RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: A Note to the Most Dangerous Man on Earth Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27921"><span class="small">Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 06 April 2018 11:20

Rosenblum writes: "You've taken pains to explain to me why you support Donald Trump. So I say this with all respect: You are the most dangerous man on earth."

Trump and his supporters at a campaign rally. (photo: Getty)
Trump and his supporters at a campaign rally. (photo: Getty)


A Note to the Most Dangerous Man on Earth

By Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News

06 April 18

 

ear B.H.,

I know you’re no deplorable. You were kind when I visited Idaho in the ’80s and saw the fruits of your successful life. You’ve taken pains to explain to me why you support Donald Trump. So I say this with all respect: You are the most dangerous man on earth.

Not actually, which is why I use the initials of a hapless character in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”: Benito Hoover. Uncork some Snake River Valley red, gaze upon your splendid ranch, and consider this note meant as news analysis, not insult.

You told me Trump wasn’t perfect, “just 100 times better than Hillary,” and sent me a link to a loony website that posited “the brain might be wired differently for liberals and conservatives to explain how they look at things so differently.”

Conservative and liberal? Two one-word labels for 320 million Americans? You’re smarter than that. A lot of honest reporters risk their lives out in a complex world so that voters like you can make nuanced, informed judgments based on hard reality.

Still, you wrote, “We will never convince each other so why worry. If I could leave you with one thought it would be this: When Obama was elected we feared the very worst, and we weren’t wrong. But we didn’t try and sabotage him.”

Oh, please. Bias colors perceptions, but facts are black and white. (Double entendre intended.) Obama reversed George W. Bush’s mess, despite a Republican stone wall. Relaxed borders and trade accords buoyed the global economy. Rising employment predated Trump.

You asked, “What if even more Americans think lower taxes aren’t so bad after all and some draining of the swamp could be a good thing. The Left and the media won't buy it but it seems their credibility is going down the toilet.”

That’s the trouble. You may be right. Roseanne redux shows a broad fringe of Americans are happy to pretend there is no world beyond our borders, that a temporary burst of irrational exuberance will spare excruciating, increasing pain once reality bites.

Benito Hoover evokes a parade-loving Fascist and a president whose closed mind sank us into the Great Depression. Think back to the 1980s, when we met. That’s when Neil Postman foresaw the future in his book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

He wrote:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

“Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.”

Huxley was wrong about easy sex. Now only our president gets away with boasting about pussy-grabbing. Otherwise, he pegged it perfectly: a people freed of disturbing memory or critical thought focused on amusement and mindless consensus.

In sum, as Christopher Hitchens wrote later, “For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

The Soviet Union, an Orwellian dystopia, broke before it bent. Vladimir Putin, a Huxleyan, feigns democracy at home while undermining it in America with what Lenin called “useful idiots” in Washington and closed minds in the heartland. He hates Hillary Clinton because she understood his new Evil Empire, and she pushed back.

In the ’80s, as Neil Postman did his research, the Kochs began crippling our education, helped by Ronald Reagan’s reverse Robin Hood approach of taking from the poor to give to the rich, Today, we see the result.

America cannot survive, much less thrive, in isolation. We do not get to define how others see us. Your misguided partisans only make them scorn us or hate us. As for the Trump Bump-now-Slump, have you checked your brokerage account this week?

“Benito Hoover” says it all. The world saw Mussolini as a preening petty tyrant, deluded by narcissism. It did not end well for him. Herbert Hoover had lots to brag about as Wall Street soared after his Inauguration. That, remember, was at the beginning of 1929.

You bolster your case with two “foreign” examples:

  • “[Trump’s] tough talk on mid-east peace and recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel didn’t start a war and may be positive in bringing people to reality … What if his Jewish son-in-law actually helps bring factions together in the region?”

  • “What if our blustery President could startle "little rocket man" to want to talk? Oh, that may now be happening.”

Provoked Israeli troops gunning down Gaza rock throwers hardly portends peace. Remember, it was once David who only had stones? As a reporter inconveniently named Rosenblum, I’ve watched the unholy land fester since the 1960s. Now heavily armed militias and an infuriated populace respond as expected to Trump’s political pandering. Be very worried.

