遺伝子編集、クローンそして子供を作る科学 セックスをしないで子供を作るやり方が増えている。そうしたことを受け入れるべきだと歴史が示唆している。

Gene editing, clones and the science of making babies
Ways of reproducing without sexual intercourse are multiplying. History suggests that they should be embraced
Feb 18th 2017


IT USED to be so simple. Girl met boy. Gametes were transferred through plumbing optimised by millions of years of evolution. Then, nine months later, part of that plumbing presented the finished product to the world. Now things are becoming a lot more complicated. A report published on February 14th by America’s National Academy of Sciences gives qualified support to research into gene-editing techniques so precise that genetic diseases like haemophilia and sickle-cell anaemia can be fixed before an embryo even starts to develop. 

sickle-cell anaemia:鎌状赤血球貧血 

The idea of human cloning triggered a furore when, 20 years ago this week, Dolly the sheep was revealed to the world; much fuss about nothing, some would say, looking back. But other technological advances are making cloning humans steadily more feasible. Some are horrified at the prospect of people “playing God” with reproduction. Others, whose lives are blighted by childlessness or genetic disease, argue passionately for the right to alleviate suffering. Either way, the science is coming and society will have to work out what it thinks. 

revealed :明らかになった
fuss about nothing:なんでもないことで大騒ぎをする
looking back:回顧する
prospect :可能性

Where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
The range of reproductive options has steadily widened. AID (artificial insemination by donor, which dates back to the 19th century) and IVF (in vitro fertilisation, first used in the 1970s) have become everyday techniques. So has ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in which a sperm cell is physically inserted into an egg, bringing fatherhood to otherwise infertile men. Last year another practice was added—mitochondrial transplantation or, as the headlines would have it, three-parent children. The world may soon face the possibility of eggs and sperm made from putative parents’ body cells (probably their skin) rather than in their ovaries and testes. 

in vitro:試験管内の
ICSI:卵細胞質内精子注入法 卵子に精子を人工的に注入すること。精子数が少ない男性の不妊治療法

Such methods separate sexual intercourse from reproduction. Most of them bring the possibility of choosing which embryo will live, and which will die. At first they can seem bewildering—disgusting, even. But one thing experience has shown is that, in this area, disgust is not a good guide to policy. AID was treated by at least one American court as a species of adultery and its progeny deemed illegitimate in the eyes of the law. IVF led to anguish among some theologians about whether “test-tube” babies would have souls. 


Disgust often goes along with dystopian alarm. Science-fiction versions of gene editing imagine, say, the creation of supermen and superwomen of great intelligence or physical prowess. When Dolly was announced the press was full of headlines about clone armies. In truth no one has the slightest clue how to create Ubermenschen even if they wanted to. Yet the record shows how fast reproductive science can progress. So it makes sense to think about the ethics of reproductive science even for outcomes that are not yet available.


It helps to start with IVF and AID, which have made the journey from freakishness to familiarity. Both give healthy children to happy parents, who would otherwise have been alone. The same will no doubt prove true for mitochondrial transplants, which are intended to avoid rare but dangerous diseases that affect cellular energy production. 

cellular energy production:細胞エネルギーの生成



mitochondrial transplants:ミトコンドリア移植で妊娠成功 2016年08月30日 14時14分 ミトコンドリア移植で妊娠成功  不妊に悩む女性の卵巣から細胞のエネルギーを作り出す細胞内小器官「ミトコンドリア」を取り出し、体外受精の際に卵子に移植したところ、2人で妊娠に成功したと、大阪市の不妊治療クリニックが29日発表した。  この不妊治療は米国の企業が開発。ミトコンドリアの移植で、加齢で老化した卵子の質の改善を図るが、仕組みはよく分かっておらず、有効性や安全性を懸念する専門家もいる。海外では約270例以上行われ、約30人が出産に至ったとされる。昨年12月に日本産科婦人科学会が臨床研究としての実施を認めていた。

Happy parents and healthy children make a pretty good rule for thinking about any reproductive technology. A procedure’s safety is the central concern. Proving this is a high hurdle. Researchers are, wrongly in the eyes of some, allowed to experiment on human embryos when they consist of just a few cells. They cannot, though, experiment on human fetuses. Nor can they experiment easily on fetuses from humanity’s closest relatives, the great apes, since these animals are rare and often legally protected, too. So far, therefore, there has had to be a “leap of faith” when a technique that has been tested as far as is possible within the law’s bounds is used for real. That should continue, in order to avoid “freelance” operations outside reliable jurisdictions. This is not a theoretical concern. Although Britain developed mitochondrial transplants and was the first country to license them, the first couple known to have had such a transplant travelled from Jordan to Mexico to do so. 

leap of faith: やみくも的な信仰、盲信、信頼に基づく賭け blind faithは無批判に信じること。「愚行」というニュアンスを持つ。leap of faithは証明できない事柄について、信じることを選択すること。「非論理的」などの否定的ニュアンスを持つ場合と、「信頼・信仰・思い切り」などの肯定的ニュアンスを持つ場合がある。
take a leap of faith: 大丈夫だ[何とかなる]と信じて思い切る 確実な保証のない事柄について、ひとまず信じてやってみる(または受け入れる)こと。結果的には成功・失敗のどちらにもなり得る。 〔決断などで〕論理を超えた判断[信じて思い切ること]が必要である

Defining the limits of what should be allowed is more slippery. But again, the test of happy parents and healthy children is the right one. Growing sperm and eggs from body cells is surely the least problematic new technique soon to be on offer. One advantage of this approach is that gay couples could have children related to both parents. But the law should insist that two people be involved. If one person tried to be both father and mother to a child, the resulting eggs and sperm would, without recourse to wholesale gene editing, combine to concentrate harmful mutations in what would amount to the ultimate form of inbreeding.

problematic :問題の多い
without recourse:に頼ることなく

Gene editing and cloning involve more than parents’ happiness and children’s health. The first gene editing will eliminate genetic diseases in a way that now requires embryo selection—an advance many would applaud. Adults should be able to clone perfect copies of themselves, as an aspect of self-determination. But breeding babies with new traits and cloning other people raises questions of equality and of whether it is ever right to use other people’s tissues without their consent. 


A sense of identity
The questions will be legion. Should bereaved parents be able to clone a lost child? Or a widow her departed husband? Should the wealthy be able to pay for their children to be intelligent and diligent, if nobody else can afford to do so? 


Commissions of experts will need to search for answers; and courts will need to apply the rules—to protect the interests of the unborn. They will be able to draw on precedents, such as identical twins, where society copes with clones perfectly well, or “saviour siblings”, selected using IVF to provide stem cells that can cure a critically ill older brother or sister. Any regime must be adaptable, because opinions change as people get used to new techniques. Going by the past, though, the risk is not of people rushing headlong to the reproductive extremes, but of holding back, and leaving people to suffer out of a misplaced sense of what feels right. 

identical twins:一卵性双生児
saviour sibling: A child, conceived by selected IVF treatment, so as to have compatible tissue that could be used to treat an existing sick brother or sister
reproductive extremes:生殖の極端な手段
holding back:ためらう




swingby_blog at 22:03コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 


Donald Trumpは中国の熱烈な願いを承諾する その「一つの中国政策」が戻る。誰か当惑したか?

Donald Trump grants China’s fervent wish
The “one-China” policy is back. Who blinked?
Feb 13th 2017 | China

Donald Trumpは中国の熱烈な願いを承諾する

MODERATION and careful planning have not exactly been watchwords for the Trump administration so far. But the relationship between China and America seems important enough that, in dealing with it, America’s president has decided (for now) to eschew his usual penchant for shock, awe and improvisation. 


During an “extremely cordial” phone call with Xi Jinping, his opposite number, on February 9th, Donald Trump agreed to honour his country’s long-standing “one-China policy”, according to the White House. It said Mr Trump made this commitment “at the request of President Xi”. China regards the policy—which it interprets as confirming its sovereign claim to Taiwan—as the basis for its relationship with the United States. Mr Xi had refused to talk to Mr Trump until the American president committed himself to it. 


Mr Trump’s decision to reassert what has been his country’s policy for almost 40 years (though the wording of it does not explicitly accept China’s sovereignty over Taiwan) was the culmination of a week of old-fashioned diplomacy far removed from government-by-tweet. On February 3rd Michael Flynn, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, telephoned China’s highest-ranking foreign-policy official, Yang Jiechi, to lay the groundwork for the two presidents’ call. The same day, James Mattis, America’s defence secretary, who was visiting Japan, said at a news conference that “at this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves at all.” China Daily, a state-owned newspaper, decided this remark “dispersed the clouds of war”—though the qualification “at this time” will hardly have gone unnoticed in Beijing. 

by tweet:ツイッターによる書き込み

Back in Washington, news leaked out that Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, had moderated a threat he had made earlier against China’s claims in the South China Sea. At his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr Tillerson had said (in what seemed like a throwaway remark) that China’s “access” to islands it had built in that sea was “not going to be allowed”. This was widely interpreted as a warning that America would blockade them. But Mr Tillerson’s written answers on the subject were more nuanced, talking only of America being capable of denying access “if a contingency occurs”—a rather different sort of threat. 


On China policy, therefore, Mr Trump appears to be listening to realists in his administration, not to bomb-throwers such as Peter Navarro, the head of the National Trade Council and the author of a book called “Death by China”. To the extent that his reassurance to Mr Xi reduced tension in the world’s most important bilateral relationship, the phone call reflected a certain caution in American foreign policy which augurs better for Asian security. 

realists:現実主義者 TillersonとかJames Mattis 

But China is likely to see it as a victory in a zero-sum game. Mr Trump’s support for the idea of “one China” reverses the view he took on December 11th when he told Fox News, “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a one-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things.” It is possible, of course, that Mr Xi has made concessions to Mr Trump that have not been made public (on, say, trade or North Korea). But in the absence of those, it looks as if Mr Trump got nothing in return for taking the one-China policy off the table. He blinked first. 


To China’s government, this is likely to confirm that its preferred method of diplomacy works: that of issuing non-negotiable demands and repeating them until other countries come around. China is also likely to see Mr Trump’s about-turn as a sign of American weakness, rather than a resolution of policy uncertainty within his administration. The term “paper tiger”, once used by Mao to describe America, has made a striking comeback in Chinese descriptions of Mr Trump. Shi Yinhong, a professor at Renmin University and an adviser to the government, told the New York Times that Mr Trump would be regarded as one, having “lost his first fight” with China’s leader. 

striking :顕著な

In contrast to America’ president, Mr Xi seems to bestride the world like a colossus. He was fawned on by politicians and businesspeople at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. Last year he shrugged off a ruling against China by an international tribunal over claims in the South China Sea and persuaded the presidents of the Philippines and Malaysia to cosy up to his country. Mr Xi has a strong incentive to appear firm in his dealings with foreigners: in the run-up to a leadership reshuffle due by the end of this year, he cannot afford to show any flexibility that opponents might construe as weakness. 

shrugged :無視する

But even though Mr Trump has changed his stance towards the one-China policy, this does not necessarily mean he will capitulate to China on other matters, nor that he and Mr Xi will be able to work together constructively. Almost immediately after the call between the two presidents, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, got a red-carpet welcome in America, suggesting that Mr Trump sees his country’s alliance with Japan as a sort of counterweight to China. North Korea chose the same moment to carry out its first ballistic-missile test of the Trump presidency, reminding both China and America that the one-China policy is not the only issue confronting them. 


The list of security-related disagreements between the two countries is long. They relate to everything from America’s deployment of a missile shield in South Korea, known as THAAD, to Japan’s claim to the Senkaku islands (which the Chinese call the Diaoyu) and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Nor is there any sign yet that Mr Trump is preparing to back away from a fight with China over trade, tariffs, market access and the like. His reassuring phone call to Mr Xi is more likely to mark a respite from tensions between America and China than an end to them. 

back away:手を引く

トランプが習近平に対して一つの中国を認めたが、まだまだ、二国間の課題がたくさんある。トランプがこのように中国に対して譲歩したことによって、習近平は意を強くしているだろう。彼は今年、チャイナセプンの入れ替えがあるので、彼はこうした外交政策では譲歩できない。南シナ海の中国の軍事施設に対しても、トランプが選挙の時に言っていたように、排除することはしないと言っている。TillersonとかJames Mattisのような現実主義者を採用したことによって、Trumpはまともな外交政策をとるようになってきた。



swingby_blog at 23:26コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 


Donald Trumpはアメリカとオーストラリアの同盟をテストしている。 しかしオーストラリアはほとんど代替案を持っていない。

Donald Trump is testing Australia’s alliance with America
But Australia has few alternatives
Feb 11th 2017 | CANBERRA

Donald Trumpはアメリカとオーストラリアの同盟をテストしている。

AFTER Donald Trump’s victory in November, Malcolm Turnbull quickly congratulated him, having obtained Mr Trump’s telephone number from Greg Norman, the new president’s golfing buddy. Australia’s prime minister claimed a similar background to Mr Trump’s, as “businessmen who found our way into politics somewhat later in life”, and a shared “pragmatic approach” to solving problems. Another call, just two months later, has shattered this supposed solidarity. It has also prompted many Australians to question their country’s closest alliance. 


On February 2nd the Washington Post published an account of the second call. Mr Turnbull raised a deal his government had struck with the administration of Barack Obama, in which America agreed to resettle refugees trying to reach Australia who had been diverted to Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Mr Turnbull later assured Australians that Mr Trump would “honour” the deal. But the leaked account differed. Mr Trump reportedly called it the “worst deal ever”, accused Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bomber” and told Mr Turnbull that his was the “worst call by far” among his conversations with world leaders that day. 

by far:はるかに・断然

Mr Turnbull is renowned for his own short fuse. Indeed, some colleagues see him as a “sophisticated” version of Mr Trump. Clashing with Mr Trump seems to have done him little political damage at home. But if Mr Trump says he will not accept the 1,250 refugees, many of whom are from Muslim countries, that could change. The camps where the refugees are being held are a constant source of diplomatic irritation and embarrassment; the government would dearly like to close them. One fear is that Mr Trump might ask for something in return, such as sending more troops to the Middle East, that would go down badly with many Australians. 

that could change:そのことは変えることはできるだろう。
irritation :苛立ち
go down:そのことは多くのオーストラリア人に不評になるだろう

The alliance with America is the centrepiece of Australia’s foreign policy. Indeed, it has strengthened in recent years, with America stationing troops in Darwin, in the far north. But China’s emergence as Australia’s biggest trading partner has prompted a debate about how to strike a balance in relations with the two countries, and Mr Trump’s election has intensified it. A poll last year by the Lowy Institute, a think-tank, found almost half of Australians thought their country should distance itself from America “if it elects a president like Donald Trump”. James Curran, a historian, argues in “Fighting with America”, a new book, that Australia should ditch “worn rhetoric” and “alarming complacency” about relying on America for its security, and look at the relationship afresh. Penny Wong, the shadow foreign minister, reckons uncertainties around the Trump administration’s Asia-Pacific policy mean the alliance could be at a “change point”. 


Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, does not go so far. But the fact that China underpins Australia’s prosperity, through its demand for minerals, food and other goods, makes her question some of Mr Trump’s policies, especially the threat of trade barriers against China. She is “disappointed” that Mr Trump pulled out of the TPP, a planned free-trade pact of 12 Pacific countries. Ms Bishop does not rule out pushing on with the pact among the remaining 11 members, and says she would “welcome” interest from China in joining it. 

go so far:そこまでいかない
rule out:できなくする

Australia’s options are limited. Michael Wesley of the Australian National University argues that, without its alliance with America, Australia would be a “totally different country”, having to spend far more on its own defence and even acquiring nuclear weapons. Policymakers seem intent instead on trying to keep America engaged—or that was the plan, at any rate, until Mr Turnbull’s ill-fated phone call. 

at any rate:いずれにせよ




swingby_blog at 22:22コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 


アメリカ。中国 そして 貿易戦争の危険 貿易の緊張が増すだろう。しかし壊滅的な貿易戦争は依然として回避することはできる。

America, China and the risk of a trade war
Trade tensions will mount, but a destructive trade war can still be averted
Jan 28th 2017

アメリカ。中国 そして 貿易戦争の危険

DONALD TRUMP’S quest to protect American workers from cheating foreigners has begun. But in his first flurry of policy tweets and executive orders, China, his favourite bogeyman, was conspicuously absent. On the campaign trail he deplored China’s currency manipulation, accused it of flouting global trade rules and threatened a 45% tariff on its exports, all to cheering crowds. Now, the world is waiting to see how much of this he meant. 


The promise to label China a currency manipulator has not been repeated. An optimistic interpretation is that Mr Trump has realised that the promise was based on an “alternative” fact. China is no longer squashing its currency to gain a competitive edge, but is instead propping it up. A pessimistic one is that Steven Mnuchin, his treasury secretary, who would do the labelling, is not yet confirmed by the Senate. 

Steven Mnuchin:2017年2月13日、上院で財務長官への就任が正式に承認された。

Mr Trump certainly has the power to wreak trade havoc. A big blanket tariff would slice through supply chains, hurt American consumers and fly in the face of the global system of trade rules overseen by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). But, rather than blow up the world’s trading system, Mr Trump may yet decide to take on China within it. The White House website, without naming China, promises “to use every tool at the federal government’s disposal” to end trade abuses. 

fly in the face of:を無視して行動する
take on:立ち向かっていく

In the process of being confirmed as Mr Trump’s commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross somewhat reassuringly said that he had learned the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised thousands of tariffs in the 1930s. (It “didn’t work very well, and it very likely wouldn’t work now”.) His own policy includes a threat to “punish” countries not playing by the rules. He suggested his department might start its own actions against foreign dumping, rather than leaving them to industry. Robert Lighthizer, Mr Trump’s proposed US trade representative (USTR) and a veteran trade lawyer, knows WTO law inside out, and will be keen to scrap in the courts. 

reassuringly :元気付ける・安心させる
by the rules:ルールに従って行動する
scrap in the courts:裁判において戦う

A litigious approach to the Chinese would not mark a huge break from the past. Under Barack Obama the USTR challenged China 16 times, on issues from illegal taxes on American steel and cars to dumping and export quotas on rare earths that harmed American importers. Just this week a massive case accusing China of illegal agricultural subsidies, which was filed by the previous administration, kicked off. 

mark a huge break:大きな決別をする
massive case:非常に重い訴訟

Ramping up tensions still risks Chinese retaliation. When America imposed tariffs on surging imports of Chinese tyres in 2009, China started importing chicken’s feet from Argentina and Brazil instead of America. Possible targets for Chinese reprisals this time include American soyabeans and aircraft, which together make up a quarter of American exports to China. China would find it hard to replace its entire supply of American soyabeans. But Kenny Cain, a soyabean farmer from Indiana, worries that prices could plunge by a third if China were to shop elsewhere. Although China cannot yet make high-quality commercial airliners, it could divert purchases to Airbus, a European manufacturer. 


A second risk is that the WTO architecture crumbles under the pressure of new cases. Resources are already stretched and decisions delayed. Constrained by a budget cap and a limit of 640 employees, it has struggled to cope with an increased number of disputes in the past few years. 


A highly adversarial approach to trade could expose a more fundamental problem: “As written, the WTO rules are just not clear enough,” says Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Mr Trump is right that China has not always adhered to the spirit of global trade law. But he may find that even holding it to the letter of the law is easier said than done. For example, WTO law offers no watertight definition of a state-owned enterprise, so it is hard to identify and oppose subsidies from state-owned banks. 

letter of the law:法律の条文
watertight :つけいる隙のない

Mr Obama’s strategy for solving the problem was to craft a multilateral trade agreement that included definitions of state-owned enterprises, a section on currency manipulation and chapters on labour and environmental standards, all meant to protect American workers against “unfair” competition. Called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it initially excluded China. But the hope was that China would one day have to accede, thereby accepting rules written in large measure by America. Mr Trump scrapped it this week. 


His strategy is clearly different. As long as he fights China on WTO rules, the world should avoid a trade war. Even if the WTO finds that American trade measures violate their rules, those rules set limits on the extent of retaliation allowed. Outside the WTO, all bets are off. 




swingby_blog at 23:45コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 



Britain’s consumer boom shows signs of petering out
The spending spree that has kept the economy going since the Brexit referendum may be nearing its end Feb 1st 2017 | Britain

spending spree:派手に買い物をする


FOR the past seven months the British economy has defied the predictions of analysts, most of whom expected a recession following the Brexit vote in June. GDP grew by 2% in 2016, faster than in any other G7 country—and the economy did better in the second half than in the first. The unexpectedly strong performance is largely thanks to the efforts of households, which have been spending liberally. In the fourth quarter of 2016 the volume of retail sales excluding petrol was 6% higher than in the year before, the biggest rise since 2004. Nor is the weak pound preventing families from splurging on foreign holidays. But Britons’ freewheeling ways may not last much longer. 


The fortunes of the economy rise and fall with households’ spending habits. In the years following the financial crisis of 2008-09, belts were tightened as people lost their jobs and real wages fell. But retail spending picked up from 2014. This was thanks to low unemployment and faster earnings growth. In 2011-13 real disposable household incomes shrank on average by 2% a year but in 2014-16 they grew by 3% a year. The median (after taxes and benefits) now stands at around £26,300 ($33,300). 

rise and fall:増減する

With this in mind it is not surprising that consumer spending remained strong following the Brexit vote. The vote itself may even have spurred consumption. Half of voters plumped for Leave, after all, so they may be happier shoppers than before. Others look to have brought consumption forward, loading up on foreign goods before the weak pound causes prices to rise. The value of sales of drinks and tobacco, much of which is imported, jumped by 25% year on year in December. 

in mind:念頭におくと
brought consumption forward:消費を前倒しする

But in recent months Britons’ desire to buy new iPods and sofas has outpaced their ability to pay for them. After the referendum, households indulged in unsecured borrowing, thanks in part to the Bank of England’s looser monetary policy. People now appear to have decided that with Brexit negotiations about to get under way and the attendant economic uncertainty, they should focus less on borrowing and more on repaying. On January 31st the Bank of England revealed that consumer-credit growth in December fell sharply, to £1bn from £1.9bn the month before. 


Rising prices will also cramp consumer spending. Inflation will near 3% by the end of the year. Food staples are getting dearer: those who gave up Marmite on their breakfast toast after it became more expensive last year will soon have nowhere to hide, after Weetabix warned that it too was considering a price rise. As the cost of essentials goes up, households will have less money left over for other things, making them feel poorer. Credit Suisse, a bank, reckons that consumer-spending growth will drop from 2.8% last year to 0.7% in 2017. 

Marmite:マーマイト 英国製イーストエキスのペースト。スープなどの料理の調味料としてまたはトーストに塗って食べる

This is worrying because until now consumers’ willingness to spend has helped to prop up an otherwise poorly supported economy. The government is continuing a grim programme of austerity, sucking away demand. Investment is weak by historical standards and slipping further as firms hold off on plans to expand their operations in post-Brexit Britain. Bank lending to non-financial firms fell by 1% in the fourth quarter. And despite the sharp drop in the value of sterling since June, net exports are hardly booming. If the consumer-spending spree comes to an end too, it is hard to see where growth will come from. 

poorly supported:事実の裏付けが不十分な
sucking:需要を吸い上げる 支出を抑えるという意味
hold off:遅らせる




swingby_blog at 20:54コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 


JANUARY 28, 2017 8:46AM
Five Reasons Congress Should Repeal Trump’s Immigrant & Refugee Ban


President Trump signed an executive order yesterday that would ban all Syrian refugees and almost all refugees from all countries from entering the United States for six months, while cutting the overall annual limit for refugees in half and banning for at least 90 days all immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. It implies that this ban could continue indefinitely for certain countries. These policies will not improve national security and will undermine America’s efforts to combat Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world.

1) The order violates the law. Under the Immigration Act of 1965, the president may not refuse to give visas to immigrants coming to live in the United States permanently due to their nationality. The provision is unequivocal in stating that no person may “be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” While this does not apply to temporary visitors or refugees, I have previously explained in detail why the president cannot legally enforce this order against immigrants who are sponsored by employers or family members in the United States. 



2) Refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries are not a serious threat to Americans. The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack. Moreover, the likelihood of being killed by any refugee from any country is just 1 in 3.64 billion a year. This discrimination is arbitrary and cannot be rationally justified based on a assessment of the risk. It is worth remembering that German Jews were turned away on a similar pretense that they could be Nazi spies—only to be killed in death camps. 

arbitrary :独断的な
turned away:見捨てる


3) The order aids the Islamic State. ISIS has said that it wishes to “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the gray zone themselves,” forcing Western Muslims to “either apostatize… or [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” They want this overreaction. The only thing keeping ISIS from imploding are its new recruits which makes winning the propaganda war critical. Accepting refugees deprives ISIS of human resources. The Caliphate’s main source of income is the people it extorts. One refugee told the Times. “ISIS would not let us leave. They said, ‘You are going to the infidels.’” What could be more important than making the “infidels” more popular than ISIS? 



4) Muslim immigrants to the U.S. are reforming Islam. American Muslims are 81 percent first or second generation Americans who came from among the most socially illiberal countries in the world. Yet, they comprise the most socially liberal and tolerant Muslim in the world. In fact, during the most recent seven years when Muslim immigration was at its highest level, America’s Muslims grew increasingly socially tolerant of other religions and homosexuality. U.S. Muslim immigrants are spreading goodwill about America’s freedoms around the world. “When I talk to my family they ask, ‘How is the treatment of Americans,’ and I say ‘it’s wonderful,’” one Syrian refugee explained. U.S. immigration is creating a cohort of liberal Muslims who can confront radicalism worldwide. 

cohort :集団


5) America’s tradition of accepting refugees should be defended. Since World War II, the United States has accepted millions of refugees fleeing communism and totalitarianism around the world. The Roosevelt administration’s rejection of Jews fleeing the Holocaust was one of the more shameful acts of any American president. Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of moral decency. 

America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to block the fire exits. 

moral duty:道徳上の義務感
fire exits:非常口



swingby_blog at 08:51コメント(0)トラックバック(0) 



海野 恵一



Swingby 最新イベント情報
海野塾のイベントはFacebookのTeamSwingbyを参照ください。 またスウィングバイは以下のところに引っ越しました。 スウィングバイ株式会社 〒108-0023 東京都港区芝浦4丁目2−22東京ベイビュウ803号 Tel: 080-9558-4352 Fax: 03-3452-6690 E-mail: clyde.unno@swingby.jp Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/clyde.unno 海野塾: https://www.facebook.com TeamSwingby

Recent Comments
  • 今日:
  • 累計:


社長ブログ ブログランキングへ