Immigration and Terrorism

Syrian Refugee camp
Photo source:  Center for Immigration Studies

Paris, Nov. 14, 2015:  coordinated terrorists at-tacks result in 129 dead. The western world is now focused on these attacks, ISIS, and Syrian refugees.  It strikes fear in many.

And, not far behind, are the fear-mongers, scapegoating immigrants and Muslims.  The forces against freedom are ramping up.  Republican Senator Lindsay Graham summed it up as ISIS is Going to Kill Us All!  Not to be outdone, former Gov. Sarah Palin says ISIS will plant the flag of Allah atop the White House.  (Side note:  Isn't Allah the same as Christian's God the Father?  If the religious right says we are a Christian nation, why don't they embrace the idea of planting the flag of God the Father atop the White House?)

Yes, this is a serious threat and ISIS is certainly bent on a path of repression and gruesome murder of those who disagree with their distorted vision of Islam.  But, how do we respond to the threat?  They want their enemies to fear them and hate them.

I think that we in free democracies need to propose a two-pronged response.  First is that our governments need to strike back and remain vigilant on the intelligence front.  Second, and equally important, is we cannot surrender our freedoms in the face of murderous terror.

No to Fear!

We cannot cower in the fear of the possibility of a random act of terrorist violence.  On the rational side, we are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than be killed by ISIS.  We are more likely to be killed by a crazed gunman, and event that happens all too often in our nation.  (Unlike Europe, we are pretty well armed nation, and many gun owners would relish the opportunity to take out a few terrorists.)

We should pray for the victims, morn the victims.  But we need to carry on and live in freedom.

No to the Merchants of Fear!

The politicians are having a hayday with fear.  Particularly, conservative politicians seem to thrive when we have enemies to fear.  Fear is a strong emotion, and it gets out the vote!

But fear is crippling.   It clouds our judgment.  It leads to hatred and repression.   We must say no to the Merchants of Fear and their distorted vision.

No to Repression of Muslims and Immigrants!

The Merchants of Fear are calling for more repression of Muslims and immigrants.  

• We hear Donald Trump, taking an idea right out of the Nazi playbook, calling for Muslims to be tagged in a data base, not unlike sex offenders.  Is the next proposal forcing them to wear a crescent and star of Islam?

• We hear politicians like Jebb Bush calling for a religious test for refugees:  Christian is good, Muslim is no good.  (But this is from the party that keeps saying the US is a Christian nation and interpreting Freedom of Religion as only the freedom to choose which brand of Christianity you wish to follow.)
• We also hear politicians saying no to Syrian refugees.  Among the thousands of refugees, there is a chance there may be one or more agents of ISES.  Is this a reason to say no to all refugees?  Or maybe just tighter screening?

The Merchants of Fear know that fear leads to hate and hate leads to popular support for repression.  

What is most dangerous of repressive policies is that they often focus the fear and hate on the wrong population.  While conservatives supported the fear of Iraq, we were attacked by radical Saudis on 9/11.  While the attacks in Paris are being blamed on Syrian refugees, it appears they were planned by a Belgium national.  While we are lead to fear foreigners, most mass killings in the US are committed by US citizens.  

Fear distorts our view of where the real risk is.

We must be prudent.  Our government must fight back against ISES.  Our government must keep vigilant for intelligence about the plans of terrorists.

But having done what is prudent, we must carry on and not be be crippled or blinded by fear and hatred.  We must live and relish the freedom we have!

In the Matter of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

There is no reason that Trayvon Martin should have had to die.  There's simply no reason.

His death is not right (in my sense of right and wrong).  It is not just, even if it can be legally justified under the laws of Florida.  Being legally justifiable does not make something right, nor just.

Just walking around

Trayvon had a right to be there, in that gated neighborhood.  He was staying there temporarily.  Just walking around, he was not up to anything wrong.

In fact, before the encounter and confrontation, each man was just doing his own thing, if you will.  Trayvon was just going to the store and returning to the home he was visiting.  George was just doing his rounds of watching the neighborhood.  Neither of them knew the other. Neither of them had any beef against the other.

And, if on that evening of February 26, 2012, each of them had simply just kept on doing their thing, neither would have nationally known names.  Neither of them would have been in a scuffle.  Trayvon would still be alive today.

Let me first suggest that no one, regardless of their opinion on this matter, would have wanted Trayvon Martin to die.  Even the most ardent defenders of George Zimmerman will only defend George's innocence, that, under the laws of the State of Florida, he had a right to use deadly force in the scuffle at a point when George felt he had reason to believe his life was threatened.  They would defend George's right to self-defense and to stand his ground,  But, I will suppose that none of them believed that Trayvon deserved death.

Why did he have to die?

So what went wrong?  Why did Trayvon have to die?

Here the details are only partial.  We don't have a video replay to document the events, step-by-step.  Piecing things together, we know that George called the police after seeing Trayvon.  There had been incidents of other crimes in the neighborhood, and apparently George suspected that Trayvon might be up to criminal intent.

About 7 1/2 minutes after George called the police, a shot is heard by a neighbor calling the police.

Somewhere in those tragic 7 1/2 minutes, Trayvon realizes he's being followed and runs, getting away from George.  Despite instructions from the 911 operator, George pursues Trayvon on foot.

In the last 3 minutes of Trayvon's life, the encounter escalates.  Somehow George finds Trayvon.  At some point the encounter turns into a scuffle.  One of them shouts for help.  A neighbor sees the fight and calls 911.

And then at 7:17 pm, the shot is heard.

Within a minute, police arrive.   Not too much longer, Trayvon dies.

Beyond these events, we hear how different people want to interpret the situation.

Some will say that George escalated things by not obeying the 911 operator's instructions not to pursue.  If he didn't pursue, when the police arrived, they might have only questioned Trayvon and interviewed George, avoiding the fatal encounter.

Others say George was just doing his job.  He found someone who might be up to no good, pursued him.  And when he felt his life was threatened in the scuffle, he defended himself.  They say he did nothing wrong.

How Doing "Nothing Wrong" Leads to Fatal Results

Why does the "he did nothing wrong" scenario end up in Trayvon's death?

Some will say that it was Trayvon who was attacking George.  And when the encounter changed to the point Trayvon threatened George, then George was justified in defending himself.

But on the other side, were Trayvon's actions tantamount to "standing his ground" when he felt threatened by Georges pursuit?

On another perspective, if not for George's gun, the scuffle may have been simply a "mano-a-mano" fist fight, perhaps with bloody results, but not with fatal results.  The deadly weapon was the variable that allowed the scuffle to turn fatal.

The "Loophole" in Stand Your Ground

On the surface, self-defense makes sense.  You're just minding your business, and some criminal comes up to you and threatens you.  Shouldn't you be able to defend yourself?  Most people will say this makes sense.

But now, change the nature of the encounter.  Say there's no one just attacking you out of the blue.  You're minding your business and so is the other person.  But you think the other person may be up to no good.  Then you do or say something, and the other person feels threatened.  With both persons now feeling somewhat threatened, an encounter or scuffle or fight follows.  The fight escalates.  Now, if either or both of the persons fighting feels their life is threatened, they can simply kill the other person can claim they're standing their ground.  

Does this mean anytime two people get in a serious fight, the stand your ground provisions apply and one person is allowed to kill the other?

Does this mean that someone can now go around picking fights, getting the other person all worked up until that person attacks, and the person picking the fight can now kill that person, justified by stand your ground?

Is this a justification for injecting a fatal conclusion is what should just be a fight?

If George escalated the encounter by pursuing Trayvon to the point Trayvon felt threatened, who is responsible for the scuffle that followed. Why does George get to claim stand your ground if he started it?

The Law vs. Right-and-Wrong

Somewhere, I believe there is a gut sense of right and wrong that is violated here.  Sure, I listened to the trial and based on the evidence and law, George was correctly found "not guilty."   But that doesn't make him innocent or even right in his actions. 

Only a lawyer can say that right-and-wrong of the incident boils down the the last 2 minutes of the scuffle, when George felt his life endangered and shot Trayvon.  I believe reasonable people would look at all of George's actions to judge what is right or wrong.

Thus, my sense of right and wrong encompasses the entire incident, from the first moment that George spotted Trayvon.

My sense of right and wrong looks at all the actions of each individual.  When you do that, we see neither was completely a victim.

When George first spotted Trayvon, he was doing nothing wrong and had every right to be walking through the neighborhood.  But seeing this young man in a hoodie, George made a judgement that he was suspicious, and then decided to follow Trayvon.  Observing only his race and attire, George wrongfully assumed Trayvon might be up to something criminal.  This act made Trayvon a victim of unjustified accusation.  

As a victim of unjustified accusation, was not Trayvon justified for feeling concerned about being followed?  For Trayvon, there was not an apparent reason why this guy was following him.  So, would not be reasonable for Trayvon to run away to escape from being followed?  Yet, George may have interpreted Trayvon's running as confirmation that he was up to something.

So, the situation between the two strangers has escalated, with George in pusuit of a potential criminal and Trayvon angry about why this unidentified guy is following him.

For any person, regardless of age or race, being followed for unexplained reasons puts one on the defense.  Many of us have had some situation where they are followed by someone.  It happened to me once at age 22, when two men pulled me down and robbed me.

According to the event timeline, there was about 3 min. between the end of George's call to the police, when he said he lost track of Trayvon, and the shot that killed Trayvon.

Clearly, in those 3 minutes, the pair found each other.  After finding each other, somehow a  scuffle ensued and likely punches were laid on George.

While a fight is never justified, we can see where the emotions of each person could lead to it.

But, who was the instigator?  George took the first actions, and created the encounter.  Without his pusuit, the two would have gone on their own ways.

Yet, under the law and in court, we see George made into the victim, fearing for his life in a scuffle lasting 2 minutes at most.  

Think about this.  George is the guy with the gun.  Trayvon is unarmed.  If Trayvon knew George had a gun and was pursuing him, did not Trayvong have  the right to stand his ground and defend himself in the only way he could by using his fists, as he was unarmed.

Yet, under Florida law, it is George that is justified for "standing his ground" (ironic for a guy lying on his back, loosing the fight that he instigated.

My sense of right and wrong is both of them are wrong in fighting.  But, once the fight began, both of them can be justified in "standing their own ground."

Finally, if this incident was left to trained law enforcement and not this amateur, self-appointed armed watchman, there is no reason for the incident to end in death.  But, thanks to the provisions of Florida law, we have a young man dead for no good reason.

The death of Trayvon was not right.  It was not just.

A Return to Sanity

In this strange political season, I’m a big supporter for a return to sanity. (And today, thousands are gathering in Washington, DC, for Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.)

This is perhaps best known as the season of the angry voter. The rise of the Tea Party movement is marked by many who are angry at the system, and often angry at both political parties. Some are angry about illegal immigration. Some are angry at the big bail-outs. Some are angry at the incredible amount spend on the stimulus. Some are angry about the new federal health care bill. Some are angry at Obama. Many would vote “all of the above.”

In 2008, the Democrats rose to power by sweeping the White House and majorities in the House and Senate. In large part, their victories can be linked to anger, too. Anger at the big spending of the Republican Bush administration in the middle added to traditional Democrat supporters who were angry at the war-waging policies of the Bush administration, loss of liberties and other conservative policies. In many instances, the Bush Administration wrapped its policies in the flag, so if one were a true patriot, one would not oppose their policies.

Well, in all of this, I fear this great democracy is losing its tradition of democracy. What happened to debating the issues of the day, without demonizing your opponent?

In the early days of the tea party, we heard about angry people coming to meetings with their representatives and shouting down others. Then there were the unrelentless rants of right-wing media mega-mouths, such as Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. Later, Sarah Palin, a once-interesting and different politician now turned party-line mouthpiece and Fox News employee, was added to the chorus. The conservative media chorus takes its cues from the policies that have traction with the angry -- immigration, unemployment, high taxes, big spending, big government – and blend these with a not-so-subtle appeal to outright racism, namely, President Obama and the brown-skinned immigrants, to name a few.

Injected with typical conservative policy are misrepresentations, conspiracy theories, and outright lies:

• “Death panels” in the health reform bill
• Pres. Obama was not born in the US \
• Pres. Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian
• The democrats want to round up guns and gun owners
• Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” (Glen Beck on Fox News)
• The director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." (again, Glen Beck)
• A claim by Glen Beck that he could not debunk theories that concentration camps are being built by the Obama White House as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America According to Beck, "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain't good."
  

What this is resulting in is a number of candidates who are intolerant of compromise or negotiations with those with opposing ideas. There are now a series of litmus tests – including cutting taxes, strong measures against illegal immigrants, abortion, denying the occurrence of global warming – that candidates must pass. A Republican who might believe that some environmental-friendly policies may benefit businesses is labeled a RINO (Republican in name only).

This is very much like the ideological purity that occurs in fascism or a fundamentalist religious sect. Many of those shouting call Pres. Obama a fascist, but I find their methods to be more typical of fascist states where the people are fed an unending litany of intolerance, lies, and hate. All with no opportunity to think for oneself.

But despite my fatalistic assessment, I still have hope. I hope for a return to sanity!