Korea? Trump has given Kim Jong-un the status he craves. Let’s bet on whether he spikes his nukes. Unless John Bolton outdoes himself for craziness, China will defuse a war it hardly wants. And that will cement its role as the new big dog.

The real problem is why friends and foes alike hold us in such contempt. They see Americans like you make excuses for a man who revels in others’ pain, lies outrageously, and bows to the swamp rats he reviled during his campaign.

As you say, I will never convince you. That’s not my purpose. This is another reminder from an old-crocodile correspondent that democracy can no longer be a spectator sport.

When we met, Mitch McConnell was just another narrow-minded senator backing Central American tyrants, defending “freedom-fighters” who trafficked drugs in CIA aircraft and caused so many people caught in the middle to seek refuge up north.

Today, smug in his encrusted place at the public trough, he rallied his party to block a perfectly balanced Supreme Court nominee. Trump sold his snake oil. Too many sat out the elections or shunned the woman you say is 100 times worse than what we’ve got.

Checks and balances is not about who writes checks from their outsized balances. The America presidency is about character and integrity. Congress answers to the people, not a party. Okay, sorry, now I’m sermonizing. But, please, check my facts.

You helped pioneer northern Idaho when its rivers and forests were pristine, when the Indians who preceded us were taken into account. Yet you champion a regime that is destroying wilderness and Native American cultures for immediate profit.

I’m down near the southern border, where Mexicans have had “Americans” attached with a hyphen for eight generations. If you think that insane Wall will stop “aliens” or stem the drug traffic that began booming in the ’80s, come down and see for yourself.

We can curb immigration by helping others live better where they’d rather be, at home. We can combat drugs by enriching our own kids with better education, accessible health care and a larger slice of good old American pie.

At one point, you said about Obama, “In fact, we prayed for him, if you can believe it.” I can. But I also know the billions on our planet worship a lot of different Gods and gods, with values that extend beyond themselves alone.

Even if you think we should be “first,” we can’t be a society that would disgust Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, or I’itoi, the Tohono O’odham’s Creator. America is not about some people getting to earn more now at the expense of everyone’s children.

Damn, I’m preaching again. I’ll leave you with Tom Russell’s apolitical little ditty, “Who’s Gonna Build Your Wall?” It is Mexican-accented but depicts a universal theme that Benito Hoover would recognize. Here are a few lines and a link:

“As I travel around this big, old world, there’s one thing that I fear,

“It’s a white man in a golf shirt, with a cellphone in his ear.”



Mort Rosenblum has reported from seven continents as Associated Press special correspondent, edited the International Herald Tribune in Paris, and written 14 books on subjects ranging from global geopolitics to chocolate. He now runs MortReport.org.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Feud With Amazon Is Really About the Washington Post's Success Print
Friday, 06 April 2018 08:37

Abramson writes: "The paper owned by Amazon's CEO, Jeff Bezos, has relentlessly investigated the president and Trump is out for revenge."

Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)
Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty)


Trump's Feud With Amazon Is Really About the Washington Post's Success

By Jill Abramson, Guardian UK

06 April 18


The paper owned by Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, has relentlessly investigated the president and Trump is out for revenge

onald Trump’s savage attacks on Jeff Bezos and Amazon mark a sharp escalation in the president’s attacks on the free press. Trump v Bezos is really a proxy war: the president’s ultimate target is the Washington Post, which Bezos purchased from the Graham family in 2013.

The Post’s return to financial health since 2013 has been good for the media, which thrives on healthy competition. Since Trump became president, the Post and the New York Times have engaged in a thrilling, old-fashioned newspaper war, with each trading off, day after day, with deeply reported stories and scoops that hold the Trump administration to account. The Post has been relentless in investigating the Trump administration’s abuse of power and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 election.

Bezos isn’t known for ideological fervor or partisanship. He gave donations to support gay marriage in his home state, the other Washington, but hasn’t had a high political profile. Since the 2016 campaign, when Trump began attacking him on Twitter, Bezos has displayed restraint.

Despite the escalating bitterness of Trump’s tweets about him, Bezos has avoided being positioned as Trump’s nemesis. To maintain its newly recaptured global credibility, the Post can’t be seen as the opposition party.

Of all of Trump’s attacks on Bezos, the most poisonous lie is that he uses the Post to lobby for Amazon. When Bezos bought the paper, he did so with personal funds, to keep the newspaper’s interests and mission completely separate from Amazon’s. The Grahams would not have found him a fit owner if they thought Bezos wanted to use the Post to wield influence.

