked-
about wall on the Mexican border. In FY 2018, an extra $54
billion in defense spending would be offset by an equal
amount of nondefense cuts, but that still does nothing to
reduce a crushing $20 trillion national debt or reduce the
overall size of government.
What is particularly perplexing is that Trump has often
spoken of the need to root out waste in government, yet he
turns a blind eye to one of the major areas of government
where such waste is most endemic: the military. The
Pentagon is notorious for losing track of large sums of
money, fudging its numbers, lacking contract oversight,
overpaying for supplies, wasting billions by building
facilities and purchasing equipment that military leaders
do not want or need and piddling away billions of dollars
in waste, fraud and abuse through botched reconstruction
efforts.
In short, there are massive savings to be had by
uncovering wasteful military spending - without affecting
the troops or the nation’s military readiness in the least.
So while we are encouraged that cuts to administrative
and regulatory agencies would likely lead to less
government intrusion into people’s personal and economic
liberties, the overall size of government would be just as
big as it was under Barack Obama. Much work needs to be
done in order to address major issues like the national debt
and needed reforms to entitlements, taxes and health care
policy.
After Trump declared a 90-day moratorium on visas, Elshikh
went to court.
On January 31,2017 — after the first Executive Order was
put in place — Dr. Elshikh was notified by an individual from
the National Visa Center that his mother-in-law’s application
for an immigrant visa had been put on hold. Then, on March
2,2017 — after the first Executive Order was enjoined —
Dr. Elshikh and his family were notified by the National
Visa Center that his mother-in-law’s visa application had
progressed to the next stage of the process and that her
interview would be scheduled at an embassy overseas.
Under the new Executive Order, however, Dr. Elshikh fears
that his mother-in-law will, once again, be unable to “enter”
the country under Section 2(c) of the Executive Order.
The suit says that Elshikh’s children, who were apparently
not harmed by the Obama administration’s (and Congress’s)
action to make it difficult and time-consuming for Syrians to
come to the U.S., are “deeply affected” by Trump’s executive
__ order. “It conveys to them a message that their own
country would discriminate against individuals who
I share their ethnicity, including members of their own
? family, and who hold the same religious beliefs.”
I “We feel both bans, Version 1 and Version 2, are
delivering on Trump’s promise to some of the far-right
. groups that he is going to have a Muslim ban,” Hakim
/ k Ouasanfi told me by phone Thursday. “Our viewpoint
™ is that any discrimination is not acceptable. It is not
the way to keep our country safe.”
“How can you explain to a daughter that your
grandmother will not be able to visit?”
I asked Ouasanfi whether the temporary nature of
Trump’s action made it less burdensome. “If my daughter is
graduating in 90 days, then it is a burden,” he answered. “If
the wedding is planned for May, that is a burden. I don’t think
Muslims should plan their lives around Trump’s decision.”
On the other hand, Elshikh’s mother-in-law has not visited
in 12 years — for whatever reason, she did not visit for the
births of grandchildren or the various milestones in their
lives. And now this 90-day delay is a violation of her family’s
constitutional rights?
The plaintiffs did not file suit over earlier government
actions that made coming to the United States a difficult and
drawn-out effort.
Some in the Obama administration made clear that it could
take years for a Syrian to be admitted to the U.S. But when
Trump announced a 90-day delay, the Hawaii plaintiffs went
to court. Why?
Perhaps there is a clue in some of the words in the lawsuit
that convey emotion. Elshikh and other Muslims feel this
or that, or they are devastated, or there is this or that
perception, or this or that message conveyed. It could be that
much of the energy behind the lawsuit is emotional, caught
up in a hysteria about Donald Trump as much as a rational
reading of the new executive order.
Now the Hawaii case goes to court.
The new Trump order was amended specifically to address
some of the legal objections raised against the original order
in court challenges across the country.
But how to craft an order to protect feelings?
Send your letter to the editor to editor@
gainesvilleregister.com. All letters are
subject to editing for clarity and length.
One letter per writer will be published
in the same week. All letters must
contain a physical address and daytime
phone number. Only names and
hometown will be published.
Wg
There’s a race going on for states to file or join new
lawsuits against President Trump’s second executive order
temporarily halting entry into the U.S. for some people from a
few terror-plagued countries. The new actions promise to be
rehashes of the states’ earlier suits against Trump’s original
order. Washington State, for example, which managed to stop
the first order, has gone so far as to argue the new order and
the now-rescinded original measure are identical, and has
asked a judge to simply apply his emergency stop to the new
order as if nothing has changed.
But the first state to file suit against the new order, Hawaii,
has taken a new tack from the suit it filed on Feb. 3 against
Trump’s original order. The new Hawaii suit, which will come
before a federal judge on March 15, relies not only on claims
of economic damages to the state resulting from the Trump
order but also on claims of damages to Hawaii Muslims’
feelings and perceptions of the world.
The original Hawaii suit was simply the state versus the
president and his administration. The new suit adds a new
plaintiff, a man named Ismail Elshikh, who is identified ,
as “an American citizen of Egyptian descent” who
has lived in Hawaii for more than a decade and is now
imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii.
The Trump order “inflicts a grave injury” on
Elshikh and other Muslims in Hawaii, the suit says, by
subjecting them to “discrimination and second-class
treatment.” —
“The order denies them their right to associate
with family members overseas,” the lawsuit alleges,
and forces Elshikh and other Hawaii Muslims “to live in a
country and in a state where there is the perception that the
government has established a disfavored religion.”
Elshikh’s particular problem is this: His wife, the suit
says, is an American citizen “of Syrian descent and is also
a resident of Hawaii.” She and Elshikh, who has a Ph.D.
in Islamic Studies from an Egyptian university, have five
children, all of whom, according to the suit, are American
citizens and residents of Hawaii.
Mrs. Elshikh’s mother, Ismail Elshikh’s mother-in-law, is
“a Syrian national, living in Syria.” According to the suit,
she wants to come to the United States. “Elshikh’s mother-
in-law last visited the family in 2005, when she stayed for
one month,” the lawsuit says. “She has not met two of
Dr. Elshikh’s children, and only Dr. Elshikh’s oldest child
remembers meeting her grandmother.”
The suit says that in September 2015, Elshikh’s wife filed an
1-130 petition on behalf of her mother in Syria.
United States Citizen and Immigration Services describes
the 1-130 as a form “for citizen or lawful permanent resident
of the United States to establish the relationship to certain
alien relatives who wish to immigrate to the United States.”
The mother-in-law’s 1-130 petition was approved in
February 2016, according to the suit, but so far, the suit says,
“Elshikh’s mother-in-law does not currently hold a visa to
enter the United States.”
Eleven of the 12 months during which Elshikh’s mother-
in-law’s 1-130 petition was approved but she was not granted
a visa occurred during the Obama administration, which
boasted of the thorough, time-consuming, multiyear vetting
process it applied to Syrians attempting to come to the United
States. Elshikh did not sue the government during that time.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Armstrong, Mark J. Gainesville Daily Register (Gainesville, Tex.), Vol. 127, No. 144, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 22, 2017, newspaper, March 22, 2017; Gainesville, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1323934/m1/4/?q=%22%22~1&rotate=270: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Cooke County Library.