Today, while driving home, I listened to Washington's oracle of record, WTOP news, the radio avatar of the _Washington Post_. Commentator Mark Plotkin, a respected political pundit, expected me to laugh when he spoke of Sarah Palin's "gaffe" of being able to see Russia from her window.
Well, the usually intelligent-sounding Mr. Plotkin made himself, and by extension his employers, look pretty dang THTOOOOOOOOPID.
My mother and uncle were from Norse--oops, North-- Dakota, and would speak of Canadians as "neighbors", even though a good few miles of American wheatfields separated their old homestead from Line Forty-Nine. Given that Big and Little Diomede Islands in the Bering Sea are scarcely five miles apart, the USA and Russia do indeed share a border, albeit a maritime rather than land one. Hence, Mrs. Palin's saying she can see Russia from her window is a perfectly understandable figure of speech when coming from an Alaskan. Far more dangerous would be an Alaskan politician seeking national limelight while thinking that Russia is "far away". After all, the Alaskan indigenous Yupik and Aleut peoples also live in Russian territory, while before and after Vitus Bering, Aleuts were trading with Ainu people living in the southern Kuril islands. At least give Mrs. Palin credit for knowing her own state.
Plotkin's expectation that people who listen to WTOP news or read the _Washington Post_ should titter at Mrs. Palin's supposed ignorance of world affairs reveals something shockingly dangerous about supposedly "internationally sophisticated" Washingtonians: they look out from their windows and see only one of the two Oceans washing their country's shores, and probably understand only the safe zones of Western Europe when they venture abroad. While such a class of people were adequate leaders for the era from the Civil War to Woodrow Wilson, when Alaska could be written off as "Seward's Folly" and Siberia a mere icebox into which successive Russian regimes dumped criminals and dissidents, they are today a liability in a world in which no place is more than 24 hours away.
Please, Mr. Plotkin, stop making us Washington-area folks look provincial and ignorant.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Oh, No! Now we've done it
Now we've done it. To save the Libyan "populace", we have taken out Moammar Qaddafi's air defenses, and now our anti-war President Obama has gotten us into a third war in the Islamic world, and not to help any proven or trustworthy ally. We are involved, and, win or lose, we will take the blame for whatever outcome happens. If ever there were conflicts which called for dusting off traditions of neutrality, they are the internal conflicts of the Dar-ul Islam.
Among the towns controlled by the Libyan rebels is Darna, which some time back was identified as a favorite Qaeda recruiting ground. So, we are now investing young American lives in saving mothers whose self-professed greatest joy was to have their sons blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. Indeed, as far as Uncle Cephas can tell, both sides in the Libyan conflict are self-professed haters of America and all that the USA stands for.
Obama has been criticized for being a "do-nothing" president in international affairs and for surrendering the American lead. Even the Statist and Democratic Socialist-leaning Washington Post has printed columns accusing him of being a "muddled puddle" on the "looming humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya (Richard Cohen comes to mind). Yet, perhaps, this WAS a point where Obama may have been wiser; and one one which he sacrificed a possibly sound intuition (rather than inaction due to muddle-headedness about foreign affairs?) for the sake of a dubious image as a president who supposedly exemplifies decisiveness and toughness as well as compassion.
Unlike the younger Bush, who had to respond to the worst attack on the USA since Pearl Harbor, Obama can point to no important national interest in joining the fight to depose Qaddafi--who, clownish though he may have been, seemed capable of learning a lesson or two following Reagan's air attacks in retaliation for the 1983 airline bombings; and who scrapped the development of nuclear weapons following the younger Bush's toppling of Sadam Hussein. As for oil, whoever might have won the Libyan civil war prior to the engagement of France and its allies would have known that the only thing Libya can do with its oil is sell it. As for the tranquility of Mediterranean shipping lanes, Libya has not been a pirate haven for some time.
Do not count on the gratitude of the Libyan rebels should they win with American and other allied help. Both Bosniaks and Kosovars have exported their national pathologies. Both have contributed to making Malmo, Sweden in to the rape capital of Europe. The Somali immigrant community--planted in response to the failure of the Somali state after the death of Said Barry, have given headaches from refusing cab service to people with seeing-eye dogs to demands for employers to respect times of Islamic prayer to open witch-hunting for homosexuals. Bosnia-Herzegovina has also become a back-door conduit for Islamicist militancy in Europe.
The US had no dog in the Libyan fight. It now has chosen to back the champion rabid flea-breeder against the mangy, rabid cur.
