August 2, 2019--Bigotry and Eugenics

I just finished reading Daniel Okrent's Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians and Other European Immigrants Out of America.

If you haven't, pick up a copy. It is required reading for anyone who wants to understand what underlies our current debate about immigration, legal and illegal. It is a distressing history but must be confronted and exposed if we want to work our way past this sorry chapter of our history.

To get a flavor for it, here is an excerpt from the review in the Washington Post--

Okrent’s central theme is the gradual and portentous convergence of two originally autonomous movements of the period just before World War I. The movement to restrict immigration gained steam in the 1890s among New England patricians like Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge. 

They were repelled by the massive influx of people from Eastern and Southern Europe that began in the previous decade. Simultaneously, the movement to improve the human species by promoting reproduction by individuals of the finest stock began in England and spread to social elites in America. 

This eugenics movement gained superficial plausibility from Charles Darwin’s emphasis on inheritance. Eugenics became relevant to immigration restriction when ersatz scientists divided even Europeans into distinctive races and ascribed to each race differing levels of intelligence and character. 

Although the science of genetics had established well before World War I that intelligence, honesty, promiscuity, sloth and other traits central to eugenics were not carried by single genes and did not define races, restrictionists seized eugenics as an apparently scientific basis for keeping Jews and Italians and Poles and Hungarians out of the United States.

And to do so they established country-by-country quota systems that endured until 1965.

April 10, 2019--My Roy Cohn

As so many things have continued to close in on Trump, it is no surprise that he might be pining for, as he put it, "his" Roy Cohn.

Cohn, as you likely recall, is best known for having been Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel during the years McCarthy had Washington and the rest of the country in thrall as he pursued, by mainly nefarious means, communists who, without verifiable evidence, the senator claimed had infiltrated the highest echelons of our government. 

Communists who did so, he alleged, included the Secretary of State as well as President Truman and even the beloved Republican President Eisenhower. They were suspicious and in this unhinged way McCarthy was decidedly bipartisan--communists and their sympathizers were everywhere. 

As difficult as it may be to imagine more than 60 years later, considering the preposterousness of the senator's claims, McCarthy was trusted by nearly half the population and some feel, if he had run for president, might very well have been elected.

Roy Cohn was McCarthy's go-to person when it came to engaging in the most slanderous of activities. He was McCarthy's enabler, pressing him to up the ante, to probe deeper into the government, to make things up if that were necessary, which it generally was since the hundreds, perhaps thousands McCarthy maligned and whose lives were shattered were innocent, including one of my uncles who was purged from his teaching job at Weequahic High School in Newark because his parents were Russian immigrants.

After McCarthy fell, drinking himself to death, Cohn returned to New York City where he became the fixer for many prominent and wealthy New Yorkers, particularly members of the high-end real estate community.

This included the young and flamboyant Donald J. Trump, who was engaged at the time in so many nefarious activities, including being in bed with members of the Mafia, that he needed a virtual full-time lawyer to defend him from literally hundreds of lawsuits.

When hauled before the court, Cohn famously advised Trump that rather than play defense or cop a plea, he should turn things on their head, and relentlessly, in return, attack, attack, attack. And when he wanted something, he should relentlessly sue everyone and everything that could be included in the litigation. 

It is difficult to quantify just how many times Trump was sued and in return countersued, but surely over the years it has been thousands of times.  

Any of this sounding familiar?

What we are seeing today comes right out of the Roy Cohn playbook. But with Cohn no longer around, he died of AIDS in 1986, we can understand, considering the many-faceted pressures Trump is experiencing, that he would plaintively ask, "Where is my Roy Cohn?"

But, with Cohn gone he has little choice but to rely on the increasingly ridiculous Rudy Giuliani to represent him to the media, and, for help with strategic thinking, such as it is, his youthful policy aide, Stephen Miller. 

A Roy Cohn clone, even in appearance, if ever there was one.

Trump and Miller share one policy obsession--immigration. And so when he learned of Miler's views about the borders, it was love at first sight since building the  wall that Mexico would pay for was essentially what Trump's 2016 campaign was all about. 