According to the many journalists who work there, Bezos has had a light touch as owner, focusing on areas in which he can make a difference, such as improving the paper’s technology. He has entrusted the running of the paper to Marty Baron, hired by the former publisher Katharine Weymouth, whose contributions to safeguarding her inheritance have been insufficiently credited and appreciated.

If newspapers were originally foreign to Bezos, the Post’s special place in the history of American journalism has come to have great meaning for him, according to several close associates. In 2017, he purchased an antique clothes wringer, which is now displayed in a conference room at the Post’s downtown Washington DC headquarters that is dedicated to the Graham family.

The significance of the wringer is known by any student of Watergate. Furious over the Post’s coverage of Richard Nixon’s criminal cover-up, the then attorney general, John Mitchell, threatened that “Katie Graham’s gonna get caught in a big fat wringer” if the Post continued publishing its Watergate stories. For years, Katharine Graham proudly wore a charm of a wringer on a necklace as the golden symbol of her defiance.

Graham risked financial ruin by standing up to Nixon. Bezos, too, has much at risk. After a week of attacks from the president, Amazon saw its stock price drop sharply (though it later recovered somewhat). Bezos’s stratospheric net worth also took a hit.

There is real reason to fear that Trump can win his war against the press. He has significant allies, including Rupert Murdoch’s Fox empire and Sinclair Broadcasting, which controls local television stations across the country and is seeking to acquire more through a planned purchase of the Tribune Company.

Fox and Sinclair are conservative propaganda machines, eager to amplify Trump’s lies and support him at the barricades. The chorus of Sinclair newscasters spouting the same, Trump-inspired attacks on reputable news providers as “fake news” was nothing short of chilling.

A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans agree with the president’s rants about “fake news”, More than three in four among 803 American respondents, or 77%, said they believed major traditional television and newspaper media outlets report “fake news”, according to a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

It is the hour for Americans to stand up for the first amendment and to stand against the Foxes and Sinclairs. They should also stand with the Washington Post.

The president has very real legal, regulatory and spending tools at his disposal to retaliate against Bezos and Amazon for the Post’s unflinching coverage. On the radical end of the spectrum, there are antitrust laws to unfurl to break up the tech retail giant, which Trump says is wiping out Mom-and-Pop stores across America. There are regulatory tools, including demanding stricter privacy rules. There are billions in government contracts for cloud computing that could disappear.

Amazon is no angel, but Trump’s urge to punish it is for all the wrong reasons, triggered by his churlishness over the Post’s coverage of him and his administration. All of this could create a confrontation with the potential to be every bit as dramatic as Graham’s clashes with Nixon in the 70s. But as was true then, the president may end up being on the losing end of a White House war against the press.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Scott Walker Dismayed That Wisconsin Apparently Smarter Despite Cuts in Education Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 05 April 2018 14:26

Borowitz writes: "Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, said on Wednesday that he was 'dismayed and alarmed' that people in his state had somehow become smarter despite substantial cuts in education."

Governor Scott Walker. (photo: Scott Olson)
Governor Scott Walker. (photo: Scott Olson)


Scott Walker Dismayed That Wisconsin Apparently Smarter Despite Cuts in Education

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

05 April 18

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


cott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, said on Wednesday that he was “dismayed and alarmed” that people in his state had somehow become smarter despite substantial cuts in education.

“Ever since I took office, I have slashed education with the goal of making the voters of this state markedly dumber and incapable of critical thinking,” he told reporters. “Instead, what I am looking at is a doomsday scenario.”

Walker said that his cuts were based on a theory known as “trickle-up stupidity,” in which students in Wisconsin’s schools would become less informed and their ignorance would eventually infect their voting-age parents.

“Clearly, what looked like a can’t-miss plan on paper has not panned out,” he said.

Although Walker said that “it’s not time yet to press the panic button,” he warned that a so-called Smart Wave could be coming in his state.

“If Wisconsin voters continue to get smarter, that will be the end of me,” he said.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Statement on President Trump Order Sending National Guard to Mexico Border Print
Thursday, 05 April 2018 14:19

Excerpt: "Military troops don't belong at the border. Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civil society."

National Guard at the border. (photo: Getty)
National Guard at the border. (photo: Getty)


Statement on President Trump Order Sending National Guard to Mexico Border

By ACLU | Press Release

05 April 18

 

resident Trump announced that he will sign a proclamation today ordering National Guard troops to the southern border to assist with immigration enforcement.

Astrid Dominguez, director of the ACLU Border Rights Center, had the following reaction:

"President Trump is trying to create a crisis where there is none. This is another impulsive reaction to not getting his way on his border wall, and a maneuver to distract the American public from the crisis he created when he ended DACA for 800,000 young immigrants, whose lives and futures are at risk.

"Military troops don’t belong at the border. Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civil society. Communities in the border region have among the lowest crime rates in the country and there is record-low unauthorized migration.

"This is an opportunity for governors and Congress to focus on the real issues and reject Trump’s gimmicks."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Bureaucratic Nightmare of Fighting Deportation Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46742"><span class="small">Masha Gessen, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 05 April 2018 11:40

Gessen writes: "It is humanity that immigration law is intended to protect. Judges are not instructed to look kindly on military veterans or brilliant students - they are supposed to prevent the deportation of human beings to places where they are likely to face persecution or torture."

Anastasia Schimanski has lived in the U.S. since the age of eleven, and faces likely persecution if she were forced back to Russia. (photo: Matt Leifheit/The New Yorker)
Anastasia Schimanski has lived in the U.S. since the age of eleven, and faces likely persecution if she were forced back to Russia. (photo: Matt Leifheit/The New Yorker)


The Bureaucratic Nightmare of Fighting Deportation

By Masha Gessen, The New Yorker

05 April 18

 

n immigration court, as in any bureaucracy, most of the time is spent waiting. Anastasia Schimanski; her mother, Olga; Anastasia’s girlfriend, Stephanie Avery; and Anastasia’s lawyer, Holli Wargo, were waiting in the federal courthouse in Hartford, Connecticut, in a small, windowless room marked “Pro Bono Room,” although theirs was not a pro-bono arrangement.

They were waiting for a hearing on Schimanski’s deportation case. She was originally “placed in removal proceedings,” as it’s called—a process that would determine her eligibility for deportation—back in November, 2012. By that time, she had lived in this country for twenty-one years. She came here with her mother in 1991, at the age of eleven. They came for a summer vacation, but that August, hard-liners attempted a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev; Olga got scared, and they stayed in the U.S. longer. Then Olga met someone and married him, and they stayed permanently. They got green cards: Olga as the wife of an American citizen, and Schimanski as her minor child.

When Schimanski finished high school, she enlisted in the Navy. At around the same time, she began experiencing symptoms that were eventually diagnosed as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a degenerative condition that can cause chronic pain and deformities in the extremities. She never made it through basic training. Twenty years later, her Facebook page lists “honorable discharge from the Navy” as her sole professional accomplishment. Since the early discharge, she has had eighteen operations. She often uses a wheelchair, and when she is not using it, she walks with a four-pronged cane. She falls a lot.

With surgeries and with chronic pain came prescription painkillers. The story of Schimanski’s opioid addiction is a painfully common American story. Four years ago, she finally succeeded in switching to a methadone maintenance program; going without anything to dull the pain is not an option. Over the years, Schimanski has amassed a record of twenty-three arrests, including an aggravated-felony conviction, which stemmed from a forged check for forty dollars; she had swiped a blank check from Olga’s workplace. She was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison in 2004, of which she served ninety days; Olga paid her employer back.

The family had long believed the matter to have been settled and the punishment to have been served, but in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security, Schimanski’s aggravated felony fell under the provisions of Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationalities Act, which lays out the grounds for deportation, including convictions for an aggravated felony. As deportations ramped up under President Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents rounded up people with aggravated felonies, which is how Schimanski ended up in “removal proceedings” eight years after her conviction.

Schimanski did not serve in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, as one recent deportee did. She does not have children who are U.S. citizens. She has not led an illustrious or even a productive life. She does not have great promise or ambition. She lives in Guilford, Connecticut, with her mother, who works as an aide in a group home, and a service dog whose job it is to alert Olga when her daughter falls. Stephanie Avery, who works as a waitress at Denny’s, lives a half-hour’s drive away, in West Haven; they have been together for seven years and have discussed marriage and children, but Schimanski’s precarious status has made planning impossible. The only thing that entitles Schimanski to the compassion of her fellow-residents of the United States is her humanity.

