The metaphorically tear-flecked column in the Times screams, “We Will Regret Not Standing Up to This Venomous Cruelty.” [Gift link here!]
You know what the “venomous cruelty” is? Sending people who are in the U.S. illegally back to where they never should have left in the first place.
The author is Linda Greenhouse, a dyed-through-and through progressive who warps students at Yale Law School. She’s a legal journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize once, the Times tells us, not that this should mean anything after the Post and Times won awards for their false coverage of the Russian Collusion non-story and after “The 1619 Project’s” fake historian was rewarded for that political fantasy.
Greenhouse isn’t stupid, or at least shouldn’t be, with degrees from Harvard University, Yale University, Yale Law School, and the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Yet here she is, writing things like
“Something beyond the raw politics of immigration lies behind the venomous cruelty on display, and I think it is this: To everyone involved, from the policymakers in Washington to the masked agents on the street, undocumented individuals are the Other — people who not only lack legal rights as a formal matter but also stand outside the web of connection that defines human society.”
Authentic Frontier Gibberish. What does “lack legal rights as a formal matter” mean? That isn’t “formal,” or some technicality. It’s a fact. They have no right to be here; formality has nothing to do with it. They are The Other: people other than legal citizens who defy our laws, expect to get away with it, and have no basis for complaint if they are arrested and removed.”The web of connection that defines human society”? Ramalama ding dong! If you can’t make a real argument, throw New Agey crap like that in the air. Did Greenhouse write this during a bathroom visit? It sure reads like it.
Here is a lawyer who quotes with favor the sloppy, deliberately or carelessly imprecise rhetoric of a bishop who said, “Are we no longer a country of immigrants? Are we no longer a country that values the dignity of the human person, individual liberties and with a healthy regard for checks and balances?”
Oh my God, just kill me now. The “nation of immigrants” deflection is as moldy and unforgivable as citing Emma Lazarus’s poem. The United States is a nation of laws and borders, and a nation that doesn’t enforce its laws and borders isn’t a nation. The immigrants who “built this country” were legal immigrants. Greenhouse, a lawyer, is endorsing this historically misleading, deceitful demagoguery that is the kind of argument one might expect from a 9th grader—or a clergyman. She is a disgrace to her professions—law and journalism— and a blight on punditry.
Appropriately punishing scofflaws who who come here illegally is the correct way to discourage more of the same: this is basic law enforcement. There is nothing cruel about deportation, unless one thinks all just punishment is cruel. You know, let people eat the food they steal: surely they must be hungry. We know what’s coming: the “all they want is a better life” lament. Almost all felons want a better life: life without the annoying spouse now in the flowerbed, life with the cool stolen car, life including with fun sex with 13-year-old.
“Aren’t antisemitism and anti-immigrant cruelty two sides of the same coin?” Greenhouse writes. No, they really aren’t. See, first, we are talking about illegal immigrants, so she has outed herself as a toxic obfuscator. Second, illegal immigrants are illegal. Jews are not. What could she be thinking to make a dunderheaded argument like that? In a newspaper!
The silly piece ends with the claim that enforcing immigration laws melts “the glue that holds civil society together.” What utter, utter nonsense.
Ethics Alarms 
Fantastic article. Fantastic blog. Thank you.
I don’t usually pass though non-substantive comments, but I needed boost this morning. Thanks.
We can’t be a nation of immigrants unless you are, in fact, a nation. That means, among other things, having our own laws, our own borders, along with the right and the ability to defend and enforce both.
They probably won’t cease. The Democratic party knows that their future lies in importing new citizens who they can brainwash into thinking that they owe them undying loyalty. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the nation is on to them and they know the rest of the nation is on to them. So they resort to appeals to emotion. Appealing to emotion means you’ve got nothing.
But that’s what I don’t understand. If you have a Pulitzer Prize and a reputation, inflated though it may be, you shut up when you “got nothing” because you know you got nothing and don’t want everyone to conclude you’ve lost it. I mean, read that thing! There is no substantive, logical basis for anything in it, just “Ooo, Trump is so mean” and “a clergyman says so.” This comes on the heels of Curmie’s flipping out. Smart people are supposed to think like smart people. I remember, during the excellent series “Waco”—I kept wondering, “How did so many people who weren’t idiots decide to listen to this obviously deranged cult leader with a God complex?” Would Curmie have bowed to David Koresh given the right circumstances?
Jonathan Haidt argues in his book “The Righteous Mind” that people make ethical decisions and conclusions instinctively, and later rationalize these. This is why politicians win debates using logical fallacies against opponents who use facts and logic. Politicians win debates by connecting with the public, and appeal to emotion is a big part of that. People vote based on what they want to hear.
Why did people in the past vote for demagogues like Huey Long (D-LA)? Or the Peron’s in Argentina? Or even more sinister, Adolf Hitler? For the same reason as people fall for the tricks of con men, by pulling the right levers of human emotion.
Intelligent people are not immune to this. Bernie Madoff convinced a lot of very smart people to invest with them, including Nobel price winners. Because they all wanted to feel smart about themselves.
People also want to feel good about themselves. That is why self-anointed prophets are able to manipulate people using guilt and shame. Example: Critical Race Theory. Bonus points if the demagogue is recognized as a Man of God, with a prominent function in a church.
One of the most brilliant philosophers in the twentieth century was Martin Heidegger. I still do not understand why such a brilliant man became a Nazi.
Other people are manipulated by their desire to belong, or by fear. There is a famous picture of a Nazi meeting in Hamburg, were every single person is bring the Nazi salute, except one. We all want to think that if we were at that meeting, we would have been as courageous as that man who did not stretch his arm; however that is a delusion.
And I am not even talking about stupid people, of which there are many among the Democrat constituency. These are the people who are poor, drop out of school and make bad life decisions, are unable to use logic and purely make decisions based on emotion, and are very happy to be told by the Democrats that they are not in any way responsible for their plight but that they are victims of evil perpetrated by the other party who is racist, fascist yadayadayada. And that is precisely what the constituents want to hear, and they keep voting for a political party who never served their interests. That is why the local administrations of cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC have been dominated by the same political party for multiple decades.
We should therefore not have to much faith in the victory of reason and fact in politics, because most people are gullible, stupid, and easily manipulated.
Lots of excellent points here.
Much behavior that seems stupid or inexplicable from a rational/logical POV makes sense when one pays attention to emotions and motivation… i.e. psycho-logical processes.
There can be no “victory of reason” without emotional maturity, and sometimes people who are devoted to rationality as an ideal are especially vulnerable to manipulation because they have devoted inadequate time and attention to understanding themselves, which means understanding your own emotions and motivations among other things.
Emotionally mature and self-aware people are harder to manipulate, because they are better able to notice, understand, and when necessary overrule their own emotional reactions.
Here in Alabama there was a big tadaa when ICE went to a Mexcan restuarant with a warrant for a particualr illegal immigrant. They,of course, found other illegal immigrants who he “brought over”, some of whom were not just making fajitas. They also discovered distribution amounts of cocain, heroin, methamphetmine, armaments and over $100,000 in cash.
The cry went out, he/they are just trying to improve themselves. they showed his”business tax returns” demonstrating he was conribuitng to the economics of the local society, they emphaised his work force demonstrating his benevolent assitance ot his neighbors. Some even showed the health inspection document witha score of 98, to show the resturatnt was clean.
No supporters mentioned the cache mentioned above, nor did they label the reality that his establsihemnt was a lucrative, efficient, money laudnering operation, any one from brought up Brooklyl, like myself, could identify.
I have/had a friend who has been befuddled with leftism,. He was an intelligent Army intellgience officer who frequntly arrested “bad guy.s” He recently displayed the “No human is ilegal” sign on his lawn. He as forgotten that humans by nature have the tendency do illegal things.
You ask when will this stop? Not until all who bemoan the situation are required to house and maitain the welfare needs of the “illegals” the seek to protect., out of thier own pocket. The gates of thier communities must be torn down. they should be feeeding, housng and caring without government sunsidies. Thier churhes need to open their doors and coffers, their prvate schools need to admit on a come one come all basis.Their security must be gvien up.
I noted Rosie O’Donnel fled the country but she didn’t take any illegals with her. I note that Clooney an dhsi human rights lawyer wife reside in a guarded villa. I note that Trhurnberg did not invite Gazan to come live with her. Unfortunatley, i also note that the bishops of my church, as well as the Pope, have not housed illegal immigrant in thier gardens.
Will the Unethical Appeals To Emotion Rationalizing X [any topic] Never Cease?
Answer: No! Why? Because they are often effective. And people care about writing effective appeals.
Alternative Q: Is it possible to teach people to get better at recognizing unethical appeals to emotion rationalizing X?
Alternative A: Yes, I think it is. Teaching people the basic tropes and methods of propaganda does, actually, have some immunizing effect (not perfect of course, but it helps). Sort of like giving people cues to look for to identify AI generated images — the initial response may still be to fall for them, but on closer inspection….
The Harry Reid justification! If it works, it’s OK!
Explanations and predictions are not the same as a justification. A justification is a claim that something is just or ethical. An explanation of why I predict that this particular form of unethical behavior will NOT cease anytime soon is not a justification (why do I need to spell this out on an ethics blog, I wonder?). It’s an explanation of why I view this as an unlikely-to-cease-anytime-soon thing. That was my answer to your question: Will this never cease? Which perhaps you meant as a rhetorical question to which the answer (no) is obvious? So we agree?