Unethical Quote (And Tweet) Of The Month: Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA.)

open-borders

“It’s outrageous the administration is saying anyone who might have committed a crime qualifies for deportations.”

—-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), on Twitter, in response to the recent Trump Administration immigration order.

I know it’s Twitter,  but Senator Harris had 41 unused characters left, so we have to assume that she means this. And if she means this, she is unqualified to be an elected official representing the American public. In fact, she’s a fool.

It is not and cannot be “outrageous” to say that any illegal immigrant, criminal or not, qualifies for deportation. To maintain otherwise is to say that the United States cannot enforce its immigration laws, and not only that, it is “outrageous” to enforce the laws. Is that the position of the Democratic Party? Clarification is essential here. Is it? If so, by what set of values and principles do Democrats make this argument? Does the “it’s outrageous to enforce the law” principle apply to other laws? Presumably it does, or the party has no integrity or legitimate governing philosophy at all.

Why is enforcing the immigration laws against—The Horror!–only the portion of the law-breakers who have no right to be here who have additionally become involved with the violation of other criminal laws so “outrageous”? Does the Senator have some rationale for that contention, or is she just grandstanding? That is, lying.

Or does she accept the reasoning of Jorge Ramos, the openly partisan, pro-illegal immigration Univision anchor, who said at a the network’s annual entertainment awards show (Aside: Why would anyone watch an awards show today, as they have devolved into political rant sessions from one narrow perspective, largely by smugly ignorant hyperpartisans who deserve a nationwide platform no than the average ranting activist holding a placard?), as he erased any distinction between legal and illegal immigration,

I am an immigrant, just like many of you. I am a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. My name is Jorge Ramos, and I work at Univision and at the Fusion network. And you know exactly what is going on here in the United States. There are many people who do not want us to be here, and who want to create a wall in order to separate us. But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: OUR country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States. And thanks to US, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances. So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do!”

Senator Harris needs to answer the question: is that your position and that of your party? That once a foreign citizen gets here, legally or not, they must be able to stay here? That citizens who want to enforce the immigration laws “don’t want us—legal immigrants—to be here?”

I see the news media going insane over every inarticulate, inflammatory Presidential tweet, none of which, so far, raise as important issues as this one does. Do Senators’ tweets count as newsworthy? Only Republican Senators’ tweets? I cannot find a single mainstream news organization that has quoted Harris’s tweet yet. Why is that? Too embarrassing for “the team”? Its it a Jumbo (“Tweet? What tweet?)? Is the sentiment not newsworthy, since it is so obviously right and just?

The Progressive/Democratic position regarding illegal immigration is unethical, dishonest, irresponsible and cowardly, and it only survives because statements like Harris’s are never challenged sufficiently forcefully to expose its cynical vacuousness.

The public deserves a clear, unequivocal statement. Does the Left insist on open boarders, and believe that it is “outrageous” for the United States to enforce its laws and sovereignty? How hard can it be to answer yes, or no?

70 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Quotes, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Journalism & Media, Jumbo, Law & Law Enforcement, Unethical Tweet

70 responses to “Unethical Quote (And Tweet) Of The Month: Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA.)

  1. Wayne

    The election of Karmala Harris was a disaster for the once great state of California. Of course the same could be said about most of the House members. What doesn’t Senator Harris understand about sovereignty? Her political posturing is outrageous to say the least. Nobody will call her on it on the left I predict.

  2. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants? (Or, sorry, “undocumented workers?”) It is only because they don’t want to, and don’t want anyone else to make that differentiation either.

    Why not just open our borders to everyone, and add about a billion people from around the world who would rather live here (horrible as it apparently is) than their own countries, and then just watch this nation devolve into the worst of the nations these people are leaving?

    Immigration laws were put into place just because we (the United States) simply cannot house, employ and feed the entire world. Is that so difficult a concept? And frankly, for Californians and others to somehow make exceptions for Latin Americans is worse than stupid, it’s bigotry, pure and simple.

  3. joed68

    We have COTD; it’s long past time to roll out MOM.

