Political Beast: Immigration Insanity

Nogalez, Arizona:

We quit for two days, just to prove we could do it. Or maybe we didn’t have a choice. It doesn’t matter. What matters is we kept off of it for five more days, so we’re clear.

The wall already in place (and already failing to be anything save an eyesore) on the America/Mexico border
The wall already in place (and already failing to be anything save an eyesore) on the America/Mexico border

Yes, I’m making an analogy to addiction that relates to this column, but look, it’s important. Because of the slaughter in Orlando, we’ve had a seven-day reprieve from Trump’s rantings about a wall. First two days, we quit hearing by accident. The following five mercifully silent days have offered an opportunity to you and to me to consider (free of flaming rhetoric) the issue of illegal immigration to the United States of America. I don’t know how to lead into this, so I’ll end the bull-crap analogies and get to the point. My interview this week involves two sheriffs. One you [do] know and one you should know.

"Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio addresses the media" - photo source: Reuters
“Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio addresses the media” – photo source: Reuters

The first is Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the most well-known [law enforcement official] in this country. Yeah, yeah, the sheriff in Arizona, the guy that detains more Mexicans than any other, makes his inmates wear pink in the Yard, is reviled by mainstream media and is constantly being sued by the ACLU.

Yes, him.

The second is Sheriff Tony Estrada, who lives and works just a few Arizona counties down from Arpaio.

Image source: santacruzsheriff.org
Image source: santacruzsheriff.org

He is the sheriff, in fact, of the southernmost county in the U.S. that shares a border with Mexico. More than any in the country, this is the man that stands on the frontline of the battle (if that’s what it is) over illegal immigration. All of the facts, innuendo, or suggestions I place in this column are based on (and informed by) Sheriff Estrada.

In Nogalez, there are approximately 40,000 residents. Just across the border in Nogalez, Mexico, there are considerably more. Prior to 1994, there were around 70 border agents in the entirety of Santa Cruz County, AZ (where Nogalez is located). When I say there are “considerably more” residents on the Mexican side, I mean ten times more. As in 400,000.

Before we get too far into this interview, let’s go back to 1995 for just a sec. Back then, a member of the Clinton administration recommended the building of a barrier to keep out undesirables. This resulted in an unpredicted reaction: the construction of at least 114 known tunnels underneath said wall. Also, violent crime, especially against women, increased exponentially due of the need among descent potential immigrants to gain professional (read: “criminal”) help getting across the border. Sheriff Estrada put it very bluntly: “Mexico, our friendly neighbor, contains a population that will find a way in. Wall or no wall. The fallout is our fault.”

At this point in the interview, I brought up a question my 8-year-old daughter asked when she overheard me playing back my interview with Sheriff Estrada, while I was taking notes. She heard my questions to Tony Estrada about the “Wall,” and asked, “Daddy, I thought we took down that wall.” Hehe, “That Wall.” I was understandably proud of an 8 year-old knowing about the Berlin Wall, “The Wall” of my childhood. Obviously, I explained the difference to her because it does matter. Fortunately, I thought to ask about the difference during my interview with Sheriff Estrada prior to my daughter’s questions. Incidentally, after a discussion with my daughter about the history of the Berlin Wall, I began to explain the motivation for and purpose of what we’ll call Trump’s Wall. I won’t bore you with the efforts of a parent with a deep background in political study attempting to discuss immigration policy with a wide-eyed 8-year-old, but the experience informed my examination of Sheriff Estrada’s thoughts on the matter.

Sheriff Estrada pointed out that the current wall plays a very small part in border security. Border agents, and their surveillance, are the primary deterrents to illegal immigration. In fact, contrasting the palsy 70 agents in ’95, there are currently 1,000 agents on the border in Santa Cruz County alone. Why so many? And why is a wall not the answer? I pointed out to Estrada that one of the most secure borders in the world is the border between Mexico and Honduras. Obviously, the radically poor Hondurans are still able to find a way into Mexico, Estrada pointed out.

Then, he took to the pulpit.

Sheriff Estrada preached a sermon to me about suffering, addiction, kidnapping, rape, murder, extortion, families torn apart and about unification. In this industry, it’s best not to become emotionally involved with your subject. At this point, however, I admit this was difficult. Thus, I I turned to numbers and facts (for better or for worse; we’ll get back to the emotional stuff). After questioning him, Estrada said the primary reason to support a porous border is the importance of free trade and [that] this benefits the U.S. even more than Mexico. Also, the more we try to lock down the border, the more it costs, and let’s just say Mexico ain’t the one paying for it. To bring it a little closer to home, says Estrada, Santa Cruz County is footing quite a bit of the bill. And this bill involves capturing and processing much more than Mexican migrants. Cubans, Hondurans, Venezuelans and, a surprising statistic: almost 30% of migrants coming in illegally are from Asian or Middle Eastern countries.

But none of this is the problem according to Tony Estrada.

Drugs. In the 1960s, people immigrated to America from Mexico but almost no one swam the Rio Grande. There are plenty of ports on the coasts of both countries. Why wade across the river with a backpack when you can pack all of your belongings and book (legal) passage on a freightliner? What changed? Drugs. Once the [U.S.] Federal government got a hard-on for narcotics dealers, all bets were off. Any country seen as a source or threat of a source for hard drugs was censured and immigration from these nations was severely restricted, and this bias continues. The sheriff pointed out the irony of the idea of building a wall that could hurt us economically while entertaining the idea of a ban on people from countries that could actually (and actively wish to) harm us through terrorism. Agree or not, I do find that funny.

This columnist is not going to take a position on whether particular substances should or should not be legal, or whether ending prohibition of certain narcotics would help the immigration/cartel violence problem. I’ll simply move on to Sheriff Estrada’s solution, such as it is: Love. I’m not trying to solve America’s immigration dilemma in this column, but I got an interview with the most impactful person in this country when it comes to this issue.

The answer, according to Estrada, is love. Understanding the needs and addictions and poverty of people on both sides of the border, and [then] helping them. Talking with community leaders (and the cartels) on both sides of the border, helping local politicians feel safe speaking out and working with their enemies. The primary problem, he says, is that there is no real legitimate immigration system now. He told me the story of a Mexican woman who went to college in the U.S., married an American, and had a job offer from a major technology firm in North Carolina. The Naturalization Service denied her visa, and it took she and her American husband 3 years and $30,000 in legal fees to finally earn her a visa to the United States. Estrada argues, again, that there is no reasonably sane immigration system currently in place in this nation. Above all, the vast majority of people do not have the resources to legally immigrate here.

Think what you will, but regardless, thus ended the interview.

And oh, that other sheriff? The famous one? The one who wouldn’t return my (multiple) calls? Sheriff Joe Arpaio is known as being on the forefront of the fight against illegal immigration, and the drug trade. He has a thankless and dangerous task, being the sheriff of the Arizona county that boasts having the two most popular destinations in the state for illegal drugs and illegal human traffic. A member of Sheriff Arpaio’s staff agreed to have a frank conversation with me, so off the record she (or was it a “she?”) was visibly shaking by the time we were finished. During this conversation, she admitted Sheriff Arpaio was uncomfortable talking about the failures in Maricopa County’s numbers since his election and that he often questioned, out loud, his tactics and their effectiveness. This column is not intended to be an opinion piece. I like interviewee’s opinions and I like facts. Santa Cruz County, AZ is as close to Mexico as you can get, without being in the place. Cartel violence inside our southern neighbor is out of control. There hasn’t been a murder in Santa Cruz County in 6 years.

There are a lot of opinions about which direction to take on illegal immigration. The only [widespread] agreement is that “something has to be done.” No. It can just stay the same.

