CSotD: The Remains of a Fine Country
Skip to comments
I wish Kikkert hadn’t bothered adding a caption to this, since its meaning is clear, but I like the thought of helpless deportees being dumped off on a random desert island, because some of the other places we’re dumping them off are just as unable to sustain the people already there and every bit as pointless as destinations for the people we’re sending them.
And it’s not like when the British were banishing people to Australia, because those people were given a chance to work and either redeem themselves or stay and become independent citizens of a new land. (Yes, I know there were already people there. Different topic.)
I assume our deportees are not just being landed in South Sudan and left to figure things out, but, rather, that we have some jail-for-profit deal worked out with them, as we have in El Salvador, which raises the question of how we got all that lined up so quickly?
But it also brings up another difference between these deportees and those shipped off to Botany Bay, which is that the British Crown, for all its faults, did manage to give each of its deportees a trial. They were legally guilty of something, though often something that wouldn’t, today, deserve harsh punishment.
We’re shipping off people most of whom are only guilty of being here, and I was going to say “without permission” but, in fact, it appears many of them did have permission to be here, at least until a decision could be made as to whether they merited citizenship.
Oh well. It’s an improvement over how we solved the Indian problem, I suppose. “The only good immigrant is a deported immigrant” sounds more humane, as long as you don’t know where they’re being deported to.
And Stephen Miller can explain why we had to get rid of them in order to preserve our Aryan Heritage or to keep them from voting illegally or something. The fact that none of them vote and that half our nation began as Hispanic is irrelevant.
In fact, we have assembled a team of experts who can explain what we’re doing and why we’re doing it and why the people doing it have to cover their faces, though they can’t explain why they don’t feel compelled to cover their own faces not for security but in shame.
But let’s not pretend it’s just those villains in the Executive Branch who are letting this happen. As Wuerker says, it’s Congress that is ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps they’re afraid another mob will be let loose on them, but that seems a coward’s excuse for letting loose a mob of masked thugs on other people.
Besides, in the wake of the January 6 riot in their hallowed halls, they had a chance to impeach the ringleader and decided not to. At that point, they went from innocent bystanders to accessories, and under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2, anyone who aids or abets a federal crime is considered a principal in that crime.
Their unwillingness to serve makes it hard to join in the Establishment’s horror over the results of NYC’s Democratic Mayoral Primary. I don’t know that Zohran Mamdani can carry out half his utopian plans, but I also don’t know why the best candidate the mainstream Democrats could come up with to run against him was Andrew Cuomo, unless it was because Harvey Weinstein is in prison.
Anyway, before he becomes mayor, he has to face off against Curtis Sliwa, famous as the self-promoting head of the Guardian Angels, a vigilante group that most certainly doesn’t cover their faces.
But I digress. Somewhat.
Juxtaposition of the Day
As long as you’re not one of the deportees, there’s some humor in the backsliding and sudden reversals plaguing this assault upon humanity.
Horsey notes that the rich folks who were supposed to benefit from Trump’s tax cuts are finding themselves inconvenienced by the loss of their help. And he’s clever in confining the complaint to personal inconveniences, because businesses face far more serious problems from this anti-immigrant pogrom.
Certainly it’s true that employers should be held accountable for hiring undocumented non-citizens, but a large number of the people being rounded up and deported are documented, with temporary permits if not actual green cards. And some have green cards, too.
Who complained to Dear Leader about all this? Was it his golfing buddies who lost their nannies and gardeners? Was it farmers concerned with harvesting their crops? Or was it the managers at Mar-A-Lago, afraid of losing their entire staff?
Whatever drove him to face at least a slice of reality, Bramhall captures his inability to square his inhuman program with the dollars-and-cents cost, and it’s fortunate that Trump’s not expected to make sense, because his attempts to square his rhetoric with his self-interest is putting him in a tizzy.
Meanwhile, although polls still show a slim majority supporting the vague ideal of regulating immigration, this draconian process of kidnapping brown people at random is playing poorly with the public.
Much public opinion seems to be skewed by whether people believe a large number of immigrants are murders, rapists and drug dealers, which sounds like the motivations of a lynch mob, not a responsible democracy.
But as Pett points out, we have a major network, and several lesser clone media outlets, intent on depicting things in the worst possible light. He specifically mentions protests, in which one burning car counts more that 2,000 people chanting, but it also applies to depictions of migrants as violent criminals and lunatics, and only a few as fine people.
Meanwhile, Sorensen points out the rising number of reports from people who have been denied entry to the country because they have expressed opinions disloyal to Dear Leader’s vision.
She’s not engaging in much exaggeration: In addition to students here jailed for disagreeing with official views of the Gaza War, an Australian writer was denied entry because of having covered the demonstrations at Columbia and expressing his own views of the war.
Good thing Customs stopped him. If ICE caught him, instead of home he’d have been transported to South Sudan.
Comments 4
Comments are closed.