Donald Trump’s tweets demonizing unauthorized migrants are far from alone on social networks.[1] What’s remarkable is how very much alike all these comments sound. (Unauthorized migration)
June 25, 4:10 pm:
Wow. I’ve been getting a picture that Evangelical Protestants support Donald Trump despite his transgressions out of fear of progressive social change.[2] John Fea explains how that fear has, in fact, displaced faith, leading to support for authoritarianism, and that this is a mistake that Evangelicals in the U.S. have made throughout history.[3]
Readers of my dissertation will not be surprised. Genuine fear for their lives is one factor pushing unauthorized migrants to the U.S.[4] Trump administration threats only change the calculation, not the desperation.[5] (Unauthorized migration)
MS-13, the very violent gang that Donald Trump and his supporters use to rationalize anti-immigration policy, was actually founded in Southern California. It poses a real threat, but not the one Trump claims.[6] (Unauthorized migration)
It appears that at at least two facilities, family reunifications are only occurring with deportations and some accordingly agree to ‘voluntary’ deportations under duress. It’s not clear that the U.S. government reliably even honors its reunification promises.[7] (Unauthorized migration)
Jennifer Rubin expresses what very much appears to me to be a functionalist conservative take on the current Republican line on unauthorized migration.[8] I do not know if she is a Republican. One might assume so, but I certainly don’t see how, under present circumstances, she could remain one. (Unauthorized migration)
Jeff Sessions’ claim that prosecutions would continue notwithstanding, prosecutions of adults crossing the border with children appear to be being suspended. At least until Congress passes a fix for the court settlement that has been interpreted to require separations when adults are prosecuted, this enables families to remain together while their cases are processed.[9] Note: This story is published by the National Review, which seems to be dominated by neoconservatives. It can therefore be expected to bias in favor of so-called “Law and Order,” about which, see my comment under Unauthorized migration.
June 25, 6:33 pm:
So there’s this article that normally I wouldn’t archive, much less put in an issue here. But it has a quotation about Donald Trump[10] that I think is really right on. Somebody at Vox apparently agrees: They put that very passage in their newsletter.[11]
June 26, 8:45 pm:
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban.[12]
The Secretary of Health and Human Services confirmed suspicions that family reunifications were only occurring in cases where the adults abandoned their asylum claims and submitted to voluntary deportation. He cited the Flores settlement.[13] However, in a preliminary injunction, a federal judge has adopted a different view, saying the separations cannot meet the requirement for due process.[14] (Unauthorized migration)
June 26, 9:05 pm:
There is personal news.
Personal News
Some of you know that Patches, the sweetest, dearest cat ever, returned to me last Friday, the 22nd. At first, all seemed well. On the morning of the 26th, however, she began peeing on my bed again. I have surrendered her to the Marin Humane Society in Novato.
I am heartbroken. I’ll never meet as loving a cat as this ever again. I promised her a “forever home” and I meant it. I wasn’t able to keep that promise. And it certainly isn’t her fault she had a urinary tract infection.
As one who has suffered some of the injustice in our society, the last thing I would ever want to do is mete out injustice to such a creature. I wish her well.
Something I wrote almost five years ago, while I was still working toward my Ph.D.:
Borders surround countries—nation-states—and enclose human beings, labeled “citizens,” within those countries, who are accorded certain rights and privileges. Borders correspondingly exclude nationals from other countries, who are apparently unworthy of those same rights and privileges. It is unclear to me that there is any way this cannot be interpreted in terms of superiority and inferiority: People allowed to be within a country are considered superior and those who are not are considered inferior.[15]
Fast forward to today:
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents…
“Infest.” “Breed.” “Invade.” This dehumanizing language cannot stand. Nazis referred to Jews as “rats.” Hutu leaders called Tutsis in Rwanda “cockroaches.” Slaves were referred to as “stock.” Dehumanizing language lays the groundwork for mass atrocities. The words are no accident https://t.co/M6GDCJiIdL
I personally think they should shoot them all at the border and call it good. It’ll save us hard working AMERICAN’S billions of dollars on our taxes! 😉[17]
This is the language of authoritarian populism in reference to unauthorized migrants.[18] And always, when you see the words, “Law and Order,” ask whose “law?” Whose “order?” It usually means the “Law and Order” of overwhelmingly wealthy, mostly white, mostly men, who, as Jeffrey Reiman has pointed out, are not generally subject to that “Law,” that “Order.”[19] Rather,
This is what Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller’s immigration policy really looks like… pic.twitter.com/hmWY1lSWSd
Fig. 1. Photo supplied by Michael Avenatti via Twitter, June 24, 2018, fair use.
There’s this idea that if only people asked Trump X, Y, and Z, we’d get to the bottom of something. But if we’ve learned anything, it’s that he’s the constant; he’s resolute in his belief that he’s right, that he’s a victim, and that the last thing he heard is the truth, provided it’s something positive about him. No variable is going to change what he is.[20]
