Trump, immigration, divisiveness: A local perspective.
Recently, in my town (Santa Maria, California)—where, by the way, Marilyn Pharis was murdered and incessantly used as justification for Trump’s immigration policies, this happened. I, mean, obviously we can ‘over-metacognate’ the possibilities surrounding this incident—however—as it stands it is quite feasible that this was legitimate backlash from the election outcome. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable driving, 1) a tawdry vehicle like that in the first place and 2) any car, especially one as glitzy as that, with a ‘Trump Pence 2016’ bumper sticker slapped on it in most parts of our town. Your gonna piss some people off. Quick aside here: I watched 3-4 Trump rallies, in their entirety, and I saw him attempt to reference the Marilyn Pharis incident. I say ‘attempt’ because Trump conflated the facts of 2 or 3 undocumented immigrant murder cases and jumbled them together into one anecdote. That’s when I knew he wasn’t very smart—and willing to bullshit his way through anyway (scary, in my opinion). I am not a typical liberal either, as I voted for Gary Johnson (so, don’t label me please).
I am a teacher with the local high school district, where most schools are 98% Hispanic/Chicano/Mestizo/Latino, and I definitely sense the post-election under stirrings. It is not uncommon for the students to ask me who I voted for—and it really feels like all they really are interested in knowing is if I voted for Trump. I feel a paternal instinct to assure them that it is going to be okay and that many campaign promises are often broken (I am Caucasian by the way, or as I prefer—a, “Indo-European mutt”). But, I think it comes across in a different way than I intend. They don’t want my empathy, or at least very few openly show that they do.
I mean, listen, Trump has promised to immediately deport 2-3 million undocumented illegal immigrants with known criminal convictions. Now, according to an initial Google search query, it looks as if in 2014 the current U.S. population was about 318.9 million people. Let’s take the high-ball value of Trump’s range (3 million) and compute that out. Roughly, crudely, and unsophisticatedly speaking that works out to about 1/100. Trump is claiming, in his first week as president-elect, to deport 1 person for every 100 persons in the United States. Well, we have over 100,000 people in Santa Maria. 70% are of ethnicities that originate from countries where you are drastically statistically more likely to be a recent-immigrant of some kind. Extrapolate that out and it’s pretty fair to say that ALL these kids know someone who is on that list.
Lastly, before my grandfather died I got to spend some time with him in South Dakota. We worked together for about 4-6 months for a charter airline that was about an hour away from where we were living. So, I got to ride with ‘Gramps’ 2 hours a day back and forth. We did a lot of talking. Interestingly enough, and this was back in 2012 mind you (way before a Trump candidacy was on anyone’s horizon) I brought Trump up (not sure why, sometimes my antennae are working). I remember randomly asking him, “So, what do you think of Trump?” Turns out, Gramps had a business deal with him back in either the late eighties or early nineties (I didn’t get specifics on the timeframe, but narrowed it down to that time period based on inductive reasoning).
At that time, Gramps was a General Manager of a charter airline here in Santa Maria, California called ‘Renown Aviation’. One of the ‘runs’ they were making was a Vegas charter (a flight from Santa Maria to Las Vegas, or vice versa). Turns out, Trumpy chartered a flight from Gramps through Renown Aviation (I believe it was FROM Vegas TO Santa Maria). Trump never paid Renown Aviation. So, Gramps described him as a ‘crook’. Pretty sure that sums up Donald Trump. He knows just what he can get away with. He knew they weren’t going to hire a lawyer and take him to court, because it is too costly for a small charter airline to devote the requisite resources into. I just thought it was neat to share a personal story that never got any notoriety. I am sure that there must be countless more like it.
it is quite feasible that this was legitimate backlash from the election outcome
Yo, Philthy! Please explain your comment quoted above. Are you actually saying that firebombing someone's $50,000 car is a "legitimate backlash" concerning the results of a democratic election you don't like? Does that "principle" work both ways: If the election had gone the other way (Hillary had won) would it then be a legitimate backlash for Trump voters to commit arson against a car owned by a Hillary voter? Are there any other felonies you can think of that would be "legitimate backlash" for people to commit in the future if they don't like a particular election outcome? Rape, robbery, aggravated assault, murder? Was the following assault caught on video a legitimate backlash from the election outcome?
And while we're at it, I'd like to request that you be more specific in your views about Trump's promise to deport 2-3 million illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. Are you personally opposed to deporting illegal immigrants with criminal convictions? If so, on what legal and moral values is your opposition based?
I'm always amazed and, often less surprised, by the actions of people who don't get their way or are incensed by those who express a different point of view. In our quest for universal conformity, humans have a unique way to create animosity towards people just trying to live their lives. The more we formalize the process, the more the results approach absurdity:
"Ad extirpanda", anyone?
"Legitimate backlash" as in it wasn't just some guy trying to scam his insurance company, or maybe the destruction of the car was due to more personal reasons and not over having the political slogan attached to his car. Not "legitimate backlash" as in people are justified in destroying other's property because they disagree with their politics. I think it was fairly clear the way it was written, but I am happy to clear up any skewed comprehension. Seeing as the rest of your mode of thinking was more or less predicated on an incorrect assumption I won't respond to the line of questioning.
However, I will say this: of course I am not advocating or condoning the participation of any sort of crime to vent one's frustration about the outcome of the election. Thanks!
So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool?
Reprinted without comment.
Obama, to my knowledge, has not condemned the violence associate with the protests. Perhaps he thinks it is "Legitimate Backlash" as well?
I'm not sure there is a better citizenship test than obeying the laws of the country you move to up until you become a citizen (and hopefully beyond). I understand there is not a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but if there were hopes of ever becoming a citizen, one must wonder if people who break the law wouldn't be at the end of the list.
To be clear, there have been laws on the books that deserved to be broken, see Rosa Parks and segregated seating, but I'm pretty sure that these illegal immigrants aren't getting arrested in mass for their sit ins at the local police station.
I'm unclear if your argument is that because everyone knows someone who has broken the law that the law should not be enforced, or if they simply shouldn't be deported because they break the law. Perhaps your argument is that people are rightfully upset that their law breaking friends are being threatened with deportation. Maybe you are saying that if you are here illegally you should not be deported for any crime, or is there a difference between how a murderer is treated in respect to someone with a simple assault charge? Maybe you're just sharing your perspective and haven't an argument to make, just wanted to share a picture of a burnt out car, you know, that's the price you pay for supporting Trump in your neck of the woods.
Lastly, I think it's safe to assume you've never been the CEO of a company. There is no way Trump has an intricate knowledge of who gets paid for what in his business endeavors. I owned a small business with 2 other gentleman and one of our co-founders was in charge of getting people paid, taking in revenue, and balancing the books. I didn't worry about it because it wasn't my role in the company. Sure, I would assume that if he stiffed someone it would have come up since there were only 3 owners and it was a small business, but if you seriously think Trump signs every check that gets paid out from his company, you likely don't have a future in business. It's called delegation, not micro managing. If you micro manage you probably won't be successful, but if you can surround yourself with people who get the job done and can delegate, you probably will be. With that being said, was Trump's corporation in the wrong for stiffing your grandfathers business, you bet. I wonder why your grandfather didn't burn any of Trumps cars?
Lambertad, there are laws, and there are laws, and there are ordinances.
Once upon a time, America and England were common law countries. In name, we still are. The basis of the common law is that the rulers have no right to make laws; they only can enforce the law as it is, and make ordinances.
All law, proceeds from the law of God, which is of the highest order. Out of that, comes natural law; the laws as written by the king are only lawful, insofar as they echo the higher law. Because of this, the highest authority isn't the king — it's the judge, who determines whether a given written law or ordinance conforms to natural and divine law. Because of this, the precedent is extremely important. The law cannot change; therefore, a precedent has a greater weight than written law; the interpretation of new law must conform to the precedent.
And by what do I mean ordinance? Not explosives, of course. I mean, that there are some rules that a country may make — driving on a particular side of the road, for instance — that are appropriate to ordinary behavior, to keep things ordered. But they are not laws: for example, if it were a LAW that we should drive on the right side of the road, then England would be in contempt of all creation, because there, they drive on the LEFT side of the road. So ordinances do not even have the weight of law, but in general should be obeyed where it does not conflict with law. But — as for stopping at a red light, if you see an ambulance behind you or a fire truck behind you, you should carefully break the ordinance and clear a path for the emergency vehicle — where the ordinance conflicts with the law, the LAW must be obeyed, and the ordinance ignored with as much care for propriety and safety as possible.
So…. given all that, what structure do I see? I see that there is a force that tries to work to use every ordinance to overturn the law, and every low law to overturn the higher law. This is a lawless force. And no, it isn't just a force–it has personality and extreme evil associated with it. Its goal is the destruction of all God's work, may it never be fulfilled.
In light of that, I see that the natural law — even as enshrined in the UN statement on human rights (which is not divine, but it gives an indication of the natural inclination of those who voted it into existance) that such things as migration and the right to work are natural human rights. I see similar things enshrined in the US Constitution, and I conclude that there may well be such a natural law. Moreover, I then turn to the Bible, and read that "if you oppress the alien, I will chase you with a sword, and your own wives will be widows…" and I conclude that according to the law of God, this is actually a law of such magnitude as to make the breaking of it a capital offense!
Then, I see that almost every single nation creates ordinances to eliminate these rights as much as possible. At that point, I have to say, I find every single nation to be LAWLESS, and in contempt of the law. Moreover, as for the ambulance, it is right to break the ordinance if necessary to follow the law.
So, back to our nation. The government has no right to insist on what it does. Moreover, if I understand it correctly, our government and its people (by association and indeed conspiracy) is guilty of capital crime. But how would I know if I am right? I would say, that if God has promulgated the law, he can enforce it. So then, I would ask you, have you seen any evidence at all of a sword against our country? If so, then it might be wise to consider whether the actual (spiritual) source of this sword is not the breaking of a capital law.
Nancy Gibbs, the magazine's overseeing supervisor, uncovered Trump as the champ on the "Today" demonstrate Wednesday, with his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton chose as runner-up.
Legitimate backlash in my opinion shouldn't involve violence, especially in a developed democracy like the US. It's hard to ignore the fact that there have been numerous protests against Trump http://howlingpixel.com/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump. However, the fact that these turn violent tells us a lot about those protesting against him.