  4. Chris Marschner

    I think it’s outrageous that I can be fined or incarceratated for not paying my fair share.

    Using such logic do natural born citizens get a get out of jail card so we have equal treatment under the law.

  5. Wayne

    Let me remind you Senator Harris: Improper Entry is a crime!

  6. If no one’s already done so, I think it’s about time someone dug up this song from Wag the Dog. In the film, it was created solely for cheap propaganda (and not even for ideological purposes, at that, but for promoting an individual politician) but I’m interested to see people’s reactions nowadays. It probably applies less to illegal immigration from Mexico than it does to the suspension of immigration from the countries with high levels of terrorism, though.



    • Here is the lyric to ‘The American Dream’.

      There comes a time in the course of human events
      When a threat must be answered with courage and strength.
      Our forefathers earned the right to be free.
      Now it’s time to guard their dream.

      We guard our American borders.
      We guard the American dream.
      We guard our right to fight for democracy
      And keep our country free.
      We guard our American spirit.
      We guard the American dream.

      Our country’s built on the rock of liberty.
      And we, as people must keep it free.
      It is for life…liberty……the pursuit of happiness……freedom, ’tis of thee.
      We guard our American borders.
      We guard the American dream.
      _____________________

      My view is that there is not much to comment on. I have no idea what the large context of the film is.

      I attempt here some thoughts which, I hope, are a positive contribution to the underlying ethical and social questions which are really in operation as it pertains to the Illegal Latino Problem.

      In my own view (as Latina) I think possibly in a way that the Americans are not thinking. Latin America — and I know this to be true — sees America in a strange way. Mostly as an opportunity to be exploited. It is like a body you go and hack a piece of meat out of and then run back home to devour. The idea of Simon Bolivar about the ‘collossus of the North’ has been installed for generations in the Latin mind. The US is almost always resented, even if respected in a jealous way, and when not respected it is hated in an aggressive way that can only be understood as Nietzschean ‘ressentiment’. But yet everyone in Latin Americ, from Mexico to Argentina, has a friend, family member or relative living, working, making money and benefiting from the economy of the US.

      Mexico certainly has built a perverse relationship of ressentiment to the US, and the Mexican state deliberately exploits the closeness to this vast economy and encourages that Mexicans go over there, make money, send it back home. This has been going on for generations. If Mexico power structures could not do this and had not done this they’d surely have another Revolution on their hands. A revolution of renovation to transform the social and economic structures.

      Now, what I think has to be better understood by Americas is that by allowing this, by encouraging this, by abeting this, the US does a disservice to those countries. You have to understand that the countries of Latin America are univsersally backward, badly managed, tryrannical, hierarchical and ‘corporate’. People always say ‘Ah, Latin America. It has been corrupt and backward for 500 years and will be for the next 500 years!’ and they resign themselves, likes a tired and depressed old mule, to the quotidian hardship. They remain in apathy and they do not motivate through activism and ‘demand for accountability’ to change the backward policies, entrenched in the political and social systems. Even Bolivar referred to this with his comment: ‘He arado el mar y he sembrado en el viento’. (I’ve plowed the sea and cast seeds into the wind). He meant that his efforts to create a ‘Gran Colombia’ had failed, and that to govern An unruly aristocracy was as futile as ‘plowing the ocean’, but the sense of it is a sense that is commonly understood in Latin America. It is very very hard for Latinos to come to understand why the Anglo Saxon northern system grew to be so powerful, and backward and pathetic and ridiculous Latin America has remained fundamentally retarded physically, mentally and economically, such that it is a weight of backwardness on the whole world and these woeful Eternal Problems of Latin America are always blamed on ‘others’.

      If you follow the Latin American press — I assume no one here does — you will quickly notice that they are sharing in the meltdowns and the freakouts of the American progressive. The mere idea of Trump excites them to ‘slaver’ and foam up at the mouth. It is that powerful, loud, aggressive white Protestant American man with a ruddy complexion that they both hate and admire, resent and need simultaneously.