It is humanity that immigration law is intended to protect. Judges are not instructed to look kindly on military veterans or brilliant students—they are supposed to prevent the deportation of human beings to places where they are likely to face persecution or torture. Schimanski’s lawyer was arguing that, as a lesbian, Schimanski would more likely than not be persecuted in Russia, probably denied medical treatment, and certainly denied access to methadone, which is illegal in Russia. Her original argument for a withholding of removal was denied in January, 2015; a subsequent appeal was dismissed in 2016.

I learned about the case when Schimanski’s family asked me to serve as an expert witness, because I have written extensively about the persecution of and systematic violence against L.G.B.T. people in Russia. In looking into the possibility of testifying, I learned things that I’d never known about immigration court. As a person born outside the United States, in order to testify in immigration court I would have to furnish my alien registration number, even though I was naturalized twenty-nine years ago. Immigration court treats naturalization as a fiction: anyone who wasn’t born in the United States is Other. In the end, for unrelated reasons, I didn’t testify; instead, I was in court as a journalist, and this was why, as Wargo was getting on the phone with another potential expert witness (he couldn’t make it), she asked me to leave the Pro Bono Room. Olga stayed in the room with her, while her daughter and Avery went to the bathroom. I was looking over my notes in the immigration-court waiting area—which, with rows of gray-upholstered plastic chairs, looks like the waiting area in any bureaucratic office—when Avery ran in.

“They are putting her in handcuffs and taking her downstairs,” she screamed. She was crying and hyperventilating.

I followed Avery as she ran back to the elevator bank where Schimanski had been taken. Three men who, I later learned, were ICE agents were getting on an elevator with Schimanski. I asked the men why they were detaining her.

“I’ve seen you on MSNBC,” one of the agents answered, by way of telling me that I wouldn’t get an answer.

Then Schimanski was gone, and the four of us remained in the large waiting area. Avery was crying, repeating over and over, “Does this mean I’ll never see her again?” Olga was speaking Russian to me, trying simultaneously to explain and to understand what had just happened. She was convinced that it was somehow Wargo’s fault. Avery agreed. “I don’t understand,” she said. “She is not telling us enough. She is not explaining something. I don’t understand.”

Wargo didn’t exactly understand it, either. She knew that Schimanski had a D.U.I. arrest that technically gave ICE cause to detain her, but the timing was surprising. She had never had a client detained minutes before that client’s hearing was scheduled to begin.

Schimanski called from two floors below. Olga put her daughter on speakerphone.

“My medication,” she kept saying. “My medication, Ma. They don’t give you medication in jail. Now I’m in custody. They are saying I’m not going to have court today.”

Olga tried to get her daughter to switch to Russian, to make their discussion more private, but Schimanski’s Russian wasn’t good enough to maintain a conversation, especially when she was upset.

“Ma, if they take me to jail, I’m going to need money,” she said. “What I’m worried about is my medication. I’m going to die without it. Answer your phone. Turn it on, so you can hear it.” As Olga got ready to hang up, Avery asked, “Will you tell her I love her?”

The hearing, scheduled for 10:30 that morning, began at 10:35.

“Where is your client?” the immigration judge Michael Straus asked, addressing Wargo.

“She got arrested about fifteen minutes ago,” Wargo answered.

“Why would you do that?” the judge, visibly irritated, asked the two attorneys representing the Department of Homeland Security. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to arrest her after the hearing?”

“There is a material change in circumstance,” John Marley, the general attorney for D.H.S. in Hartford, said.

“I don’t understand the strategy,” Straus said.

The judge sounded incensed. Marley seemed amused. Avery was still crying audibly.

Straus was the judge who denied Schimanski’s original plea for a stay of removal two years ago. Now he and Wargo quickly reviewed her filing—more articles about worsening conditions for L.G.B.T. people in Russia—and the relevant regulations, which required that Schimanski show that she would most likely face persecution if she returned to Russia. It emerged that the D.U.I. arrest was scheduled to be dismissed, because Schimanski had not actually been driving the car at the time of the arrest and had also complied with all the required classes following the arrest; what’s more, the D.U.I. would not have any bearing on her eligibility for a stay of deportation.

The judge again demanded to know why ICE found it appropriate to arrest Schimanski before her scheduled hearing.

“Obviously, for an individual who’s had a very long career with drugs and alcohol, over twenty-five arrests, to have another arrest—she is clearly a danger to the public,” Marley said.

“She doesn’t have a car here!” Straus said, clearly exasperated. “She is not a danger in the courtroom.”

Avery continued crying.

At 10:50 the judge gathered his binders and said that he would be right back.

“Are you planning on making a decision, your honor?” Wargo asked.

“Maybe,” the judge said.

Now Wargo had an impossible decision to make. She could go downstairs to ask Schimanski to waive her presence in the courtroom; otherwise, Straus could not legally render a decision. But what if Straus, who had a reputation for being tough, and who had already rejected Schimanski’s claim once, was not going to rule in her favor? In that case, Schimanski might be better off not signing the waiver. But this would mean that she would stay in detention, and Olga was claiming that her daughter would not survive without methadone. If she stayed in detention, Schimanski would be moved to Massachusetts—the nearest state with ICE facilities for women—and would then face an immigration judge in Boston. What if her chances with that judge were better? At the same time, Straus seemed angry at D.H.S. But then, even if Straus granted relief, ICE could still hold Schimanski for as long as six months if it chose to appeal the decision. Waiving Schimanski’s presence could unnecessarily risk a negative decision.

Straus returned at 11 A.M. and addressed D.H.S. “Have the background checks been completed?” he asked.

“No,” Marley said. He explained that a background check had been ordered and submitted, but it came back perfectly clean, as though Schimanski had never been arrested. Since the background check was erroneous, it was as good as missing. Without it, the judge could not render a decision. Marley shrugged. The bureaucracy had failed. A person’s fate hung in the balance, but the bureaucracy—which Hannah Arendt once described as “the rule by Nobody”—can have no shame.

The judge ordered a new background check and declared a recess until the afternoon. Wargo continued to fret over her impossible dilemma. Olga continued saying that her daughter could not survive detention. Avery continued crying.

At 1 P.M., Straus demanded to know where Schimanski was. Marley explained that she could not be brought upstairs—she was about to be transported to Massachusetts. But Wargo asked the judge to proceed. With no one to advise her, Wargo had decided to ask Schimanski to waive her presence. If Straus came back with a denial, that would mean that Schimanski would remain in detention, and that is was possible that Avery would indeed never see her again. Olga had already decided that if her daughter was deported, she, too, would go back to Russia to try to support her. Olga had a sister there, but relations between them had been strained for years, ever since the sister had found out that Schimanski was a lesbian. It was unclear how they would survive if they went back to Russia, but Olga felt certain that, without her, her daughter couldn’t survive at all.

Straus announced his decision: he was convinced that, if she returned to Russia, Schimanski would more likely than not face persecution. He was granting her application for withholding of removal.

Instead of celebrating, everyone waited again. Marley had said that the D.H.S. might appeal the decision, and this would mean that Schimanski would remain in detention. At that point, it wasn’t even clear to Olga and Stephanie if she was still in the building.

At 3:30 P.M., Olga was contemplating leaving. Just then, Schimanski appeared in the waiting room. She had been released. D.H.S. had decided not to appeal. Everyone cried again, for joy and helplessness and fury.

Olga, her daughter, and Avery drove back to Guilford, where they stayed up, giddily and sometimes angrily recounting the details of that day, until the middle of the night. It seemed, finally, the end of Schimanski’s ordeal. Technically, her withholding of removal is temporary; it does not grant her the right to legal permanent residence, and she will never be able to leave the country and return. But, generally speaking, people can live with this status their entire lives.

These days, however, the permanence of Schimanski’s temporary status is less certain. Jeff Sessions’s Justice Department is demanding ever more and faster deportations from the immigration courts. Just as immigrants are the most vulnerable part of the American population—which makes them the perfect target for the bureaucratic sadism of the Trump era—so immigration courts may prove to be the easiest courts for the Administration to subjugate. After all, these courts already treat anyone born outside this country as an interloper, and as suspect. It may prove entirely too easy to reframe them as courts that protect this country from human beings, rather than the other way around.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 Next > End >>

Page 1290 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN