Edwin Cooney hit this one out of the park.
While we're jumping around trying to decide if we will be putting up a
fence or a wall to keep Americans safe, the entire world is on the
move. Wars, famine and oppressive Tyrants...are there any other
kind?...contribute to mass migration. Building that wall is a bit
like Noah building a row boat while the animals are lining up, two by
two.
The threat to our America is the 7 billion people who could well be
starving to death in the next few decades. And us among them! We
have a much bigger problem to solve than how high or how long we
should be making our silly little wall.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/15/19, Andy Baracco via acb-chat <acb-chat@acblists.org> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Edwin Cooney
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 1:46 PM
> Subject: wrong issue - wrong diagnosis
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
> below is a very mild reaction to the current "immigration crisis." I feel
> much more outraged than these lines convey.
>
>
> Here's a hint. The Trumpian wing of the GOP has totally lost the right to
> call itself the party of Abraham Lincoln. As I see it, the GOP has lost all
> retentions of … never mind, this is a commentary governed by restraint!
>
>
> If you disagree with me, have at it. I don't write these musings with the
> expectation that everyone will agree with me.
>
>
> Thanks for your time and consideration!
>
>
> High Regards,
>
>
> Me, E.C.
>
>
> MONDAY, JULY 15TH, 2019
> WRONG ISSUE - WRONG DIAGNOSIS!
>
>
> I'm going to try reining in my indignation over this topic partly because up
> until a short time ago I had, much to my regret, been slow in realizing the
> full gravity of the issue. The topic is the immigration kerfuffle — and a
> kerfuffle (or fuss if you prefer) is exactly what it has become! Even worse,
> up to this point its real significance has been politicized to suit the
> fortunes of both liberal and conservative "would be" presidents and our
> incumbent president. What we need to do to really and truly get to the
> bottom of this issue is to develop a new paradigm or way of thinking to
> approach this grave matter. So, here it goes!
>
>
> For most Americans, the issue lately has become the "illegal" status of
> refugees attempting to cross the Mexican border to enter our country. As
> one of President Trump's supporters recently asked, "What part of illegal
> don't these leftist Liberals and Democrats understand?" The answer to that
> question is simple. There must always be a limitation to what is legal or
> illegal. Since the founding of our republic most Americans (with some very
> notable exceptions) have required our laws to provide "...justice to all."
> That's what we mean when we pledge allegiance to the flag. My counter
> question is, "what part of humaneness don't you understand?"
>
>
> Any historic review of our immigration policy largely reflects our national
> and international prejudices and needs which were mostly practical. With the
> exception of our unfortunate and disgraceful treatment and imprisonment of
> the Japanese people in the US who were rounded up during World War II, we
> don't officially worry much about the policies and politics of immigrants'
> native nations. Therein lies the real heart of our current immigration
> crisis.
>
>
> To me, the question isn't the legal or illegal status of Central American
> immigrants here in the United States. It is their status at home.
>
>
> Had President Trump recognized how badly the governments of Honduras,
> Guatemala, and El Salvador were mistreating or allowing their citizens to be
> mistreated, he could have alerted the Organization of American States as
> well as the United Nations. As I see it, humanity would have been forced to
> support his call for action against these governments. President Donald J.
> Trump could have been an international hero, a defender of human rights.
> There's much more that can be written on that aspect of the president's
> prerogatives, but there's a more compelling line of inquiry that must be
> taken. Here is a set of questions for you.
>
>
> How often do you find it convenient to move, even within your own hometown?
> When you make that decision, is it a casual decision even with all of the
> conveniences which would be available to you via well-financed and equipped
> American moving companies?
> How far do you like to walk when you move? Have you ever walked across a
> foreign country? How often do you walk even a city block during your move?
> What would compel you to subject your own children to such a venture? When
> you do decide to move, don't you expect to be accepted — if not warmly
> welcomed — by your new neighbors?
>
>
> Finally, how often have you had to move in terror? Is a status of civil
> legality really equivalent to the status of terror? How does our official
> lack of compassion toward immigrants square with our religious doctrines?
>
>
> It will be argued that our attitude toward "illegals" is consistent with our
> right to ensure our national security especially since 9/11.Unfortunately,
> that legitimate obligation is consistent with our historic "nativism" toward
> the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Japanese, and the Chinese, as well
> as with our almost ingrained anti-Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic prejudices.