Among the towns controlled by the Libyan rebels is Darna, which some time back was identified as a favorite Qaeda recruiting ground. So, we are now investing young American lives in saving mothers whose self-professed greatest joy was to have their sons blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. Indeed, as far as Uncle Cephas can tell, both sides in the Libyan conflict are self-professed haters of America and all that the USA stands for.
Obama has been criticized for being a "do-nothing" president in international affairs and for surrendering the American lead. Even the Statist and Democratic Socialist-leaning Washington Post has printed columns accusing him of being a "muddled puddle" on the "looming humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya (Richard Cohen comes to mind). Yet, perhaps, this WAS a point where Obama may have been wiser; and one one which he sacrificed a possibly sound intuition (rather than inaction due to muddle-headedness about foreign affairs?) for the sake of a dubious image as a president who supposedly exemplifies decisiveness and toughness as well as compassion.
Unlike the younger Bush, who had to respond to the worst attack on the USA since Pearl Harbor, Obama can point to no important national interest in joining the fight to depose Qaddafi--who, clownish though he may have been, seemed capable of learning a lesson or two following Reagan's air attacks in retaliation for the 1983 airline bombings; and who scrapped the development of nuclear weapons following the younger Bush's toppling of Sadam Hussein. As for oil, whoever might have won the Libyan civil war prior to the engagement of France and its allies would have known that the only thing Libya can do with its oil is sell it. As for the tranquility of Mediterranean shipping lanes, Libya has not been a pirate haven for some time.
Do not count on the gratitude of the Libyan rebels should they win with American and other allied help. Both Bosniaks and Kosovars have exported their national pathologies. Both have contributed to making Malmo, Sweden in to the rape capital of Europe. The Somali immigrant community--planted in response to the failure of the Somali state after the death of Said Barry, have given headaches from refusing cab service to people with seeing-eye dogs to demands for employers to respect times of Islamic prayer to open witch-hunting for homosexuals. Bosnia-Herzegovina has also become a back-door conduit for Islamicist militancy in Europe.
The US had no dog in the Libyan fight. It now has chosen to back the champion rabid flea-breeder against the mangy, rabid cur.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Hands off Libya
Uncle Cephas has no great regard for Moammar Qaddafi. He was always a bloody minded dictator, sponsor of terrorism, a first class SOB, and, back in the Cold War days, the Soviet Bloc's SOB. However, the USA would be well-advised to refrain from following France's lead in recognizing the interim rebel government. It would be best to remember John Adams' advice to be well-wisher to liberty everywhere, but champion only of our own.
There seems to be little public information on who the rebels are, who leads them, and the nature of the new Libya they hope to produce. Talk of the "democratic" nature of the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt neglect to note how the revolutionary forces were quick to attack Jewish targets in Tunisia and Christian ones in Egypt--very much in character with mass movements in the Islamic world during the past couple of centuries, if not more. A few things already indicate that Islamic supremacism informs Qaddafi's foes in Libya as well (not to say that Qaddafi has much respect for any expressions of non-Islamic belief in Libya), in that they've already burned the dictator in effigy--with a Magen David attached.
Attempts to foster democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan have made things worse for the Christian and Mandaean minorities in the former and have changed nothing for the clandestine religious minorities in the latter. The latter is especially rife with corruption since the ouster of the Taliban, and America's Afghan allies seem little inclined to find and bring in Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. And intervention in Libya would probably uncover an equally unpromising morass. Further, the Islamic world tends to grow more anti-American in direct proportion to American support for regimes or movements in that area.
Let events in Libya play out as the powers in place in that country determine. We do not have a horse in that race.
There seems to be little public information on who the rebels are, who leads them, and the nature of the new Libya they hope to produce. Talk of the "democratic" nature of the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt neglect to note how the revolutionary forces were quick to attack Jewish targets in Tunisia and Christian ones in Egypt--very much in character with mass movements in the Islamic world during the past couple of centuries, if not more. A few things already indicate that Islamic supremacism informs Qaddafi's foes in Libya as well (not to say that Qaddafi has much respect for any expressions of non-Islamic belief in Libya), in that they've already burned the dictator in effigy--with a Magen David attached.