Before coming to the White House, Miller was Senator Jeff Sessions' chief of staff and while working for the Alabaman, who saw nothing but evil in all forms of immigration--legal as well as illegal--Trump realized he was just the person, after all else failed (including declaring a national emergency which is currently stalled in the courts), to turn the mess over to.

Miller also represents what is dearest to Trump: his views about the limitlessness of presidential power.

Disturbingly, in February 2017, Miller said, "The powers of the president will not be questioned." 

Note the totalitarian syntax. The only thing missing is a German accent.

In Miller, Trump has finally found his Roy Cohn.

June 26, 2018--Immigration Fact Check

In case you missed this, the Sunday New York Times ran an interesting piece that debunked many of the stereotypes surrounding our current so-called immigration debate.

In "Migrants Are On the Rise Around the World, and Myths About Them Are Shaping Attitudes," see the section, "People Perceive There Are More Immigrants Than There Really Are"--

A study based on surveys in the United States and a variety of European countries by the economists Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano and Stefanie Stantcheva found people across the board vastly overstate their immigrant populations.

The overestimates are largest among particular groups: the least educated, workers in low-skill occupations with lots of immigrants, and those on the political right.

They overstate the share of immigrants who are Muslim and underestimate the share of Christians. They underestimate immigrants' education and overestimate both their poverty rate and their dependence on welfare. Almost a quarter of French respondents, as well as nearly one in five Swedes and about one in seven Americans, think the average immigrant gets twice as much government aid as native residents do. In no country is this true. 

People who are against immigration generate a sense of crisis," Professor Alesina said. "They create a sense that 'This is a huge problem; we need a wall.'" 

In any event, the sentiment is eroding support for Europe's social democratic model as well as for the United States' more limited safety net. "Just making people think about immigrants generally generates a strongly negative reaction in terms of redistribution, Professors Alesina, Miano and Stantcheva write.

Worldwide, everyone must be watching Fox News.

May 15, 2018--Midcoast: The Whites of Their Eyes

Let's call him Ralph. He's a retired ferryboat captain and whenever he shows up at the Bristol Diner we enjoy seeing him and catching up with what's on his mind. One thing we know, he's always full of surprises. 

Monday morning he was all excited, talking about a recent visit to one of South Carolina's Sea Islands. It's mainly populated by descendants of former slaves and the people there, the Gullahs, speak a language of their own that's a Creole amalgam of English and several West and Central African languages.

Not knowing much about them, Ralph spoke primarily about the quiet beauty of the place. "I love the sea," he said, "Made my livin' from what the sea, the ocean, and the bays gave up to people like me who never got much education. In my case . . ." he winked, and left the rest unsaid.

"I've never been to the Sea Islands," I said, "If I had a bucket list that would be on it."

"You know, one of the most interesting things there is that they speak Elizabethan English. Can hardly understand a word of it."

I didn't correct him. He was on a roll.

"Nice people, the Sea Islanders. And there's one thing you can say about them for sure"--he paused to see if I was paying attention--"after dark all you can see are their eyes and teeth." He chuckled at that.

Before I could think what to say, he was on to something else.

"Too bad we don't have Mexicans 'round here."

"What!" I said, still thinking about the eyes and teeth.

"I mean, they're looking for help here. A dishwasher, another cook. Too bad Deb can't make a couple of calls and find a Mexican to work for her."

"I assume you mean a legal one," I said.

He smiled. "An illegal would be alright with me."

"Really? That would be alright with you?"

"I just said that," Ralph said. "You got a problem with it?"

"Yes and no," I said.

"That's a surprise coming from you," Ralph said. "I thought all you liberals want to see us have open borders. So let's start with your problem with this."

I said, "But first I need to say I am not in favor of rounding up and deporting 10, 11 million people who are here without documents. That to me would not only be impossible to carry out but cruel. Many undocumented people have been here for decades, work hard, and don't make any trouble. A carefully crafted pathway to legal status--doesn't have to be citizenship--makes sense to me."

"So far I'm with you," Ralph said.

Surprised, I continued, "But then again to be here they broke the law and we should do all we can to make sure there isn't a new flood of illegal immigrants, seeing those already here on a pathway to legal status, entering the country seeking the same kind of deal. From history we know that in 1986 Ronald Reagan of all people signed an immigration reform bill that gave 3.0 million amnesty. It didn't stop people entering the country illegally. Probably did the opposite. I wouldn't want to repeat that."

"We pretty much agree," Ralph said, "Our economy would collapse if they weren't here or if we moved to send them back to where they came from. And it's not just washing dishes and picking lettuce that they do. There'd be a lot less homebuilding going on and lots of new businesses wouldn't exist. We need them here and need to figure out how to get all this fighting about them behind us. It's tearing us apart. Of course that's just what a lot of politicians on both sides want for their own purposes."

"We do agree," I said, admittedly surprised by that.

"Some of my people came here from Eastern Europe," Ralph said, "To tell you the truth maybe not all legally, and here I am to tell the tale. They made their contribution to America and I also tried to. I guess I'm a sort of like one of those Dreamers." At that he laughed, coughing as he did so.

Later that night, when I replayed the tape in my head of our conversation, I though again about how complicated this place is and how much I like that.

January 12, 2018--Trump 2018 Removal Act

Earlier this week, Donald Trump flew to Nashville to visit Andrew Jackson's nearby home, the Hermitage, to honor him by, among other things, placing a wreath on his tomb.

Though Trump doesn't read and knows nothing verifiable about American history, including the American presidency, a large portrait of the 7th president is currently on prominent display in the Oval Office.

Why might that be? Not because Jackson owned about 200 slaves (though that per se would not repel Trump) but because he was the first president to be widely regarded by "ordinary" people. Trump views himself that way. There is his base that he spends all day pandering to, which was on vivid display yesterday.

It began in the morning. The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on an extension of the FISA act, legislation that was first approved in 1978 to allow intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on foreign nationals as well as American citizens who might represent terrorist threats. 

Libertarians such as Senator Rand Paul had proposed an amendment that would require that a FISA court, more than at present, be required to authorize in advance any domestic spying.

Paul was on Morning Joe a few hours before the vote, seemingly to explain his amendment but, as it turned out, to seek and secure Trump's support. Seemingly as a non sequitur, unprompted, he went into a passionate attack on the FBI who, he falsely claimed, was working to "bring down" the president.

When I wondered out loud why the senator switched subjects, Rona patted me on the arm and as if to humor me and with a sigh, said, "Of course to suck up to Trump in order to secure his support."

"Rand Paul?" I asked, still naively, "The same person Trump mocked and destroyed during the 2016 Republican primary season?"

Rona just looked over at me as if I were born yesterday.

Needless to say, waffling back and forth all day, Trump came down to oppose the Paul amendment after an hour earlier endorsing it.

So much for attempting to suck up to and relate transactually to our president.

More of Trump playing to his base was on disgraceful display later in the day.

At a bipartisan meeting in the Oval Office about legislation that would provide some additional support for the Wall along the border with Mexico in trade for Congress's approval for a path to citizenship for 800,000 stateless DACA young people, Trump met with six congressional leaders, seemingly to wrap up final details.

Appearing to be unmotivated, almost like a non sequitur of his own, Trump began to ruminate about immigration writ larger, asking why we accept immigrants and refugees from places such as Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa. 

From "shithole countries" like these.

After this outrageousness, Republicans offered their usual tepid response, mainly mild forms of faux incredulity (they too worry about the power of Trump's base--perhaps 30 percent of America's adults) while most others expressed genuine outrage.

Has Trump finally crossed the line that many of us have been waiting for for more than two years, a line that will finally bring him down? 

Even in my hopeful naïvety, I was skeptical. Trump critics were not surprised by his ignorance and racism. We have come to expect it and have been rendered exhausted by it. Perhaps even inured.  

As someone yesterday evening was quoted as saying, it was another example of Trump seeking to "make America white again."

That caused me to think more about Trump's visit to Andrew Jackson's home and grave. 

Among other disturbing things that Jackson was responsible for was the infamous Indian Removal Act of 1830 that required native people, to leave our then western territories and relocate west of the Mississippi. Some tribes did so "voluntarily," others needed to be "removed" forcefully along the Trail of Tears.

This is what Trump is up to and why he admires Jackson so much--Trump too wants to see the removal of millions of Americans along a contemporary trail of tears. El Saladorians back to El Salvador, Hatians back to their island, Africans back to Africa, Muslims back to their countries.

One thing they have in common--they are all people of color. "What can't we admit more Norwegians, white-supremacist Trump opined wistfully.

If he didn't cross the line yesterday maybe he inched closer to it. Mueller is thankfully lurking while cravenly GOP members in Congress aren't.

May 6, 2015--Liking Obama Again

A friend who back in 2008 supported the candidacy of Two-Americas John Edwards and then Likable-Enough Hillary Clinton after he dropped out, subsequently offering lukewarm support for Barack Obama when he defeated Hillary and then went through the same disillusionment cycle most of his supporters did after he was elected president when he couldn't seem to get much done domestically or act consistently internationally, over coffee the other day declared that she had gone back to liking him.

"Really?" I asked, a bit incredulously knowing her tepid interest in him.

"Yes, really."

"Tell me," I said.

"Well, first, consider the alternatives. John McCain and then George Romney. Does anyone think either one of them would have been a better president?"

"Actually, millions do. Have you checked out Fox News lately or radio talk shows?"

"Touché. But, since no one here is listening, I mean does any smart person think either McCain or Romney would be better?"

"I'll have to think about that since it feels a little elitist."

"Let me help you," my friend offered, "Those who still prefer McCain or Romney would have us at war with Iran. How does that sound? Part of my point is that we're not bombing them because Obama, who was mocked back in 2008 for saying he would negotiate with the Iranians, may be in the process of pulling off a truly historic deal which, if we got very lucky--and neither Republicans in the Senate nor Netanyahu in Israel mess things up--could, with Iran's help, redefine for the better many of the disputes and wars in the Middle East."

"I agree. Obama has messed up with red lines in Syria and not seeing the ISIS threat soon enough, but he knows the history of the region and realizes that when dealing with all the rivals factions one size for certain does not fit all."

"And so it may be one of those things-could-be-much-worse deals. Not my favorite reality--I'd like it to be simpler and more infused with hope and possibility--but life there is not reducible to a string of clichés."

"And domestically? Obamacare? I thought you hated that," I reminded my friend. "That he bargained away any possibility of Medicare for all, the famous single-payer option, when he may not have needed to."

"Well it's true that I think he was too quick to take that off the table but look at the results. First at least 16 million people now have medical insurance who didn't before Obamacare and even impartial parties acknowledge the cost of medical care has gone down and along with it so has our deficit. His critics were wrong on all fronts--that no one would sign up and costs would skyrocket. Obama gets a B+ from me for that."

"What about the economy? Yes, the stock market more than doubled during his six years in office, but what about the middle class and those in poverty? Didn't things get worse for them while the top one percent or five percent got richer and richer?"

"Again, no one wants to hear this anymore (though it's still true), but look at what Obama inherited and look where we are today."

"It's true," I said, "No one wants to hear about George W. Bush, saying it's now Obama's economy."

"It is. It is. But to ignore the economic crisis Obama inherited is not only unfair but intellectually irresponsible. To make a valid assessment of what Obama has done and failed to do it's necessary--beyond spouting talking points or making things up--to look at where things stood in January 2009 and how they are today. I already mentioned that the deficit is down by about two-thirds, unemployment levels are at 20-year lows, wages have ticked up a bit, the banks are being held somewhat more accountable, and the real estate market for most is stabilized. We also are seeing a strong dollar and are rapidly moving toward energy independence."

"And Obama gets credit for all of this?" I was skeptical.

"Of course not, but he's getting all the political blame for the widening gap between rich and poor (even by Republicans whose tax polices are really more responsible for that) and the continued slippage in the wellbeing of the middle class. So he's entitled to credit about the things that are working better."

"Anything else?"

"Well, this is admittedly just an outline. The full picture is more nuanced and balanced. This is to give you a glimpse of why I am liking Obama again."

"You never loved him."

"That's true, but I was enthusiastic about his election and to a lesser extent his reelection. But there are others things to like."

"Such as?"

"Immigration reform. I know it's controversial and maybe even illegal, but his executive order was a big, bold deal."

"Agreed."

"Then there's Cuba for another. A big another. About Cuba I say, enough already. They are not a threat and though the Castros are still in charge, somehow, with countries such as Saudi Arabia, to cite one example, we have decent relations even though they are the opposite of a democracy. In fact, there's more freedom in Cuba. Women can drive and everyone gets educated."

"And they have the best cigars."

"Also," holding up her cup for a refill, "better cafe con leche."

November 24, 2014--A Child Shall Lead Them

Though often misapplied, this from Isaiah 11:6-9, could have been the title of Barack Obama's Thursday night speech about immigration.

No matter what one thinks about his use of executive powers to shield about 5.0 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, one would have to agree that in content it is all about family values. So if Republicans can for a moment stop fulminating about what they claim is Obama's emperor-like behavior, they might see that, politically, he has again snookered them.

Even if they find a way to defund Obama's actions or get the federal court system to overturn them and declare them an abuse of constitutional power (both questionable), they will pay a fierce political price when they are seen to be opposing what Obama did--protect families from being torn apart by the Immigration Service.

Specifically, Obama's executive action (the most ambitious and extensive in American history--Reagan's so-called "amnesty" executive order in 1986 covered only 100,000 illegal immigrants) calls for more border security (he can do this administratively and the GOP loves anything having to do with sealing our borders), taking action to make it easier for immigrants with high-level technical skills to remain in the U.S., and the continuing deportation of undocumented criminals (Obama has done 80 percent more of that than all previous presidents combined); but--and it's a very big but--those 5.0 million affected by his executive orders are all protected from deportation if and only if they belong to family units.

What he is doing pertains just to the 5.0 million or so who have lived in the U.S. for five or more years and are either children or the parents of children who are here legally. Here legally because they were born in the USA and thus are citizens (see the 14th Amendment) or were brought here illegally before the age of four and are now legally protected.

Childless individuals and couples will not be protected.

In other words, the only adults who will not be rounded up and deported are those "illegals" who are parents.

Obama's approach is not amnesty nor a "path to citizenship," but rather a statement about Family Values.

Something always trumpeted by Republicans and emphasized by their religious leaders. Thus, the political brilliance of Obama's move. And, of course, its humanity.

At their political peril, if Republicans continue to ignore the family values that undergird Obama's actions and focus instead on process questions and issues such as the separation of governmental power, they will find themselves in future elections with very few Latino supporters.

My prediction, therefore, is that because some in the Republican Party are smart enough to figure this out and after a few weeks of demonologizing Obama for acting unilaterally they will pass a series of bills to make what Obama did irrelevant, because what he said Thursday evening was that his executive orders are designed to defer deportations so that covered immigrants will be able to "stay in the country temporarily" (the deferring and temporality parts are what will keep his actions from being overturned in the courts)  and that if the Congress presents him with an acceptable bill he will sign it and tear up his executive orders.

Indeed it may turn out that a child will lead us.

February 18, 2014--Snowbirding--VOTA

"VOTA? VOTA 12 de Marzo? What you make of that?"

Our car needed a major service and, since we have just one, the mechanic, clearly agitated, had come to pick us up to retrieve it after he had completed the work.

Sputtering, he was pointing to a sign in the median on Federal Highway.

"I suppose," I said, "it's to remind people to vote March 12."

"But VOTA? Marzo?" He said with a heavy accent.

"Well," I said as if to myself, knowing where this was likely headed, "It also says VOTE March 12th."

"And," he bellowed toward Rona who was in the back seat, "It also say VOTE 12 Mas. What this Mas business?"

Our of the corner of my eye I saw her twist toward the window on the other side of the road away from the sign. To look as causal and unengaged as possible, as if she hadn't heard him.

I was sitting to his right and it wasn't possible for me to pretend we had been talking about the weather. Which we had been until he noticed the sign.

"If they can't reading English, because that's what is going on, why they allowed to vote? Isn't it enough we let them in country? And put them on welfare? And give food stamps? And health."  He looked over at me, wanting me to get involved. It was clear he intended this to be more than a rant. Still, I tried to ignore him.

"You have to be citizen to vote, no?" I tried not to look at him. "I assume still that's true. But considering what going on here, you never know. Maybe these days they get off the boat and they take them right to vote."

"Rona said, "Aren't those new condos?" She was pointing to a new building development well off to the right, hoping to deflect his line of thought.

"Some country we become. To vote you no longer need to speak English. Vota, Marzo, Mas. When I came from Russia no one give me nothing. Nothing. What I have," he gestured at his Mercedes SUV, "this car, everything, I work hard to get. Nobody gave me nothing."

"Maybe the opportunity?" I mumbled.

"Speak louder. I cannot hear. I deaf in this ear."

Not knowing what possessed me to get involved, I repeated, louder this time, "Maybe what America gave you was an opportunity?"

"To work hard. No handouts. No Russian signs to vote. I had to become citizen first. And to be citizen I had to take test. Test in English. What language is that Marzo in?" he asked, seemingly calmed down. Perhaps because I had responded.

"I think Spanish," Rona said from the back seat.

"So if Spanish," he said, "What Mas?"

"I'm not sure," she said, "Could be Haitian."

"Haitian! They let Haitians vote though they can't read sign in English?" He slammed his hands on the steering wheel. The car swayed side-to-side.

"First they let them sneak into country, then they take them to polling booth. Like in Russia."

"What do you mean?" I ventured.

"They have what they call elections there and then don't let half people run for president who want so what does vote mean? It's just like what is happening here. America is soon to be like Russia. Where I have to go next?"

"I think this is hardly a fair comparison," I said.

"You call that fair?" He pointed at another voting reminder sign as we approached Delray.

"I don't remember these kinds signs when I was first here six years ago."

"I seem to," I said, again under my breath. We still had about five minute to go before getting to his garage and felt we had already gotten into this deeply enough.

"It's because of him." I now knew for certain where this was headed. "Him." He pointed north as if to Washington and lapsed into a silent rage. Though, shaking his head, I thought I heard him mumbling something in Russian.

"Look at my hands. These" he took both hands off the steering wheel and held them toward me. The car, clearly perfectly maintained, did not waver. "You see grease." His finger nails and knuckles were in fact deeply stained. "From vorking, not voting." For the first time he smiled, which calmed me.

"That's my point," I tried. "How America gave you the opportunity to . . ."

"Vork like monkey." His smile broadened. "Look, I'm not bigot. I wish for these people same that I had. To vork hard, have a nice place to live, children, nice car just like mine." He gently stroked the steering wheel. "Become Americans. Like me. Real ones. Not with this Vota and Marzo. I do not grudge them voting if they are citizens, but signs like this we not need. Not need helping with everything you need. Food, health, house. Everything." He nodded his head, now grinning, as if he had made an unassailable case. "Need to vork for that."

"There is a point to what you're saying," I acknowledged. "That I'll grant you. But for me there has to be a balance between providing opportunities and making sure people who live here--especially if they are legally here or citizens--don't fall through the cracks and that the playing field is level."

"You're spouting clichés," Rona said leaning forward and sounding frustrated. "'Falling through the cracks.' 'Level playing fields.' "Liberals like us have to have better arguments than that. Just offering clichés is not persuasive or fair to people who are working as hard as Alex." I was impressed she remembered his name.  "Is it fair to say to him, who clearly has worked hard for everything he has, who probably never got anything for free, who maybe is having trouble paying for health insurance and his mortgage and . . ."

"That's me," Alex said. "My house, how you say, is underwater."

" . . . and wants to play by the rules, drives around with four-dollar-a-gallon gas in his car and sees signs in Creole reminding people to vote. We have to do better than responding to his frustrations by offering clichés about opportunity and fairness. Because I suspect to him, things are not looking all that fair. Why should they? Do you," she meant me, "Do you think things are fair? Even to you?"

"You're making my points better than me," Alex said, twisting toward Rona.

We rode the rest of the way in silence. Our car was indeed ready and immaculate.

Driving home, I asked Rona, "Does his asking to be paid in cash so he and we could save on paying tax qualify as leveling the playing field and playing by the rules?"

"He probably would say he wants to play by the same rules as the big boys on Wall Street.'

"Touché," I said. "I suppose in America these days equal opportunity also means everyone being able to look for every loophole they can find."

"Alex couldn't have said it better!"