      Remember: the ideal in Latin America is to send one’s child to study and get a degree in the US and there is at least a few generations now of technocrats — from Mexico to Argentina — who got their degrees in government or engineering or what-have-you who got their degrees in US universities and, this is true, are bringing back their learned understanding to their own countries. There is a will to reconstruct, to modernize. See: ‘Manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano’ by Plino Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Montaner, and Alvaro Llosa. All of this is explained in acidic irony and sarcasm.

      By sending Meso-America (most illegals are Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, etc.) back home a number of ‘goods’ will be achieved, but those governments of ‘home’ will not be too happy about it! The only way to transform Latin America is through economic transformation and political modernization. The people of those countries must demand that the governing structures change and become ‘accountable’. I say that the entire attitude of pathetic pity and “we’ll take you poor miserable stupid people in and make things better for you!” must definitely change because this is a form of political codependency and ennabling.

      Mendoza, Montaner and Llosa write about how profoundly damaging to real sovereignty and real empowerment is the typical North American ‘progressive’ attitude toward Latin America. America and Americans really do have the skills and the energy to build things. They built the country and a powerful and influential civilization. They confront and solve problems. They do not stand for inefficiency and they rarely tolerate the perversions of Latino corruption! That is an intensely powerful spirit.

      Send the little ones home and stop coddling your ‘hermanitos marroncitos’ (‘little brown brothers’).

      • dragin_dragon

        I think, as a South Texas native, that your analysis is spot on. I say ‘South Texas native’ because I am exposed to the “immigrant” community almost daily due to where I live. Thus, I have first hand knowledge of both the people coming to Texas and the conditions that prompted their immigration, legal or illegal.

  7. Other Bill

    Does the Left insist on open borders, and believe that it is “outrageous” for the United States to enforce its laws and sovereignty? Yes.

  8. Roman B witkowsky

    It is a lack of common sense, as well as much more unethical, to deport productive people and destroy their lives and families in the process, even if they are illegal, than any tweet by Senator Kamala Harris.

    • Good, civil solid, assertive statement, and, unfortunately, absolute, insane, addled nonsense, on the same level as “It is a lack of common sense, as well as much more unethical, to imprison people who commit felonies when they can have productive lives and families.” Such a statement shows such utter (willful?) ignorance of how civilization survives and the requirement of a rule of law that I wonder how something that should be so intrinsically obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary education and life experience could be thought, much less written down in a public forum. Conduct has consequences, and law breaking must have serious enough consequences that it is not advantageous to break the law. Also, what goes up must come down, and the oceans are largely water.

      How did this happen to you?

      • dragin_dragon

        I assume that Roman is referring to the old saw that “they do the jobs no American would take”. In actual fact, if the pay wasn’t so low, any US citizen would take the jobs.

        • joed68

          Very good retort. I don’t know why it never occurred to me.

          • dragin_dragon

            Rule of thumb…if an illegal alien is in a job, and you are paying him starvation wages, he WON’T report you to the NLRB. Several ranchers on the Texas-Mexico border take advantage of this, and have for multiple generations. Surprisingly, the “Runnin’ W brand, the King Ranch, do not. All of their ‘punchers get the same wage, legal or not. It’s still illegal to hire an undocumented worker, however.

            • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

              So why do they hire them, if it’s against the law and there is no financial incentive? Should not employers of illegal aliens be prosecuted as well? The law is the law. Even if through some misguided sense of mercy they hire them and pay them fair wages? I know just a bit about his: how do they deal with the IRS Form 1099s which are required for all contracted labor and start with a Social Security Number? So they can’t report it, don’t report it and lie on their tax returns. The employers are law breakers as much as the illegal aliens are. Who’s the culprit here? The guy who sneaks across the border, or the employer he’s sure will hire him?

      • RomanBW

        Not all crimes are the same. Accidentally breaking, without any detrimental consequences, simple traffic laws are not on par with committing rape, larceny, murder, etc, etc. Common sense dictates differential penalties for all such cases. A Rule of Law needs to be tempered, not only with justice, but with mercy, empathy, as well as compassion in order for a free civilized society to cohesively survive.

        • Ridiculous false equivalency. Breaching a border, living outside the law, taking unsanctioned advantages of services and privileges that belong to citizens only and are paid for by them, is far more serious than breaking simple traffic laws, which is not a crime. Breaking border law is very much on par with larceny, and it is grand larceny in spirit. The self-supporting delusion the open borders argument adopts is the same that would allow theft if someone were poor enough. Your sentiments are nice, but completely misplaced in the case of illegal aliens. The compassion is embodied by not imprisoning the illegals. Or shooting them. Sending them home is hardly cruel; it’s completely fair.

          • RomanBW

            Generalizations have a place in philosophical ideologies. Each individual illegal immigrant case must be judged on the basis of its own unique merits. Treating a drug dealing illegal immigrant, or someone with a comparable crime(s), the same as a hard working illegal immigrant parent is hard to justify.

            • “Each individual illegal immigrant case must be judged on the basis of its own unique merits.”

              Wrong. There are no merits. The only consideration is practicality: we can’t send all 12 million home. So we have to prioritize the basis on which to engage prosecutorial discretion. The starting point, however, is that none have a right to say, and all can be justly deported.

              • RomanBW

                Practicality is NOT the only consideration. MERCY and COMPASSION should also be considered.

                • Not in this case. The flaw in your reasoning is to assume that a lawbreaker has a right to expect and indeed demand mercy. But policy makers have to consider practicalities.

                  • RomanBW

                    No assumptions are being made. However, policy makers should also consider mercy and compassion, for such virtues do indeed exist.

                    • joed68

                      Does expense factor in at all? How much of your neighbors money are you willing to so generously spend to satiate your need to be “compassionate”? Do you really have a working concept of just how much these lawbreakers cost us?

                    • Chris

                      joed68, most economists argue that immigrants–even illegal immigrants–are net contributers to our economy. Even the study Trump cited last night in his speech had to be taken out of context to support Trump’s point, since the study itself argued that the economic benefits far outweigh the costs.

                      So yes, by all means take into account the costs. Just do so honestly.

                    • joed68

                      You’re exaggerating on two points: 1-MOST economists and, 2-FAR outweigh. This is a hotly-debated topic, with SOME economists citing a cost of up to 130 billion per year net deficit and others saying we come out slightly ahead. There’s FAR from any sort of consensus on monetary cost.

                    • joed68

                      Also, common sense says that there IS a tipping point somewhere, that even if we are operating at a slight net gain, we’re going towards diminishing returns, and eventually, all the cons are going to far outweigh any pros.

                  • Chris

                    Not in this case. The flaw in your reasoning is to assume that a lawbreaker has a right to expect and indeed demand mercy.

                    My understanding of the term “mercy” is that it isn’t given to people because they have a “right” to it.

                    I agree that no illegal immigrant has the right to stay in our country. Whether we should allow certain illegal immigrants to stay, though, is not a question of rights.

                • Michael Ejercito

                  Mercy and compassion must be prioritized, and I choose to put my fellow Americans first.

                  • RomanBW

                    Your preference has not much to do with mercy or compassion, despite your usage of those terms.

                    • It has to do with my loyalty to the United states of America.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Loyalty to USA does not rule out compassion to the distraught, no matter their citizenship, race, sex, or place of origin, whose only crime being having crossed the border illegally. There may have been a very good, non monetary, dire reason for such crossing.

                    • There are reasons for most crimes. The law does not and cannot let off law breakers because the have ‘reasons.” Where did you get such an idea? And not being a citizen isn’t a matter of “guilt.” Either you can prove you are one, or you are subject to being sent home.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Has a judge never ever dismissed the penalty, not the guilt, of guilty person because of certain circumstances involved in the case? An assay germane to the plight of an illegal immigrant: The Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law: The Case of Jose Antonio Vargas https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-good-life/201107/the-letter-the-law-and-the-spirit-the-law-the-case-jose-antonio-vargas

                    • joed68

                      So are you arguing that a certain few have circumstances that set them apart from the rest?

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Not at all. My point is that each illegal immigrant should be judged on an individual basis, taking into account his/her unique circumstances. As to the final decision, it should be based on justice, mercy, and compassion. If this is impractical, en masse deportation, treating all like cattle, without trial, is de-humanizing, unethical, that is, wrong.

                    • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

                      If we can’t afford to treat each of millions of cases on individual bases, then en masse deportation is the only answer. And really, whose fault is it? Nor the Justice Department, not our US budget. But the ‘millions’ who have broken the law and come in illegally. Fine talk about kindness, but at the level of individuals we’re talking about, do you want to pay for this not so random act of kindness — a million times over?

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Given the impossibility of rounding up and getting fair trials for the 10+millions of illegal immigrants, and the unethical aspects of mass deportation (at least in MY view), are there other options? Perhaps someone has some ideas, as I have only one, as proposed below. Perhaps multivarious groups could get together to discuss and formulate a proper alternative.
                      Until that proper preference comes into existence, perhaps strictly sticking to deporting or imprisoning only the more hardened criminal element of the illegal immigrant populace should be weighed more heavily. Such was not the case in any of the previous administrations, and is obviously not the case with the present command, but I offer it as a proposition, realizing full well the endless counter rebuttals that will again be precipitated. Nonetheless, it possibly may be the least undesirable choice.

                    • The latest post is dedicated to your concerns.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Thanks for the post. Read your much appreciated thoughts, as well as the viewpoints of all the commentators. Here is my caustic counter reflective input into the matter: “The Letter of The Law has spoken, no leeway, latitude, to be considered. The crime penalty must be paid at all costs. The Letter of The Law alone takes preeminence in an imperfect world, full of imperfect creatures.”

                    • joed68

                      You keep missing the point.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      The deportation issue is not so straightforward to me, as it seems to be to the many who comment on it. Additionally, not agreeing with a viewpoint is not synonymous with missing the point.

                    • joed68

                      No, but this sarcastic rebuttal (““The Letter of The Law has spoken, no leeway, latitude, to be considered. The crime penalty must be paid at all costs. The Letter of The Law alone takes preeminence in an imperfect world, full of imperfect creatures.”) indicates that you missed the point.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Be that as it may, but please do tell me the point that I missed.

                    • joed68

                      I don’t think anyone is suggesting that discretion shouldn’t ever be utilized on a case-by-case basis, only that exceptions to being subject to deportation shouldn’t be a matter of law. In other words, if you’re here illegally, there’s no guarantee that you won’t be deported. Your neediness doesn’t constitute an obligation for us to keep you here.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Have no dispute with your statement. Is that the point that I missed? if so, then I think my overall message was either conveyed improperly and/or somehow misunderstood.

                    • joed68

                      Or, are they all “special”, and all deserving of special consideration?

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      Every single person is special, deserving consideration, justice, mercy, and compassion in the appropriate proportion.

                    • These are aphorisms. They have little to nothing to do with law enforcement, not should they, especially in a matter as open and shut as crossing the border illegally, which is direct, voluntary, and, without level of seriousness, then continuing to avoid authorities and the law.

                      That’s not ethics. That’s just stubbornness.

                    • RomanBWitkowsky

                      You are very correct. Those are aphorisms, statements of my beliefs. Law enforcement is an another topic, open to much discussion, which, at this time, I lack the proper preparedness to engage in.

                  • Chris

                    Mercy and compassion must be prioritized, and I choose to put my fellow Americans first.

                    Your zero-sum mentality would fit right in in the Trump administration, but there is little real-world support for it.

          • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

            Agree. Clearly no one reads my short, purposefully non-academic responses to posts. I did write one that basically said this:

            The US simply cannot employ, feed, and support every single person who wants to leave their country for the US (terribly flawed as it apparently is). Why is the list for legal immigration so long? Why are law-abiding citizens from other countries willing to wait and wait and jump through hoops to get to this country legally? Because we offer something their country does not.

            Why then this ridiculous empathy for those who decide they can do it outside the law, and believe that we should welcome them anyway? Give me — and this will exhibit my own bias — the doctors and scientists from India who wait years to get here legally over those who choose to steal in and assume our kindness (or idiocy) will protect them. The people who come here legally are not only fleeing untenable situations in their own countries; to be blunt, they also have something to offer us.

            The “give me your poor your huddled masses” nonsense has never been true. We have a terrible record regarding 20th century immigration, I know — immigrants with “pink eye” being sent back, shiploads of Jewish refugees unable to come to a US port,, e.g. — but immigrants should be able to answer “yes” to at least one of two questions:

            1. DO YOU REALLY NEED REFUGE FROM A TOTALITARIAN STATE?

            2. WHAT CAN YOU DO TO ENRICH THIS COUNTRY?

            Ugly. But a fact. A “Yes” answer to either works. And we know that. Just because you can make more money in the US does not, repeat, not, mean to can answer “yes” to either of the questions above. And sneaking across borders and finding a “sanctuary city” does not answer either of these questions, does it?”

            • RomanBW

              The deportation issue is separate from the immigration issue. Nonetheless, in each, practical as well as ethical concerns apply, and each case should be judged on the basis of its own individual merits, taking justice, mercy and compassion into consideration.

              • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

                The statute of limitations applies to crimes where enough time has passed that evidence proving a crime may not be available. There is no statute of limitations on, among other crimes, murder, rape, treason, kidnapping.

                Interestingly, there is no statute of limitations on illegal immigration. If it can be proved that you entered this country illegally and have been living here without legal documentation, then you can and should be deported. It is really not the Justice Department’s problem if you snuck into this country 20 years ago, have been protected by your employers, friends, church or city and thus have children and grandchildren who are native born citizens. That’s your problem, and yours alone. The long term results are directly and only related to the crime initially committed.

                Your wish for compassion and kindness relates nicely to those fleeing repressive or murderous governments. It is less applicable to those who come to the US illegally for higher wages, better living conditions, or just because they feel like it. There’s a system in place for immigration, and if you don’t follow it and you are punished later rather than earlier, so be it. Your fault. Period.

        • E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

          Are you an undocumented worker? We have immigration laws, and those who flout them for any reason are not worthy of my empathy. If you are fleeing a totalitarian state, you are protected. (Although according to you the US is a totalitarian state itself, so why come here?) If you have skills that would be a benefit to the US, you can also emigrate, after much time and effort. That’s the law and I have no problem with it.

          Your approach is total nonsense. Millions, millions of people have immigrated to this country legally. Wanna come to the US illegally to get maybe better wages and your kids will be born here so we will be sympathetic to your needs, your family and ignore your crime? Good luck.

          Are we only taking about Latin Americans? Tell the truth. Is life really worse in say, Mexico, than in Yemen? Should geography have any effect?

          I am really getting sick of this. NO Latin American country qualifies as a “refugee” state, and you know it. I’ll take any real refugee, or anyone else who goes through the system and can contribute to the US. Faking it, stealing it, depending upon our “mercy” when you really don’t need it, doesn’t cut it with me.

          • RomanBW

            Pointless to discuss the issue any further. You can have the last say.

          • Chris

            If you are fleeing a totalitarian state, you are protected.

            Not if Trump’s travel ban is found constitutional and reinstated.

            (Although according to you the US is a totalitarian state itself, so why come here?)

            I don’t see anywhere in Roman’s comments where that was even suggested.

    • I suggest, Mr Witowski, that though you imagine, and likely sincerely believe, that your attitude is ethical and an expression of your good will (I have no reason to doubt this), I will suggest that a deeper examination of the dynamic of your belief will change your mind. Consider Eduardo Galeano who wrote the ‘Bible’ of idiocy for at least a couple of generations of Latin American ‘intellectuals’. (Open Veins of Latin America).

      See this article to get a sense of what I mean:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379158/idiots-lose-their-religion-carlos-alberto-montaner

  9. Pennagain

    I have what might be called a “psychological” theory that what the left insists on and what they believe are complete incongruities.

    They speak pie-in-the-sky Bernie at his most fatuous, act on the sentimentally impractical words on that statue in NY Harbor, and at the same time believe down to the soles of their souls in the Great God NIMBY.

    They play tricks on their own minds with “the homeless,” “the ghetto-ized,” “the overcrowded incarcerated,” … never getting close enough to excite any one of the five senses without feeling fright, disgust and disdain, and running fast as they can back to their meetings, marches, adult education courses, checkbooks and voting booths. Terrorists hold no fears for them: on the contrary, it’s the average migrant multiplied by millions that raises the hair on the backs of their necks. Their biggest fear is “If we build it, They will come,” so they make certain that “if” does not become “when.” They would love removing bricks in Trump’s Wall (at some personal risk, of course) … so long as every brick they got hold of — by hook or by crook, as the saying goes — would be replaced by ten more.

    The best way to do that is to go overboard on expressing expectations with no rational plan for achievement, much less funding, and to threaten and even make small forays into lawbreaking that will create instant setbacks to their cause. They want the Unfortunate Others to be called victims and they, the rescuers. Most of all they want to be called crazy: saintly … but crazy. It makes them feel safe and important and valuable to society. NIMBYs all.

  10. No one seems to be interested in taking into consideration that 12 to 20 millions of Mexicans and Meso-Americans, who have no other relationship to America except that they came to work and make money, and take advantage of a system more generous and wealthy than the one they come from, cannot create a community of citizens who can have a sufficient ‘identity’ to be Americans. Some will say, ‘That may be true but the succeeding generation, raised up in the schools, will get that identity’, but I wonder if this is true.

    This is why: The Mexican identity, for example, holds as a principle that the land that Mexicans are migrating into, legally or illegally, was land taken from them. ‘I didn’t cross the border, the border crossed me!’ Is a speech I heard once in a rally in Sacramento California. They were actually marching down the street, men women and children, singing this chant.

    The proud Mexican and often Latino identity establishes as a value the holding to a sort of counter-identity-narrative. How can a Mexican, who did not come to really be an American, discover or invent an identity which s/he did not ever have in the first place?

    But is it so that the Democrat Party seeks to build a political base within and among people who have a sort of marginal identity? And is it not a tenet of this political ideology, however loose and undefined it is, that strict American identity is not necessarily required? What I mean is that they seem to have a very loose sense of what is required to make a citizen. But I do not think this is so for the Conservative faction. There, they have always very solid and articulated notions of what citizenship is and they seem to make more demands on the new arrival.

    If any of this is true then it would be possible to then propose that 12-20 millions of such immigrants, with their own ideas about their own identity, and with their non-committed identity within an in-between state, will create a sort of non-citizen mind-frame and a pocket of non-citizenry which cannot be of much good to a Republic.

    Such a non-citizen or quasi-citizen community will create an ‘alternative culture’ and become activist for its own, independent interests. Is this not in fact what the Democrat Party has come to represent in some sense? It can gain such a Latino or Meso-American to the party by catering to the non-Americanism of that new arrival. But doing this it itself undermines the required and necessary identity on which a Republic is built.

    [Anyone who has rwad my writing over time knows that I have unpopular ideas about ‘identity’ and ‘identitarianism’. I would suggest that America is right now in the throw of an Identity Crisis and the politics of the present are identity crisis politics. I regret to say that the conscious decision to shift the country from being nearly exclusively an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ demographic (I of course mean made up of whites) to a mixed-demographic and one of competing factions, seems to me the beginning of a process of dissolution, of coming apart. What after all will bind it together?]

    • __________________________

      This NYTs article has many redeeming features. Obviously slanted against Bannon and Sessions still it provides a rather clear window, and one I appreciate and need, to better understand the machinations of Washington and the ‘Trump movement’. I find that if I read the article with a slant somewhat different than what the author intended I am given some insight into the political system generally, and also how a political system becomes infused with a popular will and institutions are made to serve the so-called ‘agenda’ of a reigning political faction.