Attempts to foster democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan have made things worse for the Christian and Mandaean minorities in the former and have changed nothing for the clandestine religious minorities in the latter. The latter is especially rife with corruption since the ouster of the Taliban, and America's Afghan allies seem little inclined to find and bring in Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. And intervention in Libya would probably uncover an equally unpromising morass. Further, the Islamic world tends to grow more anti-American in direct proportion to American support for regimes or movements in that area.
Let events in Libya play out as the powers in place in that country determine. We do not have a horse in that race.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Evangelicals and Orthodox
A commenter recently noted that the Russian Orthodox Church is fiercely anti- Evangelical. This might be a time when Uncle Cephas might way in on why this is so.
The Christian world tends to divide along the lines of Evangelical vs. Sacerdotal. The Evangelical camp emerged into plain view during the 16th century, following the Reformations led respectively by Martin Luther and Huldreich Zwingli in Saxony and Switzerland. Before that time, certain Evangelical movements arose from time to time in the Christian West, only to fade into obscurity through persecution by those churches centered on either Rome or Constantiople; although such groups as the Waldensians in the Alps, Lollards in Britain, and Hussites in the Western Slavic lands of Europe managed to survive long enough to fall into the orbit of the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the Reformation. Hence, the polemic of both Rome and the Faner against Evangelicalism centers on the historical continuity of the Roman and Faneriot communions, as well as the supposed power their institutional clergy have over the sacraments as means of grace.
The understanding of the sacraments and the power of a priesthood lie at the center of the sacerdotalist-Evangelical controversy. The sacerdotal churches believe that the seven sacraments of baptism, the eucharist (Lord's Supper), confirmation, confession and absolution, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction were given as means by which the grace of Christ is infused into the believer via the work of an ordained priesthood who, in an unbroken line descending back to the Apostles of Christ themselves, are the sole means where by the Holy Spirit is diffused to the church. As stewards of the sacraments, the clergy are able to give or withold divine grace.
The rediscovery of Scripture in Europe between the time of Wycliffe in 14th century England and the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries opened the eyes of many to serious conflicts between the Scriptures and the official line of the established churches. People read the words of Paul in First Corinthians 15:
"Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that chich I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and that he was een of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve: After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was een of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also..."
They read as well in the words of the Apostle Peter:
"[you all] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of uncorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever,
For all flesh is as grass,
and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.
The grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever [Isaiah 40:6]
And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you" (I Peter 1:24-25).
In such text, they see that the power of salvation is mediated to man not by an institution or ceremony, but by the Word of God. Hence, the Evangelical movement, especially that portion that traces its development through men like Zwingli, Knox, and Calvin, became Bible- rather than church-centered in their way of thinking. While the church remained an important institution, it could be challenged and reformed by Scriptural teaching.
To this, the sacerdotal churches replied that God is known through the traditions of the church as well as by Scripture. But the Evangelicals were quick to counter that the traditions of the church caused divisions over how monks and clergy wore their hair or beards, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the eucharist, vestments, and many other issues over which Scripture is silent. Calvin noted how while the Greek churches criticized the Roman for worshipping carved statues, no other communion indulged in the veneration of pictures (icons) as much as the Greek.
Following Scriptural teaching, the Reformed churches saw only Baptism and the Lord's Supper (the eucharist) as instituted by Christ as means of distinguishing Christians, challenged all use of images in worship, and established a variant system of doctrine of which more will be said at other times.
Essentially, the question dividing the evangelical and sacerdotal churches is this: who saves sinners? Christ, or the church? The latter says that the church and its ministrations saves; the latter that Christ alone saves.
The Christian world tends to divide along the lines of Evangelical vs. Sacerdotal. The Evangelical camp emerged into plain view during the 16th century, following the Reformations led respectively by Martin Luther and Huldreich Zwingli in Saxony and Switzerland. Before that time, certain Evangelical movements arose from time to time in the Christian West, only to fade into obscurity through persecution by those churches centered on either Rome or Constantiople; although such groups as the Waldensians in the Alps, Lollards in Britain, and Hussites in the Western Slavic lands of Europe managed to survive long enough to fall into the orbit of the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the Reformation. Hence, the polemic of both Rome and the Faner against Evangelicalism centers on the historical continuity of the Roman and Faneriot communions, as well as the supposed power their institutional clergy have over the sacraments as means of grace.
The understanding of the sacraments and the power of a priesthood lie at the center of the sacerdotalist-Evangelical controversy. The sacerdotal churches believe that the seven sacraments of baptism, the eucharist (Lord's Supper), confirmation, confession and absolution, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction were given as means by which the grace of Christ is infused into the believer via the work of an ordained priesthood who, in an unbroken line descending back to the Apostles of Christ themselves, are the sole means where by the Holy Spirit is diffused to the church. As stewards of the sacraments, the clergy are able to give or withold divine grace.
