Britts Out! (Katie Britt, immigration, and sex-trafficking)

(a very similar version of this was published as a guest opinion in the MSM paper for Boulder here) 

 

(That’s what I say about Ireland and the US Senate!)

As you probably know, a month ago GOP Sen. Katie Britt was under a storm of criticism in response to her rebuttal speech after the State of the Union address by President Biden. She told the story of a Mexican woman sex-trafficked when she was a young teen in Mexico- well, for the most part Britt didn’t want you to know it was in Mexico. Britt’s been less than consistent about this, but the idea was to make you think it was in this country and on Biden’s watch (when in fact it was during the George W. Bush administration).

In addition to everything else that has been said about Britt’s rebuttal, I have some more to add. Crucially, read the two paragraphs towards the bottom that are in italics, they’re very important.
 
She was talking about the surge in migration from Mexico to the US, but she also talks about sex-trafficking and Mexican drug cartel activity and she is conflating all three of them (it should be noted that the Mexican woman who was trafficked was not a victim of the cartels contrary to what Britt implied). Has sex-trafficking surged? I’ll be honest- I don’t know, but I think Britt wants you to think it has and that it's coming here with Mexican migrants.

At one point in a March 10th The Guardian article, she is quoted as saying:
 
“We have to tell those stories, and the liberal media needs to pay attention to it because there are victims all the way coming to the border, there are victims at the border, and then there are victims all throughout the country.”
 
I believe that although this is in conflict with what she was saying the rest of the time, she was trying to say in that quote that this kind of sex-trafficking is common in Mexico and Mexicans want to come here and rape your wife or daughter, etc. and only Donald Trump can stop them. She was saying that the sex-trafficking inside Mexico, deaths of migrants at the border and deaths of Americans at the hands of immigrants inside America are one unbroken chain that can only be addressed comprehensively by Trump’s approach to immigration. This is nonsense.

Tough immigration policies will not affect the Mexican drug cartels (it certainly wouldn’t have stopped what happened in Britt’s anecdote because the cartels and the the border had nothing to do with it). Separating children from parents at the border will do absolutely nothing to the cartels. I’m not sure what WILL stop the cartels because I’m not as familiar with recent Mexican history as I should be, but tough immigration policies are not going to help.

As far as “there are victims at the border,” I am not sure what she’s talking about, but there are reports that migrants waiting to cross the border often find themselves in bad situations, which probably does include all kinds of sex crimes. I am not sure how much time is spent at the border by migrants who are not asylum seekers, but as far as the asylum seekers, you must remember that Britt’s party and her hero, Trump, strongly support the “Remain in Mexico” policy where asylum seekers must wait in Mexico until a decision is made about granting them asylum. So, the GOP believes that Mexico is just one big nightmare for teenage girls trying to get to America, but they want such survivors to either wait in Mexico for months or years, or to just stay in Mexico permanently.

As far as victims in this country, yes, it occasionally happens as it might have recently with Laken Riley (I said it- satisfied, MTG?) (I said “might have” because of the presumption of innocence). Those are tragedies but you need to consider a few things:
1) From what I have read non-immigrants here are more likely than immigrants here to commit crimes (yes, that statement probably is based on ignoring the “crime” committed when they enter this country without documents- but that’s a victimless crime).
2) That percentage of the immigrant population that commits violent crime must be incredibly small- why punish everyone in that population because of a very few bad apples?
3) I cannot remember a lot about how often this happens but what about the immigrants who die at the hands of racist and violent white people who listen to the anti-immigrant rantings of people like Britt? Fueling that racism as Trump does will only increase the number of immigrants who get viciously beaten to death by angry teenage males.

In her statement that I quoted above Britt implies that liberals ignore what she's talking about. There are probably better counter-examples than this, but I’m going to go with something that I think is important and probably doesn’t get mentioned very much. The TV show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit FREQUENTLY makes it clear that NYC is a "sanctuary city" where cops don't collaborate with Immigration authorities and not only do they oppose all kinds of sex crimes in general, there was one season 19 two-part episode (Remember Me and Remember Me, Too) about a "coyote" (someone who helps undocumented immigrants get across the southern border and to their destination in the US) who repeatedly raped women he was transporting. Another episode, “911” in season seven, is about a young girl who was brought over the Mexican border by someone who then sold her to child pornographers. In season 16 there is an episode “Girls Disappeared,” about sex-trafficked teenage girls crossing that border. There might be other episodes like that.

 

(UPDATE 7/19/24 The woman Britt talks about was sex-trafficked far from the border)

Liberals and progressives believe that migrant women and girls being sexually exploited and/or assaulted is a serious problem, but they don't support Trump's extreme approach to immigration.

Legalize Everyone!! Two new poems

These are two of my poems. For more on how I "write" them, see this. The rest of my poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom of this post. There's about seven pages so click on "older posts" at the bottom of the first lyrics page.

I came up with the title for this post since it captured the spirit of the second poem and kind of captured the spirit of  both combined. A few years ago when researching some comments I wanted to make about the need for Sinn Fein to support UNIVERSAL immigration and immigrant rights (in AMERICA) instead of focusing exclusively on Irish-America, I found a column about the differences between being undocumented and Irish on one hand and being undocumented and (for example) Mexican on the other. At the beginning the columnist points out that in 2007 Hilary Clinton held up a t-shirt that said "Legalize the Irish" at a rally. I have never heard of her holding up a t-shirt saying "Legalize the Mexicans" and I doubt she ever will do that.

Anyway, here are the two poems.

“Irish Unity” based on “European Unity” by Brutal Attack, original lyrics are here.

1. It’s about provisional republicans in the 1980s and I guess some of the 1990s (I kind of have a problem with writing poems that are about Sinn Fein- to a very large degree I haven’t done that. In this case at least one line (the last of the first verse) pretty much required me to make it PARTLY about SF (and although I like to think that since the 90s SF has continued to lean towards the left, this is not about TODAY’S SF). It’s about the various members and supporters of the Provisional republican movement.
2. The last line of he 1st verse is referring to the fact that they were using armed struggle, elections, local government battles, propaganda, rioting, and to a moderate or large degree, mass struggle. Lastly they also did a fair amount of work generating support globally but for various reasons, this didn’t reach it’s potential, largely through no fault of SF’s- I write more about that in the last 2/3 of a post here. 
3. The pride referred to in the chorus is, usually, very different from white pride. And It might be a minority of nationalists in the North who would talk about Irish pride, but at least some of them do.
4. The BA is the British Army, the RUC were the police until 2001.
5. I have a theory about one aspect of resolving the conflict there. Although I would gladly support uniting Ireland ASAP instead of waiting for a voting majority there to endorse that, winning Protestants over to the republican and/or nationalist causes (uniting Ireland and/or creating equality in the North) seems very important to me. I think if more of the Protestant  community had a better understanding of what Catholics went through while under British rule in Ireland (in recent decades, for example- INNOCENT civilians being shot by police or soldiers who go unpunished, etc.) and if they knew that often republicans and nationalists were smeared by British and Unionist elements, they would be more open-minded about what Catholics say regarding the need for a United Ireland. On a related note, if the monarchy were opened up to Catholics (they recently reformed it a bit and now allow SPOUSES of Catholics to become King or Queen, but it’s still closed to actual Catholics) I think that might have a similar effect on Protestants in the North. And the British are the ones best positioned to educate the Protestants of N. Ireland and to further reform the monarchy. Lastly, I think the British will move on those two things the more pressure is put on them by the rest of the world, especially the US and Western Europe. That last line in the poem means that via the British (and to some degree directly), supporters of justice and freedom in N. Ireland can educate the Protestants and as that process advances, more and more Protestants will be more open to being educated directly by Northern Catholics. 
(UPDATE 4/22/18 I just remembered that in the 1990 movie "Hidden Agenda" it's asserted that the British produced A LOT of black propaganda (often or always attributed to republican sources) in it's war with the IRA; Although my memory is a little fuzzy, I have read a fair amount about that from better sources than a semi-fictional movie, and I am certain it happened, probably on a large scale; it's likely at least some of that was aimed at the opinions of unionists and if so, some honesty from the British about this stuff could help and demanding it would be justified) (UPDATE 12/12/18 Even if the black propaganda was aimed at British public opinion, that could have indirectly affected the thinking of many unionists in N. Ireland- I'm sure a lot of unionists had friends and relatives in Britain who expressed support for the unionist position and encouraged their friends and relatives in NI to stick with it)
**6. 73% of this version is me, 27% is the original.
7. I give this poem 5 stars out of 5.
8. Besides the line about neanderthals, there’s also the fact that Brutal Attack were British and supported the unionist and British causes in the North of Ireland.
9. UPDATE 5/25/17 I removed the word "broad" from the fourth line of the poem, I think it may have implied that this poem is about what I call the "republican family," including the IRSP, etc. 
10. UPDATE 7/3//17 The third line of the poem- that line could seem a little off if you don't know what i'm thinking- they went on the offensive at some point in the early 1970s and "now" is something like 1972-1994/97 (I'm not sure how to write it better in the context of a poem) so they'd been on the offensive for a while, but the 4th line is 1982-1994/7.

Our movement has been put on the road to revolution
We fight against wealth and for its redistribution
We started with defending our areas, now we’re on the offensive
The republican struggle is strategically comprehensive

Chorus
Irish unity,
Socialism, pride and dignity
Working-class unity,
Protestants and Catholics- one proletarian community

Our grandparents fought for our freedom you see,
But they were successful only to a moderate degree
Ireland was partitioned at the barrel of a gun
By British imperialists and the Unionist scum.

So listen Irish people, listen very carefully,
We must continue to fight against the BA and the RUC
organized we'll win, come hear our patriotic call,
And we’re anti-fascist, they’re just a bunch of neanderthals

It wont be easy it'll be a long hard task,
With the pen, the ballot, and the ski-mask
But we'll pull through, cos truth wins in the end,
And our allies will help the Protestants comprehend

**************

“No Human Being is Illegal” based on “Muslims Out” by Kill, Baby, Kill original lyrics are here.

1. This is about America and kind of specifically the Trump administration.
2. As for the 1st line of the second verse, I don’t think that’s 100% true, but so very close to it that I typed that line like that (I think the only significant exception is that a small minority of the Muslim population practice Female Genital Mutilation and that is against the law here (UPDATE 5/26/17 apparently it's not just a minority of muslims, it's also found among some animists in Africa). That line is also meant to suggest that the danger of Sharia is vastly exaggerated by many people- as horrible as it is, it is nowhere near being implemented here and some expressions of concern about it can potentially fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.
3. To abominate means to find something repugnant.
**4. 80% of this version is me, and 20% is the original.
5. I give this poem 3 stars out of five.

Refugees and immigrants, they come over here.
They were unemployed and/or living in fear.
Raising families, living and enriching America are their only goals.
They deserve our standard of living, but nativism is out of control.

chorus
Bigots out! Bigots out!
Hear the people scream, hear the people shout.
Republicans out! Republicans out!
We’ll defeat you- there won’t be any doubt

Their religions they practice in line with our laws
And they’re guaranteed freedom of, in the first amendment clause
Mosques are opening in many of our cities and towns
ignorant right-wing scum oppose them on bigoted grounds

They aren’t responsible for job losses, that’s the bourgeoisie
And they aren’t voting illegally, they leave that to the GOP
When I think of what Trump’s done so far it makes me abominate
He’s turning America into a fascist state!

Star Trek: The Next Generation Reviews X

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“In Theory” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, I give it one star out of five.

“Redemption” parts 1 and 2 See this and this for a plot summary.

In this two-parter we hear and see more about how A: Klingon women are second-class citizens and B: Romulan women seem to be full partners with the men in government and the military.

When Data submits himself for discipline because he disobeyed Picard’s orders, Picard explains that “Starfleet doesn’t want officers who blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.” He also says “the claim ‘I was only following orders’ has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history.”

Among other things that would be a reference to Germany in World War II. I’ve heard that in the decades since the war the German military does something that more or less gives members of the military guidance on when to disobey an order, sort of encouraging them to disobey under certain circumstances.

I give it three stars out of five.

“Darmok” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

“Ensign Ro” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is about the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, “terrorism” and Starfleet’s Prime Directive. for my thoughts on ST’s idea of “terrorism” see this, towards the end of the review of “Defiant.”

The episode appeared to be an effort to raise the issue of the Palestinians, as elements of the Bajoran story are also found in the Palestinian story. I’m almost certain that on Deep Space Nine there was no talk about Bajoran refugees while Cardassia occupied Bajor, and yet in this episode it’s explained that the Bajorans were expelled from Bajor by the Cardassians.

There are three items about Bajoran culture.

1. Bajorans identify themselves by first saying their last name and then saying their first. Ro says that many Bajorans have stopped correcting people about that because they want to assimilate.

2. Towards the beginning, Riker tells Ro to take off her earring, an item of some significance for Bajorans. At the end, it’s implied that Picard will let her wear the earring.

3. Picard says that ancient Bajorans had an advanced culture when humans were not yet standing erect.


Then there’s the Prime Directive. It’s mentioned as why the Federation did nothing to support the Bajoran resistance to the Cardassians. A Bajoran leader criticizes the Federation for that. In general I’ve got kind of mixed feelings about the PD and generally support Starfleet commanding officers when they bend or break it. It seems like in general it’s a very good thing. But the Cardassian occupation of Bajor is one situation where the Federation should have intervened, at least by giving aid to the Bajorans (I’m open-minded about the idea of Starfleet pushing the Cardassians out themselves (one of my favorite books is about Cuban forces invading S. Africa to put an end to Apartheid (I wouldn’t be surprised if, if it had happened in reality, the ANC would have objected for various reasons, but it’s still overall a good story (it’s called “Vortex” by Larry Bond)))). It was not an internal matter for Cardassia, it was an inter-stellar issue. I mean Cardassia was only able to annex Bajor through massive force (and to one degree or another expelling the Bajorans). That annexation shouldn’t be recognized as legitimate. At one point Picard says of the resistance- “arming these people is a violation of everything the Federation stands for.” Ro says that she agrees, but then explains about how her father was tortured to death while she was forced to watch. She seems fairly sympathetic to the resistance. Picard is wrong about Starfleet arming the Resistance (not long after making that statement he becomes critical of an Admiral for his sympathetic attitude towards the Cardassians).

Lastly, although it was revealed that the Bajoran resistance had not carried out the attack on the Federation settlement, I would say that trying to get attention for your cause by attacking a 3rd party is a bad idea- if the resistance had the capability, they could have found Cardassian targets in Federation territory and attacked them. The IRA attacked British targets in other European countries (Germany and the Netherlands). On one hand it seems like it had little effect on what people in those countries thought about the North; on the other (and this was probably their main reason for doing it) it does make it easier to convince people that the IRA’s campaign was largely aimed at the British security forces and specifically the British Army.

I give this episode four stars out of five.

“Silicon Avatar” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

Star Trek: Voyager Reviews O

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Before and After” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode, but a very good one. I give it four stars out of five.

“Real Life” See this for a plot summary.

A very emotionally powerful epsiode, but non-political. I give it three stars out of five.

“Distant Origin” See this for a plot summary.

There are basically two political themes in this episode.

First are the similarities between what happens in the episode and the history of resistance to scientific concepts such as the Earth revolving around the Sun, evolution, etc.

Second are the similarities with anti-immigrant politics and more broadly white supremacy. My thoughts about immigrants are here, while discussing the episode “Sanctuary.”

“Displaced” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Reviews H

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I’m not very familiar with The Original Series and there might be some small amount of material there that would affect what I say about Star Trek (i.e. how often religion is mentioned)

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“Second Sight” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode. And unfortunately, not a very good one. I give it one star out of five.

“Sanctuary” See this for a plot summary.

The alien race from the Gamma Quadrant, the Skreeans are a female dominated-society. At one point, the main alien character says that “men are far too emotional to be leaders. They’re constantly fighting among themselves- it’s their favorite thing to do.” When she says that all their leaders are women, Bashir asks her “ALL of them?” and Dax says “you heard her, Julian.” Then when it seems like O’Brien is offended, the Skreean woman says “please do not misunderstand- we love our men- REALLY.” All of which adds up to a fairly good statement on how women have been excluded from power and how men have spoken of that.

The other main issue that this episode raises is that of refugees and kind of immigrants/settlers. Quark and Nog don’t react well to the presence of large numbers of Skreean refugees, because they act odd (they’re from a very different culture) and don’t have any money and Quark thinks that they’re affecting his business negatively.

The Skreeans also run into problems when they come to believe that their mythical homeland is actually the planet of Bajor. The Bajorans seem to be concerned about the welfare of the Skreeans who used to be oppressed and are now free but homeless. However, Bajor says no, because their planet is in horrible shape after the Cardassian occupation and they feel that they can’t handle what might be a burden if, for example, the Skreean attempts at farming on Bajor don’t work out.

At the end, when it’s settled that the Skreeans will not be going to Bajor, their leader says to Kira, “Maybe we could have helped you, maybe we could have helped each other. The Skreeans are farmers, kira. You have a famine on your planet. Perhaps we could have made that peninsula bloom again. We’ll never know, will we? Fifty years of Cardassian rule have made you all frightened and suspicious. I feel sorry for you. You were right. Bajor is not Kentanna.” (Kentanna is the name for their mythical home world).

First, in reference to refugees I would say that these are people who have to go somewhere, they’re likely to die in their home countries. People in those situations should be welcomed. When it comes to the United States, often the government or corporations have had a hand in the conditions that force people to leave their countries, so people here should be even more welcoming of refugees. (I don't refer to immigrants as "economic refugees" (I think there has to be some kind of natural disaster and/or persecution to use the word "refugee") but I feel at least roughly the same way (or exactly the same way) about immigrants as I feel about refugees)

I’ve described part of my attitude on immigrants in this post. With that in mind, and the humanitarian arguments, and the fact that they usually have to pay their taxes, immigrants should have access to public services.

Going back to the episode and the Bajoran rejection of the Skreean and their leader’s response, I’d say that although they were wrong to reject the Skreean, they were not motivated by some kind of bigotry or xenophobia (well, some minority of those opposed to Skreean settlement might have believed in “Bajor for Bajorans”). Instead, they seemed to have an inaccurate sense of the pros and cons of having the Skreean settle on their planet., although it’s close. The area sort of available for the Skreean was considered un-farmable, although the Skreean leader felt that as a farming people they could make it work. Bajor also felt like it didn’t have the resources if the Skreean ended up starving and needed help.

Although it’s not exactly the same, this does remind me of N. Ireland and Ireland as a whole, both of which have seen a lot of refugees and asylum seekers and immigrants and migrant workers. In the Republic, such people seem to be sort of welcomed on average- I think there’s less hostility to them than you would find in America, although probably not much less. Same thing with the nationalist community in the North. And the nationalist community are dealing with a continuing occupation, although it has been significantly transformed through the Good Friday Agreement and the UK has a fairly good welfare state that nationalists benefit from. But they still face high levels of unemployment and the services that the refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, and migrant workers benefit from are supported by the taxes of nationalists, and yet, unlike many of the unionists, most nationalists don’t express hostility to those foreigners in the North.

This positive attitude is at least partly because of what Irish people in Ireland know about how Irish emigrants were treated in at least some of the countries they went to, including America. They weren’t treated well, and most Irish people feel strongly about not treating these groups of foreigners that way.

Going back to the episode, it’s good, I give it two stars out of five.


“Rivals” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode.

One bit of politics is the news that some government requires people who want to mine asteroids to do a study on the effects of such mining on inter-system navigation. Although it sounds a bit different, it reminds me of environmental regulations. It’s presented fairly positively, especially when seen in connection with other environmentalist statements by ST.

Another part of the story is that although Bashir and O’Brien are still something like 10-20 episodes from becoming friends, the tension between them is highlighted and they spend a lot of time together, which sort of lays the basis for them to become friends later.

I give it two stars out of five.

“The Alternate” See this for a plot summary.

A very non-political episode, but a good one, I give it two stars out of five.