      I know my ideas are not very highly favored, and though I do inject from time to time into what I write a reference to some of my beliefs and understandings, I do try to avoid being a saleswoman for these unpopular ideas. But what interested me in this article about Bannon (and Sessions) is nevertheless an important topic and any side of the political and social battle-field would benefit from understanding it. As one with no actual experience with politcs I can only guess how things *really work*.

      So, if it is true that Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions are ‘nationalists’ as the article contests, and if they are also nationalists who favor a specific demographic as the article also contests, then I suppose it can be said that, perhaps, or likely, these two persons reflect and are enacting some aspect of the ‘popular will’. Obviously, that is the white demographic. And I assume that for this reason, and for many other aspects of the new and threatening policies that are emerging as Bannon and Sessions & Co. that the Democratic Camp is having all sorts of freakouts because, according to them, they are losing the America they love and desire (world-pluralism, immigrant friendly, color and race-blind, ‘progressive’ and ‘democratic’, multi-culturalism and a State power-structure to enforce it, et cetera).

      And they are correct to have these thoughts and feelings in the sense that they regard whatever national path other than the one they define to be ‘evil’ ‘fascistic’ ‘ultra-right’ and every other horror that can be expressed in hot words.

      Therefor, the *battle* is one about Identity. Now, what I find interesting is that it is this ideology of Identity that now has some political power. I mean has its hands on the reins of power and has, at least to some degree, some level of popular mandate. But how much? If Bannon’s thinking for example is such a mystery to people, perhaps they do not really understand the degree that he is (is he?) a ‘white identitarian’. This leads me to think about an idea that I cam across just today in reading up on one of Shakesepeare’s histories (King John). From Harold Goddard’s ‘The Meaning of Shakesepare’:

      ‘Perhaps education will someday revert to a perception of what was so like an axiom to Shakespeare: that psychology goes deeper than politics and that a knowledge of man himself must precede any fruitful consideration of the institutions he has created.’

      If what I suspect as being true is true, America is on the edge of an even more larger identity-battle. On one hand I gather that now the forces which oppose hyper-left liberalism, even if they are fundamentally unaware of themselves as ‘psychological potencies’, are manifesting themselves in a raw, inarticulate sense. I mean that this is rising up out of the white demographic (let me be realistic in the way I talk and let us not mince words nor obscure reality with fictions and gauzy mistruths) in a unique way that has not occurred before. This is a turn to the right in a new way and it is not just regional and local but has an international element. It is pan-European and also a new movement in the anglophone world.

      Now for me the interesting part is this: When a hyper-liberal administration, also backed by unquestionably real popular political will as was the Obama administration gets into power, it *bends* the existing institutions to its will. It defines what justice and rightness are and it feels empowered to make the instututions serve this driving sense of what is right and good. This bending (note this is all speculations on my part) is extra-institutional or perhaps supra-institutional is the word. And Obama’s ‘radicalism’ in this sense, and the same is true of popular ‘progressive radicalism’, have brought about far-reaching changes. But it seems to me less in actually changing institutions than in changing the ‘mind of the people’.

      So, an activist administration puts into motion, if you will, the operative ‘psychology’ or ‘submerged will’ or even one might say ‘spiritual will’ which, mysteriously, infuse the actual political machinery of the system. Clearly, Bannon and Sessions and an entire political and demographic faction seek now to enforce their will. Bannon is ideological and ideologically informed. He is connected to a larger range of right-leaning political ideas and these ideas are intellectual and conceptual and also new and strange.

      What I have done here, I hope, is to have written less as a partisan of one side or the other, though clearly I am on the right-leaning identitarian side and I am, with qualifications, a white nationalist of a sort. What I notice is that the politics of a country refelects and expresses deeper psychic and psychological aspects of a people. There is a battle on-going which will on go for the next decade and really for the next generation. It is a battle of definition.

  11. RomanBWitkowsky

    Your insight is extremely intelligent, very well portrayed, and most clarifying as to the course being pursued by the top lieutenants of the Trump administration. Thanks for sharing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s