Coker, Gabe

Six Degrees of Knowin’ Nothin’: [Untitled]

And on the 8th day, God made bears. Lots and lots of bears.

Does this era need introduction? Or, rather, may a suitable introduction be written? I report, you deride.

1: In any rational era, the sudden appearance of lurid photographs of well-known public figures tends to happen without the consent of those captured in the images. Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Anthony Weiner, et al. Notable exceptions to this are of the celebutante variety who sport last names such as Hilton and Kardashian, but then, their deliberate release of self-incriminating material isn’t indicative of a rational era.

That there’s a Stairway to Heaven but a Highway to Hell is indicative of expected traffic volume.

The great Jerry Falwell, Jr., well his undeniable greatness as an Evangelical Christian minister and university president is so ineffable, so vast, that he was no longer able to be confined by any notion of modern decency. If that’s still a thing, that is. Either way, the photograph posted containing the erstwhile head of Liberty University (and descendent of the late and decent Jerry Falwell) is disturbing on several counts. Let’s take a look:

Now, I’m not sure if it’s the ghastly attempt at humor (yeah, “black water”, haw haw haw!), the self-caricature of the gut and the unzipped pants combined with the awful rug on his counterpart (who is not his wife, for those keeping score at home), the fact that students of said Evangelical university get expelled for drinking and/or extra-marital sexual encounters, or that this wasn’t a leak at all that makes this such a disgrace. He could’ve just said it was a faux Black Dog in his glass and been done with it.

The man (so-called) “leaked” it via his own social media aperture, and then delivered a truly abysmal mockery of an apology on-air, and I quote: “I’ve promised my kids I’m going to try to be…I’m gonna try to be a good boy from here on out.” Rock and Roll, Jerry!

Oh and Mrs. Falwell, when your marriage does end, remember: you [expletive deleted] your rebound, and that’s it. You don’t permanently abscond from reality and keep [expletive deleted] them long-term and/or marry them. Especially, I might add, if you plucked them from the extras of “The Walking Dead.”

Silly me. But seriously, though: booze and Evangelicals and social media shouldn’t mix.

2: At times, the headlines write themselves. In their own attempt to swing loose with reality, as it were, Iran has a fabricated aircraft carrier resembling one of those wielded by the United States Navy. “Why”, you ask? An entirely unscripted and well-placed question. For their own propaganda purposes that is, until the entire experiment blew up in their faces. Living out their own version of “delirium tremens”, Iran was so successful in this charade that their accidental destruction of a prop US Navy aircraft carrier poses a threat to a major thoroughfare in the oil trade. Posing an existential threat to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and things apparently unbeknownst to Iran such as tides can shift the wreckage, endangering oil tankers.

Give the Ayatollah our best. Speaking of “the best”, if you’re going to challenge the world’s preeminent naval power, you’d better come correct. The Battle of Evermore this is not.

3: Biden must face Trump in debate(s). Yes, it’s answering a “double dog dare” from the POTUS and no, you don’t want to give in to the whims of a bully. But if you don’t follow through then it looks like you’re hiding in a basement and afraid to face Donald J. Trump on the stage. What’s the worst that could happen? They then “triple dog dare” one another to a lindy hop dance-off to the “Misty Mountain Hop” or hand out four sticks (one to both members of each ticket) to swing with? Why would you be afraid of that if you’re in the Biden camp unless, per the Trump camp’s assertions, the former Vice President will be unable to remember whether he’s going to California, or another, “y’know, the thing” that the Founding Fathers said? The great equalizer is the human ego. They’ll debate.

This is an event waiting to go wrong. Don’t hang out with bears. [image credit to Daily Caller & Barstool Sports]
4: Meanwhile, the National Park Service has posted a warning urging American adventurers not to confront bears but, if they do, to not take advantage of their slower companions. And no, this is not made up. Nor is the response of a pack of humans, recently, to a bear arriving in their midst. They didn’t flee or otherwise attempt to discourage the bear; instead they took pictures of their merry band whilst feeding the bear. Good call, ‘Murica.

5: Bill Barr’s appearance was a disgrace for everyone except the Attorney General. For committee chairman Nadler, to open the hearing with that statement was an outrage; and Jordan, thanks for the monologue on things that happened before Barr was back on the job and for God’s sake put your damn coat on!

6: Stat of the Week: the POTUS’ campaign is knocking on 1 million doors a week; the former VPOTUS’ camp is knocking on 0. As in ZERO. Z-E-R-O. This sort of nonsense only seems like nonsenseuntil the time when the levee breaks. Underestimate the mad media genius of The Donald at your peril.

Y’know what? Let’s just cancel everything. If everything’s priority one, then nothing is priority one.
Read More

Contrast: Black Lives Matter v. All Lives Matter (et al)

Black Lives Matter: Let’s cut through the fat together, shall we? Yes or yes? Good. With that, we have a problem in America. Several, actually. We live in a police state, for one thing, and for another, paramount now, is said police state taking a particular interest in African Americans.

Let’s also consider the unbelievable, highly-classified powers of FISA courts to spy unopposed on our own people without their knowledge indefinitely, the ability of the Federal government to suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens suspected of terrorism via the Patriot Act and the inexplicable repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (which forbade the Federal Government from using propaganda on American soil). Are you drinking what I’m pouring?

With no malice in my heart toward the many fine police officers across the land (a few I’ve known personally), I say again: we live in a police state.

Over the past decade alone, we have seen increasing examples of the use of excessive force on a disproportionate number of black Americans. Data clearly shows that Whites compose 76.5% of America’s citizenry while Blacks make up 13.4% of it, the former were shot to death by police 370 times versus 235 for the latter.

For those who want to bring out FBI data displaying prevalence of crime amongst inner city black neighborhoods, recall the negligible difference in drug use between whites and blacks and the parity in gun culture between the two.

America glorifies violence, and that crosses ethnic lines. Don’t believe me? Look at what I call “Dollar Voting”, in essence, what we value and spend our money on. What does our art and culture reflect? If we’re being real, it ain’t peace. Does hip hop culture lend itself to violence? Listen to the top ten hits of the genre and get back to me; but before you get back to me, let me know what Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Jerry Reed and “The Dukes of Hazzard” were all about while you’re at it.

As for the movement itself, “Black Lives Matter” is driving home a simple point: yes, every house in the neighborhood matters but only one of them is on fire.

We hardly need a hashtag for Blue (Police) Lives Matter; they roam about largely unopposed, vested with a badge and lethal weaponry, and we provide a safety net (union, pension, et cetera) and, in general, blanket support to include the high probability that bad actors aren’t held accountable in court.

All Lives Matter? Do they? Maybe I’d be more decisive in answering these questions if every new episode of “Death By Cop” didn’t always star a black man.

– Jack DeViney

*************

 

New Orleans Police Department preps for ongoing confrontation and protest throughout downtown.

All Lives Matter(?): Two things can be true at once. In fact, very few things in our world are mutually exclusive of themselves. One can, for example, be in favor of the events in the George Floyd case never happening again and find the phrase “Black Lives Matters” offensive. They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. This depends on your definitions of words. Words matter. Words have meaning. Facts matter. Facts have meaning.

If by any definition, one is not a racist, but they will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Black Lives Matter signs, or they won’t kneel down in front of a mob of protestors, they become….what? Insensitive? Divisive?

To be true to this point, I believe “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” are equally asinine. We don’t protest on things we agree upon. We don’t stand outside and shout “the sky is blue”!

Are things worse now than the mid-1960’s? Or do we see public discord in 3D now? We report, you deride.

The assertion that a black man can not step from his home without fear of imminent death from a racist ‘Mericuh is as equally preposterous as the media’s “1619” narrative that America is as systemically racist as at any time in our history. Really? Where’s the poll of young, black men asking them if they’d rather live in 1865, 1965 or 2020? I must’ve missed that astute revelation.

Instead of regurgitated statistics that the left/media refuse to acknowledge anyway, how about we come at this from a novel approach. [So] what is your suggestion? I mean, with all of the statistics stating the exact opposite of your point, what are we doing wrong? Are our hiring standards too low? Is training being swept aside to fast-track officers onto beats? Do we provide immunity to officers that is unnecessary and counter-productive? Let’s get to the “nut cutting” as they say.

If we want to turn this into another narrative where the right just refuses to admit there is a substantial issue and is instead hiding behind years of conservative practices…show me! Where are the statistics that support any of this nonsense? That show America is systemically racist and prejudiced against black Americans? Where are the politicians that you are particularly citing as responsible for these aggressions? Or is it just “orange man bad”, with his “basket of deplorables”?

“You’re killing your father, Larry!”

Once again, the left/media have overplayed their hands. We were told millions of Americans would die if we didn’t shut the world down indefinitely. Now if you have a small business and want to re-open smartly so that you don’t lose everything, you’re killing grandma! We were told that if we would just allow LGBT marriages, all examples of bigotry would be history. Now if you’re a Millennial male that won’t go out with a trans-woman (a man by all scientific facts and definitions), you’re a homophobe! And now, if you won’t march to the beat of this drum, well, you’re just a racist. Or worse, an “Uncle Tom.”

It’s tiring. It’s divisive. It’s unnecessary. This issue is one we must agree on, or we don’t have a country. You cannot have law and order if one group is being systematically hunted down and killed by those sworn to protect us.

Facts matter. Statistics matter. Two things can be true at once.

– Michael R. DeViney, Jr.

Read More

Fabriqué en Babylon: Meanwhile

With the majority of public discourse non-existent and what discussion does occur usually ending acrimoniously, I recalled a lesson (from the past) learned the hard way: in life, there are times the rules are such that, indeed, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.

Politics is considered the art of the compromise, or “the game of compromise,” to suit the lesson. Now, I don’t know if IQs dropped, if we forgot, if the entire paradigm changed despite the entire pantheon of examples (of public discourse), or if it’s an all-of-the-above that’s closer to where we’re at, but we’ve forgotten. One way or another, it’s that simple.

As “The Great Experiment”, that means that this is a failure as a nation. A failure to even try to communicate and find some semblance of common ground, to find a way to even try to be civil and respect one another’s time to speak, to actually listen to a message before deciding what it means and how we view that meaning, to even agree to try and communicate at all.

You see, the trick is in self-control. Before picking up your pitchforks and torches or, worse, leaving altogether, let the damned man have a few final words.

Fistfight breaks out in Turkish parliament

I say “self-control” is the key, if there is one, because in order for public discourse to function where there’s debate, dialogue and (hopefully) resolution at some point, we must individually approach this forum with the intention of conducting one’s self in a civil manner no matter what the opposition says or how they say it.

The first impulse is outrage, I’m aware, followed by some variant of, “So what do we do when [insert example of national Democrats and/or Republicans] start acting the fool?” And that’s precisely where, following my abandonment of my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts that the lesson learned previously (“sometimes the only way to win is not to play”) I remembered that silence isn’t always concession. Sometimes, it might be easy to think, “Ahp! Yep, see, DeViney’s silent so he’s conceding,” when, the truth is, I’ve also come to embrace another tactic summarized best as, “Let them talk; most people will hang themselves given enough rope.”

CNN was really on to something when they debuted the policy debates, featuring an epic duel between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) versus Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) engaged in an actual, substantive, non-campaign debate. Too bad they didn’t keep the series alive.

In order to pull this off, one must listen to their opponent’s words and, I don’t have chapter and verse from Harvard or Little Sister’s of The Poor and this that or the other study to cite, but I do know that it is humanly impossible for you to absorb as much of what someone else is saying while you’re running your piehole. An easy life “hack” for this (I’m trying to meet you halfway, my fellow Millennials) is to engage in one of America’s most obvious traditions and gently shove, well, pie or any other food one prefers into their gaping maw, which should, advisably, prevent the pie-eater from interrupting while someone else is speaking.

Another idea, and I only mention it in passing, is to teach your children these same concepts so that there’s a generational sort of reboot here, if you will.

Another really good concept, and this brings me back to what we’ve lost in terms of public dialogue, as a nation, as a people, is drop the assumptions. Do I really need to say that, as a Federal republic of 325 million-plus people scattered across 50 nation-states over 3 million-plus square miles, people come from different backgrounds and therefore automatically have their own way of doing things?

Apparently. Just remember: how good is it? Really good.

“Why does any of this matter?” one might ask, certainly a wise and reverent question, and unscripted at that!

As I face the active task of delivering closing remarks that are dually comprehensible and comprehensive, my personal political platform has never stood out more and conversely never kept me directly out of the fray as often. That’s weird. We’re living in a weird era.

As a centrist, I see, for instance, the keen insight President Trump into the general failings of a bloated Federal bureaucracy that feeds right into the national angst of an alienated body of followers who argue the value they get for their investment as taxpayers isn’t worth spending in excess of $4 trillion annually. However crude one views his “one-in, two-out” policy regarding regulations, he was onto something. Specifically, the broader argument that, not because of lack of desire and hardly because of lack of money but because of the inadequacies and failings that are part of the very fabric of a bloated, administrative state; in short, our Federal government is a monstrosity. A monstrosity, I might add, that needs to be shrunk, not given more money.

On the other hand, I also see the benefits of a strong, but limited, leaner Federal government with a decisive Executive having multiple opportunities for reform in bipartisan areas (fringes on both sides notwithstanding) with Congress, and I see those very same opportunities going wanting right now. And that is where, yes, I can see the personality crises stemming from being willing to be at odds with anyone, anytime over anything bringing about, indeed, a sort of “Trump Fatigue.”

That cuts both ways as well: while the people grow weary of the constant drama President Trump’s approach relies upon, they also tire of every single failing in DC being laid at his feet.

The same President who picked a fight (via social media, but of course) with an Autistic foreign teenager over climate change he maintains doesn’t exist to begin with also felt like the status quo that denied opportunities to felons post-release was unfair (See: “The First Step Act”). The very same POTUS who inexplicably disavowed support (however briefly) for our Kurdish allies also did what every Administration since Carter had threatened to by being the American Executive who stood up to Communist China’s underhanded trade practices and illegal valuations of the Yuan (their currency), which gave them unfair advantage(s) in imports/exports against other countries.

I don’t blindly support any politician, and I’m leery of ideologues. I don’t have any heroic, holistic advice on how to approach the President or his (many) conflicts, some contrived and some born of circumstances outside of his control.

These thugs didn’t issue executive orders that restricted travel from other countries into their own. They killed people they didn’t like and/or want. Perhaps a bit of caution, then, before ascribing the President Trump to the ignominious league of names like “Hitler” and “Stalin”, methinks?

But I do know this: the sooner we can get one extreme to stop canonizing every wacky idea the President utters and convince the other side that, no, Sugar, dictators don’t ask other countries to stop immigrants, they just have them shot. Dictators don’t ask, and they don’t Tweet about being treated “very badly” by the judiciary and the media. They don’t have to.

Look at the big picture, and tell me where you’d rather be that would be a better country from which to launch Endeavor A or stand up for Civic Cause B, et al. So, you don’t like the President. I don’t know how much the President likes the President. But you ought to be able to know the difference in there being room for (bigly) improvement in our mixed capitalist system, and in living in a concentration camp as you and your fellow undesirables are systematically exterminated by an authoritarian state.

A dictator? Hitler? Really? See: “Godwin’s Law”

Sound extreme? So do y’all.

Read More