The rediscovery of Scripture in Europe between the time of Wycliffe in 14th century England and the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries opened the eyes of many to serious conflicts between the Scriptures and the official line of the established churches. People read the words of Paul in First Corinthians 15:
"Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that chich I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and that he was een of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve: After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was een of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also..."
They read as well in the words of the Apostle Peter:
"[you all] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of uncorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever,
For all flesh is as grass,
and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.
The grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever [Isaiah 40:6]
And this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you" (I Peter 1:24-25).
In such text, they see that the power of salvation is mediated to man not by an institution or ceremony, but by the Word of God. Hence, the Evangelical movement, especially that portion that traces its development through men like Zwingli, Knox, and Calvin, became Bible- rather than church-centered in their way of thinking. While the church remained an important institution, it could be challenged and reformed by Scriptural teaching.
To this, the sacerdotal churches replied that God is known through the traditions of the church as well as by Scripture. But the Evangelicals were quick to counter that the traditions of the church caused divisions over how monks and clergy wore their hair or beards, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the eucharist, vestments, and many other issues over which Scripture is silent. Calvin noted how while the Greek churches criticized the Roman for worshipping carved statues, no other communion indulged in the veneration of pictures (icons) as much as the Greek.
Following Scriptural teaching, the Reformed churches saw only Baptism and the Lord's Supper (the eucharist) as instituted by Christ as means of distinguishing Christians, challenged all use of images in worship, and established a variant system of doctrine of which more will be said at other times.
Essentially, the question dividing the evangelical and sacerdotal churches is this: who saves sinners? Christ, or the church? The latter says that the church and its ministrations saves; the latter that Christ alone saves.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Modern Mind
We cannot sin.
We count and quantify,
And know for sure
That we are free from such a quaint superstition.
In the fin du siecle
Our clear-headed science banished obscurantism.
Look! Six million of our neighbors are murdered!
We are horrified
Because someone else, mired in the guilt-ridden past,
Was the adult And admitted guilt.
We are surely off the hook!
We cannot be superstitious,
Even if we once believed
In phlogiston,
In homonunculi, and suchlike.
It's just as we taught you when you were in school,
That an atom is a tidy little solar system
Of electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons.
That is truth for the ages, that will never change.
And we cannot perjure.
Again, a quaint impractical notion.
Why must we be bound by our word,
When situations change,
And there is the need to be practical?
How dare you lie to us!
This is why you must trust us.
We cannot be ignorant.
We have banished the ghosts of the past!
We are a bundle of sense-perceptions,
And know we are reality-based!
Hence we are forever excused
From asking an important question.
We are what Hooper thinks
When Ryder revisits Brideshead.
What goes on in that unkempt head,
Self-satisfied and careless,
Bewildered that someone,
Is more modern than he?
We count and quantify,
And know for sure
That we are free from such a quaint superstition.
In the fin du siecle
Our clear-headed science banished obscurantism.
Look! Six million of our neighbors are murdered!
We are horrified
Because someone else, mired in the guilt-ridden past,
Was the adult And admitted guilt.
We are surely off the hook!
We cannot be superstitious,
Even if we once believed
In phlogiston,
In homonunculi, and suchlike.
It's just as we taught you when you were in school,
That an atom is a tidy little solar system
Of electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons.
That is truth for the ages, that will never change.
And we cannot perjure.
Again, a quaint impractical notion.
Why must we be bound by our word,
When situations change,
And there is the need to be practical?
How dare you lie to us!
This is why you must trust us.
We cannot be ignorant.
We have banished the ghosts of the past!
We are a bundle of sense-perceptions,
And know we are reality-based!
Hence we are forever excused
From asking an important question.
We are what Hooper thinks
When Ryder revisits Brideshead.
What goes on in that unkempt head,
Self-satisfied and careless,
Bewildered that someone,
Is more modern than he?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Lang Lang and Hu Jintao dis the USA
China has just made plain its contempt and hatred for the United States; and certainly has shown its contempt for President Obama.
During the state dinner at the White House, Hu Jintao and his entourage, including the pianist Lang Lang, made it clear that they have no respect for either the USA or its current president. Among Lang's pieces played for the entertainment of the Chinese and American presidents was "Wode Zu Guo" (My Motherland), a piece from a 1950's propaganda film extolling the killing of Americans during the Korean War. After the non-mainstream media broke the story, Lang professed innocence of the origin of the song. I frankly think he's lying through his teeth.
The Chinese Communist government is very careful about the image it projects, yet still likes to prod for weaknesses in its interlocutors. It is why Hu made the right noises about China having "a long way to go" in implementing human rights and the rule of law while making no commitments. But under the smooth exterior, is the head of a ruthless oligarchy that understands its historical mission as being the last, best hope of 20th century totalitarianism. Had Hu wished to simply have a smooth, both-sides-satisfied summit, he would not have allowed such a piece to be played (would the Germans play "Die Wacht am Rhein" when having diplomatic negotiations with the French?). It seems that the Chinese government was betting on general American ignorance of modern Chinese culture, and pulled the stunt to show the folks back home that it is humiliating and insulting America at the heart of American power.
The fact that Lang chose a piece from a post-Korean War propaganda film may also signal that any Chinese noises that it may accept the disappearance of the Communist Kim Dynasty in Pyongyang is probably a subtle trap designed to lull the USA into a new confrontation in northeastern Asia in order to test the prowess of China's rapidly modernizing forces. It should therefore be a signal to any alert officials in the US Government that China is not a friend, but an enemy whose contempt for the USA--accompanied by an underestimation of American strengths and sensibilities--could very well lead to a general conflict in the Western Pacific.
The fact that official US responses to this plain insult are muted is no proof of the patience, forbearance, and wisdom of our leadership, but of their ability to be taken off guard by people who sincerely and deeply hope to catch them off-guard. It seems that nothing has changed since the Chinese General Staff caught former President Clinton off-guard by asking if the US would tolerate a nuclear blast over Los Angeles as retaliation for supporting Taiwan in the face of a Mainland Chinese assault. It would be far better for Obama and Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, to clearly state that the US government feels that Lang Lang's repertoire at the state dinner was in poor taste, suggests that official China has no respect for the USA, and may even hint that Beijing's long-term view of Washington is hostile.
During the state dinner at the White House, Hu Jintao and his entourage, including the pianist Lang Lang, made it clear that they have no respect for either the USA or its current president. Among Lang's pieces played for the entertainment of the Chinese and American presidents was "Wode Zu Guo" (My Motherland), a piece from a 1950's propaganda film extolling the killing of Americans during the Korean War. After the non-mainstream media broke the story, Lang professed innocence of the origin of the song. I frankly think he's lying through his teeth.
The Chinese Communist government is very careful about the image it projects, yet still likes to prod for weaknesses in its interlocutors. It is why Hu made the right noises about China having "a long way to go" in implementing human rights and the rule of law while making no commitments. But under the smooth exterior, is the head of a ruthless oligarchy that understands its historical mission as being the last, best hope of 20th century totalitarianism. Had Hu wished to simply have a smooth, both-sides-satisfied summit, he would not have allowed such a piece to be played (would the Germans play "Die Wacht am Rhein" when having diplomatic negotiations with the French?). It seems that the Chinese government was betting on general American ignorance of modern Chinese culture, and pulled the stunt to show the folks back home that it is humiliating and insulting America at the heart of American power.
The fact that Lang chose a piece from a post-Korean War propaganda film may also signal that any Chinese noises that it may accept the disappearance of the Communist Kim Dynasty in Pyongyang is probably a subtle trap designed to lull the USA into a new confrontation in northeastern Asia in order to test the prowess of China's rapidly modernizing forces. It should therefore be a signal to any alert officials in the US Government that China is not a friend, but an enemy whose contempt for the USA--accompanied by an underestimation of American strengths and sensibilities--could very well lead to a general conflict in the Western Pacific.
The fact that official US responses to this plain insult are muted is no proof of the patience, forbearance, and wisdom of our leadership, but of their ability to be taken off guard by people who sincerely and deeply hope to catch them off-guard. It seems that nothing has changed since the Chinese General Staff caught former President Clinton off-guard by asking if the US would tolerate a nuclear blast over Los Angeles as retaliation for supporting Taiwan in the face of a Mainland Chinese assault. It would be far better for Obama and Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, to clearly state that the US government feels that Lang Lang's repertoire at the state dinner was in poor taste, suggests that official China has no respect for the USA, and may even hint that Beijing's long-term view of Washington is hostile.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Immigration Reform
As a former consular officer, I have some thoughts about immigration reform. They center on (a) judicious discrimination and (b) enforcing laws and policies already on the books.
Carefully considered, intelligently targeted, and, hopefully temporary discriminatory policies towards states, regions, and groups that have imported other countries' problems to the USA should be implemented in USA immigration law. Discrimination is a dirty word today, but it is necessary for law and society to function. The family "discriminates", even against those outsiders with whom it enjoys respectful and amicable relations; while all professions discriminate in favor of specific sets of skills.
In immigration, the US Congress could pass a law that would give the president, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Defense the right to place visa moratoria on states, regions, and groups deemed inimical to US security and public order. Such visa bans--which would cover even family unification and skills-based immmigrant cases as well as non-immigrant categories--would target problems such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, and the like. These bans could then be lifted when the executive branch agencies deem the crises that require discrimination to be over.
For example, when I was serving as a consular officer in the Far East, much was made of a "Fujianese" problem--alien smuggling from that coastal province, including links to highly effective organized crime. In the aftermath of the 1989 protests, bona fide Chinese asylum seekers from all over China ended up in Thailand, all claiming that they had originally hoped to go to Fujian and find a way to Taiwan, but that the authorities were watching the area too closely for them. Yet, at the same time, the alien-smuggling gangs operating out of the Fuzhou area (the provincial capital and immediately adjacent counties), did not miss a beat. The same human smuggling operations resulted in populations in several American cities that were for all intents and purposes indentured to smuggling gangs, plus the organization of all but impenetrable criminal gangs dealing in narcotics and vice.
But the problem was not really a "Fujianese" problem. It was highly localized in the city of Fuzhou (the provincial capital) and adjacent counties. While in Bangkok, I was called on to translate when the Thai police arrested a smuggler and gave American immigration officials access to the prisoner. The man's wallet was literally stuffed with the name cards of Communist Party Secretaries, high officers of the Fujian Garrison Commmand, and Chinese government officials. Clearly, the operation the people-smuggler represented was well-connected. But later, when I served in Guangzhou as a consular officer, I could not help but note that whereas almost all cases from the Fuzhou area involved former illegals, Fujianese cases from other parts of the province were run-of-the-mill close relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents or students who had been recruited by US companies while in the USA; all legitimate immigration cases under then-current law.
Perhaps had the law allowed the Secretary of State to issue a ban on immigrants and visitors from Fuzhou city, Lianjiang County, and a handful of other nearby localities, and had the Bureau of Consular Affairs the budget and resources for a thorough anti-fraud effort, legal immigrants would not have been inconvenienced, and a clear message sent to corrupt host country authorities and a population prone to accept the blandishments of the smuggling gangs that the road was closed. This might have given incentive to the host country to attack the problem at its root.
Similarly, in the War on Terror, we would not even need to ban Muslim immigration (as some of the more zealous outside of government have suggested). Rather, terror-supporting groups like Falastin Arab Muslims, Lebanese Shi'ites, most of the population of Pakistan, and certain others might be barred from entering the USA until such time as support for anti-American terror among such groups has clearly dimminished. Yet, at the same time, visas would continue to be available to Iraqi and Iranian Kurds, West Africans, Hui, Circassians, and other Muslims whose support for Islamic supremacism is either lacking or sufficiently muted.
Some may argue that such laws and policies would cut the nerve of American humanitarian concern for asylum seekers. Yet no country should be required to admit its avowed enemies. Many from the Fuzhou area of China abuse the asylum system for admission, yet the Fujian-American Association which they support is outspokenly pro-Beijing. Has anyone heard of a German-Jewish emigre association of the World War II era that would even give the Nazis credit for making the trains run on time? The idea that genuine refugees would support the regime that endangered them is preposterous. Further, it is a national disgrace that members of the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq are allowed to use their problems with Khomeini-ite Iran to gain asylum in the USA. These are people who, in their own circles, boast of being the first "revolutionary fighters" into the "nest of spies" back in 1979. No-one should think that the USA has any moral or humanitarian duty to admit such people. Carefully considered and targeted discrimination could allow immigration officers to ban such doubtful entrants while admitting others.
Things like "Diversity IMmigration" should be done away with. The late Ted Kennedy supported the idea back in the 1980's because (a) he was dismayed that his 1965 reforms didn't re-vitalize the Irish and Italian ghettoes that had guaranteed Democratic dominance in New England and (b) a lot of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean immigrants started voting Republican as soon as the ink on their naturalization certificates was dry, and an uncomfortably visible minority of Latin-Americans, did, too. I've noted among my own students that some of the rare Republicans in the community I serve are recent West African immigrants (small businessmen feeling the tax squeeze). The "diversity visa" lottery was the last gasp of Ted Kennedy's attempt to revitalize an important 20th century Democratic base, failed badly, and was derisively referred to as the "Irish Sweepstakes" by those whose job it was to administer it.
Carefully targeted discrimination in the hands of reponsible and carefully trained officers of executive branch agencies would also allow a frank recognition that some cultures are more mutually assimilable than others. The USA cannot afford the sorts of no-go areas and rape zones that afflict some of the Banlieux of French cities, cities of northern England, or Malmo, Sweden. Groups that have made it clear that they intend to form Sharia enclaves in the Dar-el-Harb could be excluded.
I would also retain birthright citizenship (including for children of the American diaspora) and all the legal protections for non-citizens enshrined in the 14th Amendment. I'd even be lenient on, say, bona fide spouses who marry while visiting the USA and whose American spouses don't bother to do the paperwork until ICE finds them a couple of years later. The only change I would introduce would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The culture of Islamic polygamy is too dangerous to be allowed to take root in the USA. It was the cradle from which Osama Bin Laden came, and that is enough. As for the current push for homosexual rights, it still remains a clear fact that being raised in a two-parent, heterosexual household is likely to remain best for future generations. Continued vigilance against fraud should be exercised, as well as presumption of fraud in all cases of arranged marriages between persons of great age discrepancies. These, after all, are prima facie opposed to the principle of liberty underlying all of America's founding documents.
Perhaps the chief immigration reforms I would institute would be more funding and staffing for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, ICE, and the Border Patrol in order to better enforce the laws we already have on the books. I'd also deliberately limit asylum to people who are both truly in danger and accepting of American values (i.e., no Communists, pedophiles, or Mojaheddin-e-Khalq). The disfunctionality of the American immigration system seems to be in its being underpaid and overworked, coupled with some of the problems of a corrupt culture in legal and judicial circles in which the lawyer's craft, the temptation of subversion, and political ambition often count for more than either law or justice. But that is a different issue.
more may be said on immigration issues later
Carefully considered, intelligently targeted, and, hopefully temporary discriminatory policies towards states, regions, and groups that have imported other countries' problems to the USA should be implemented in USA immigration law. Discrimination is a dirty word today, but it is necessary for law and society to function. The family "discriminates", even against those outsiders with whom it enjoys respectful and amicable relations; while all professions discriminate in favor of specific sets of skills.
In immigration, the US Congress could pass a law that would give the president, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and Defense the right to place visa moratoria on states, regions, and groups deemed inimical to US security and public order. Such visa bans--which would cover even family unification and skills-based immmigrant cases as well as non-immigrant categories--would target problems such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, and the like. These bans could then be lifted when the executive branch agencies deem the crises that require discrimination to be over.
For example, when I was serving as a consular officer in the Far East, much was made of a "Fujianese" problem--alien smuggling from that coastal province, including links to highly effective organized crime. In the aftermath of the 1989 protests, bona fide Chinese asylum seekers from all over China ended up in Thailand, all claiming that they had originally hoped to go to Fujian and find a way to Taiwan, but that the authorities were watching the area too closely for them. Yet, at the same time, the alien-smuggling gangs operating out of the Fuzhou area (the provincial capital and immediately adjacent counties), did not miss a beat. The same human smuggling operations resulted in populations in several American cities that were for all intents and purposes indentured to smuggling gangs, plus the organization of all but impenetrable criminal gangs dealing in narcotics and vice.
But the problem was not really a "Fujianese" problem. It was highly localized in the city of Fuzhou (the provincial capital) and adjacent counties. While in Bangkok, I was called on to translate when the Thai police arrested a smuggler and gave American immigration officials access to the prisoner. The man's wallet was literally stuffed with the name cards of Communist Party Secretaries, high officers of the Fujian Garrison Commmand, and Chinese government officials. Clearly, the operation the people-smuggler represented was well-connected. But later, when I served in Guangzhou as a consular officer, I could not help but note that whereas almost all cases from the Fuzhou area involved former illegals, Fujianese cases from other parts of the province were run-of-the-mill close relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents or students who had been recruited by US companies while in the USA; all legitimate immigration cases under then-current law.
Perhaps had the law allowed the Secretary of State to issue a ban on immigrants and visitors from Fuzhou city, Lianjiang County, and a handful of other nearby localities, and had the Bureau of Consular Affairs the budget and resources for a thorough anti-fraud effort, legal immigrants would not have been inconvenienced, and a clear message sent to corrupt host country authorities and a population prone to accept the blandishments of the smuggling gangs that the road was closed. This might have given incentive to the host country to attack the problem at its root.
Similarly, in the War on Terror, we would not even need to ban Muslim immigration (as some of the more zealous outside of government have suggested). Rather, terror-supporting groups like Falastin Arab Muslims, Lebanese Shi'ites, most of the population of Pakistan, and certain others might be barred from entering the USA until such time as support for anti-American terror among such groups has clearly dimminished. Yet, at the same time, visas would continue to be available to Iraqi and Iranian Kurds, West Africans, Hui, Circassians, and other Muslims whose support for Islamic supremacism is either lacking or sufficiently muted.
Some may argue that such laws and policies would cut the nerve of American humanitarian concern for asylum seekers. Yet no country should be required to admit its avowed enemies. Many from the Fuzhou area of China abuse the asylum system for admission, yet the Fujian-American Association which they support is outspokenly pro-Beijing. Has anyone heard of a German-Jewish emigre association of the World War II era that would even give the Nazis credit for making the trains run on time? The idea that genuine refugees would support the regime that endangered them is preposterous. Further, it is a national disgrace that members of the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq are allowed to use their problems with Khomeini-ite Iran to gain asylum in the USA. These are people who, in their own circles, boast of being the first "revolutionary fighters" into the "nest of spies" back in 1979. No-one should think that the USA has any moral or humanitarian duty to admit such people. Carefully considered and targeted discrimination could allow immigration officers to ban such doubtful entrants while admitting others.
Things like "Diversity IMmigration" should be done away with. The late Ted Kennedy supported the idea back in the 1980's because (a) he was dismayed that his 1965 reforms didn't re-vitalize the Irish and Italian ghettoes that had guaranteed Democratic dominance in New England and (b) a lot of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean immigrants started voting Republican as soon as the ink on their naturalization certificates was dry, and an uncomfortably visible minority of Latin-Americans, did, too. I've noted among my own students that some of the rare Republicans in the community I serve are recent West African immigrants (small businessmen feeling the tax squeeze). The "diversity visa" lottery was the last gasp of Ted Kennedy's attempt to revitalize an important 20th century Democratic base, failed badly, and was derisively referred to as the "Irish Sweepstakes" by those whose job it was to administer it.
Carefully targeted discrimination in the hands of reponsible and carefully trained officers of executive branch agencies would also allow a frank recognition that some cultures are more mutually assimilable than others. The USA cannot afford the sorts of no-go areas and rape zones that afflict some of the Banlieux of French cities, cities of northern England, or Malmo, Sweden. Groups that have made it clear that they intend to form Sharia enclaves in the Dar-el-Harb could be excluded.
I would also retain birthright citizenship (including for children of the American diaspora) and all the legal protections for non-citizens enshrined in the 14th Amendment. I'd even be lenient on, say, bona fide spouses who marry while visiting the USA and whose American spouses don't bother to do the paperwork until ICE finds them a couple of years later. The only change I would introduce would be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The culture of Islamic polygamy is too dangerous to be allowed to take root in the USA. It was the cradle from which Osama Bin Laden came, and that is enough. As for the current push for homosexual rights, it still remains a clear fact that being raised in a two-parent, heterosexual household is likely to remain best for future generations. Continued vigilance against fraud should be exercised, as well as presumption of fraud in all cases of arranged marriages between persons of great age discrepancies. These, after all, are prima facie opposed to the principle of liberty underlying all of America's founding documents.
Perhaps the chief immigration reforms I would institute would be more funding and staffing for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, ICE, and the Border Patrol in order to better enforce the laws we already have on the books. I'd also deliberately limit asylum to people who are both truly in danger and accepting of American values (i.e., no Communists, pedophiles, or Mojaheddin-e-Khalq). The disfunctionality of the American immigration system seems to be in its being underpaid and overworked, coupled with some of the problems of a corrupt culture in legal and judicial circles in which the lawyer's craft, the temptation of subversion, and political ambition often count for more than either law or justice. But that is a different issue.
more may be said on immigration issues later
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)