Donald Trump's immigration policy - Utopian or practical?

I got up early to watch Donald Trump make that much-awaited, much-postponed speech on his immigration policy. It was to start at 6.30 am IST (9 pm ET) but started half an hour late.

He didn't disappoint. There were lot of speculations as to whether he will soften his approach and try to win back the moderates. He didn't. In his forceful, ultra-nationalistic and blunt style, he laid out a 10-point plan to rid the US free of the danger stemming out of undocumented, unlawful migrants.

Some of the points he made:

• The Mexican wall will come up, and Mexico will pay for it
• The wall will be a high-tech one with sensors and all to monitor movement
• No sympathy and amnesty for migrants
• Out of 11 million illegal immigrants, 2 million are criminals. They will be deported.
• Law enforcement officials who know who and where these criminals will have to act immediately. 
• Many countries have refused to take back immigrants sent back from the US. They will have to take them back. US won't keep those criminals, just because the countries from where they came from won't take them back.
• No visa for people from countries which have no proper vetting system. He named Syria and Libya
• Immigrants will be subjected to extreme vetting
• Welfare of Americans will come before welfare of migrants

At the outset, there was a huge precipitous gap between what Trump spoke alongside Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto at a joint press conference in Mexico City, and a few hours later at Phoenix. Does Trump really mean what says, and is he saying what he really means?

For his constituency, today, he gave some clear solutions to what he sees as the gravest threat to America - the problem of illegal migrants. But how much of it is practical, and attainable is left to be seen. Talking of plans is one thing, making them work is another.

In the high-voltage political crucible of Washington, there is a many slip between ideas and execution. Even if Trump gets elected, and many of his solutions are sure to run into political roadblocks. This is a campaign speech, and one needs to take it only on its face value.

Problem of migrants is not just an American problem. Every country faces it. And no doubt, it's a grave one. No country can afford to have undocumented illegal migrants enjoying the benefits meant for law abiding citizens. But to paint all immigrants with the same criminal brush will create more problems than solutions.

Trump is looking at a very US-centric approach to problems. But he forgets that America is part of a global community. America needs the rest of the world, just as the rest of the world needs America.

It remains to be seen if one campaign speech can do a world of good for Trump, after he made a series of reckless gaffes and slipped in ratings.

Anyway it will be interesting to see how Hillary Clinton and her campaign responds.

Interesting US presidential poll season ahead

So it's Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders who are hogging limelight after the Iowa caucuses yesterday.

On the Republican side, while I can understand the sentiments that are bringing in the numbers for Donald Trump, his radical thoughts are unnerving. Between the two, Cruz is preferable.

On the Democratic side, my choice is Hillary, mainly because of her overall career record and experience. Bernie Sanders isn't appealing. He is talking of a policy line that is far too Leftist that one can imagine would work in the US. Barack Obama's policies themselves weren't going down well.

This US presidential poll is promising to be very exciting.

RIP Mandela

Nelson Mandela was more than the first Black President of South Africa. He was more than an anti-apartheid leader. What inspired people across the world was his compassion and forgiveness. There aren't many fighters and achievers like Mandela.

His African National Congress was once classified as terrorist organisation. He spent 27 years in prison. Once he walked out he carried no vengence against the people he fought a life-long battle against.

He set up a Truth and Reconiliation Commission. He was not just against senseless minority domination purely on the basis of colour of human skin. He was also against Black domination. The way he accommodated Fredrick De Klerk, the last apartheid era head of state, is a monumental example of his deep understanding of the society for whose liberation he fought.

The sort of societal transformation he brought about is unparalleled in the world. He avoided massive bloodshed that could have ensued. He was so humble and forgiving that he invited the prosecutor who got him jailed, for tea in his presidential palace.

He taught us the value of the age-old saying "Let bygones be bygones". He said we had to move on and the country had no time to waste to achieve its larger goals of elevating the standandard of lives of people.

How many leaders we see around have the vision Mandela had? How many can sacrifice their comforts for the good of the society? Mandela is guiding light for everyone, especially so for leaders who are championing people's causes. We have a lot to learn from his life.

May his soul rest in peace.

Irony of Obama's choice of Comey as FBI director

We are going to hear more about state surveillance on citizens in the coming days, with US President Barack Obama planning to nominate James Comey, a Republican, as the new director of FBI. He had been in the midst of the spying controversy right from 2004, when he was the deputy attorney general. During the Senate hearing for Comey's confirmation, in the coming months, he will in all probability be questioned about controversy.

In 2004, Comey had hit the headlines, when he refused to sign certain legal aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance programme, initiated by George Bush. He was then serving as the acting attorney general since the incumbent, John Ashcroft, had been hospitalized. Ashcroft, too, refused pressures from White House aides, to endorse the programme. Later Bush intervened and the allowed the programme to run.

• Bush Intervened in Dispute Over N.S.A. Eavesdropping (NYT, May 16, 2007)
• Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (NYT, Dec 16, 2005). Reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize.

Comey's refusal had endeared him to Democrats then who were opposed to Bush's surveillance programme. Comey also had said that he had a change of heart after the Madrid blasts that year.

Obama has steadfastly defended the programme, while assuring the citizens that only certain generic data were collected and no one was actually listening to anyone's telephone conversations.

• Top secret rules allow NSA to use communication data without a warrant (Guardian, June 20, 2013)
• India’s surveillance project may be as lethal as PRISM (The Hindu, June 21, 2013)

No government, of whichever party, anywhere in the world, will ever shut down surveillance. It's part of the police department's crime-prevention and law-enforcement procedures. Telephone tapping too has existed for many decades. So too privacy-intrusion concerns. Now, internet has increased manifold people-to-people contacts and, in the process, a lot of personal information are also more widely known than they ever used to be. So, we are just seeing a huge amplification of the age-old concern about privacy intrusion.

While Bush then, and now Obama in the US; and here the Indian government officials may argue that some amount of vigilance and surveillance is required to ensure the safety of citizens, the hullabaloo is over the seemingly inappropriate process used for surveillance. While the overriding concern of everyone continues to be their safety, the worry is whether governments are appropriating the right to pry into people's personal lives without the required legal and constitutional mandate. The objective may be legitimate but the process too needs to be.