>
>
> As I understand it, by the time you receive this column in your inbox, the
> federal government, under the direction of a "Conservative Republican"
> president, will have begun invading American cities and neighborhoods to
> remove and deport "undesirables" along with any criminals who may be
> present. Clearly the law in this instance draws no distinction between the
> good and the bad.
>
>
> The fact of the matter is that since 9/11 we've proven the truth of Franklin
> Delano Roosevelt's most famous observation which I hereby slightly alter:
>
>
> We've become a nation that has surrendered to "...fear itself!"
>
>
> RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
>
>
> EDWIN COONEY
>
>
> MONDAY, JULY 15TH, 2019
> WRONG ISSUE - WRONG DIAGNOSIS!
>
>
> I'm going to try reining in my indignation over this topic partly because up
> until a short time ago I had, much to my regret, been slow in realizing the
> full gravity of the issue. The topic is the immigration kerfuffle — and a
> kerfuffle (or fuss if you prefer) is exactly what it has become! Even worse,
> up to this point its real significance has been politicized to suit the
> fortunes of both liberal and conservative "would be" presidents and our
> incumbent president. What we need to do to really and truly get to the
> bottom of this issue is to develop a new paradigm or way of thinking to
> approach this grave matter. So, here it goes!
>
>
> For most Americans, the issue lately has become the "illegal" status of
> refugees attempting to cross the Mexican border to enter our country. As
> one of President Trump's supporters recently asked, "What part of illegal
> don't these leftist Liberals and Democrats understand?" The answer to that
> question is simple. There must always be a limitation to what is legal or
> illegal. Since the founding of our republic most Americans (with some very
> notable exceptions) have required our laws to provide "...justice to all."
> That's what we mean when we pledge allegiance to the flag. My counter
> question is, "what part of humaneness don't you understand?"
>
>
> Any historic review of our immigration policy largely reflects our national
> and international prejudices and needs which were mostly practical. With the
> exception of our unfortunate and disgraceful treatment and imprisonment of
> the Japanese people in the US who were rounded up during World War II, we
> don't officially worry much about the policies and politics of immigrants'
> native nations. Therein lies the real heart of our current immigration
> crisis.
>
>
> To me, the question isn't the legal or illegal status of Central American
> immigrants here in the United States. It is their status at home.
>
>
> Had President Trump recognized how badly the governments of Honduras,
> Guatemala, and El Salvador were mistreating or allowing their citizens to be
> mistreated, he could have alerted the Organization of American States as
> well as the United Nations. As I see it, humanity would have been forced to
> support his call for action against these governments. President Donald J.
> Trump could have been an international hero, a defender of human rights.
> There's much more that can be written on that aspect of the president's
> prerogatives, but there's a more compelling line of inquiry that must be
> taken. Here is a set of questions for you.
>
>
> How often do you find it convenient to move, even within your own hometown?
> When you make that decision, is it a casual decision even with all of the
> conveniences which would be available to you via well-financed and equipped
> American moving companies?
> How far do you like to walk when you move? Have you ever walked across a
> foreign country? How often do you walk even a city block during your move?
> What would compel you to subject your own children to such a venture? When
> you do decide to move, don't you expect to be accepted — if not warmly
> welcomed — by your new neighbors?
>
>
> Finally, how often have you had to move in terror? Is a status of civil
> legality really equivalent to the status of terror? How does our official
> lack of compassion toward immigrants square with our religious doctrines?
>
>
> It will be argued that our attitude toward "illegals" is consistent with our
> right to ensure our national security especially since 9/11.Unfortunately,
> that legitimate obligation is consistent with our historic "nativism" toward
> the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Japanese, and the Chinese, as well
> as with our almost ingrained anti-Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic prejudices.
>
>
> As I understand it, by the time you receive this column in your inbox, the
> federal government, under the direction of a "Conservative Republican"
> president, will have begun invading American cities and neighborhoods to
> remove and deport "undesirables" along with any criminals who may be
> present. Clearly the law in this instance draws no distinction between the
> good and the bad.
>
>
> The fact of the matter is that since 9/11 we've proven the truth of Franklin
> Delano Roosevelt's most famous observation which I hereby slightly alter:
>
>
> We've become a nation that has surrendered to "...fear itself!"
>
>
> RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
>
>
> EDWIN COONEY
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment