Category Archives: Immigration and Refugees

The Language of Pestilence

 

By now people around the world have realized the dangers of dehumanization.  The Republicans in the American election led by Donald Trump are using dehumanizing language to rile up their own supporters against immigrants, woke adults and children, and the political opposition.

I remember when I first heard about dehumanizing language during the genocide in in Rwanda in 1994.  At the time Hutus were a majority in Rwanda even though the Tutsi minority dominated the country for many years thanks to former European colonizers who preferred the Tutsi as their allies when Europeans imposed their will on the country. Naturally, this was resented by the majority Hutus for many years, but they did little about it until the 1990s.

In 1959, the Hutus overthrew the Tutsi monarchy and tens of thousands of Tutsis fled to neighbouring countries such as Uganda. The Tutsi in exile always yearned to come back to power in Rwanda which they thought of as “their country”.  You might say they wanted to make Rwanda great again. A group of Tutsi exiles formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and their purpose was to restore the Tutsi minority to power. This group invaded Rwanda in 1990.

Then on April 6, 1994 an aircraft carrying the President of Rwanda and the president of the neighbouring country of Burundi was shot down. Both presidents were Hutus. This was the spark that turned dehumanzing language into action. Violent action.

As a result, the Hutus of Rwanda used this as an excuse to slaughter the Tutsi and it turned genocidal later that year, in a 100 day reign of terror in which about 800,000 Tutsi were murdered.  As the BBC reported,

“Neighbours killed neighbours and some husbands even killed their Tutsi wives, saying they would be killed if they refused. At the time, ID cards had people’s ethnic group on them, so militias set up roadblocks where Tutsis were slaughtered, often with machetes which most Rwandans kept around the house. Thousands of Tutsi women were taken away and kept as sex slaves.”

 

Even though Tutsi and Hutus had lived together in Rwanda  as neighbours for decades, the slaughter was incredibly vicious. Why was that? The  BBC tried to answer the question, ‘Why was it so vicious’? This is what they said,

“Rwanda has always been a tightly controlled society, organised like a pyramid from each district up to the top of government. The then-governing party, MRND, had a youth wing called the Interahamwe, which was turned into a militia to carry out the slaughter.

Weapons and hit-lists were handed out to local groups, who knew exactly where to find their targets.

The Hutu extremists set up a radio station, RTLM, and newspapers which circulated hate propaganda, urging people to “weed out the cockroaches” meaning kill the Tutsis. The names of prominent people to be killed were read out on radio.

Even priests and nuns have been convicted of killing people, including some who sought shelter in churches.”

 

Such language has been used by Donald Trump during the current presidential election campaign. He has referred to immigration and his political foes as “vermin.” This is the language of dehumanization. And it is incredibly dangerous, as Rwanda demonstrated. No one should assume it is not significant.

 

Hutus were convinced by their own propaganda that the Tutsi were not human. They were cockroaches! And everyone knows cockroaches can be killed at any time with absolute impunity.

The lesson here is that words are important. With language that dehumanizes people into vermin or insects, ordinary people can turn into savage murderers. Dehumanization is the key. If you think your foes are people like you, it is difficult to slaughter them, but not if they are insects or vermin.

This is precisely what Trump has been doing with his rhetoric. He has called them vermin or enemies of the people. He has said he will use the American military to do the job. Hitler did the same thing and we know the result.

This is ugly stuff, but I would submit can lead to worse—namely hate crimes or even worse. This happened in Germany, Rwanda, and other places. Such language can create a slippery slope to atrocities. No country is immune to the problems. Not even the United States.

 

Dehumanization: the language of Hate

 

Anne Applebaum understands well the language of dehumanization. Extremists around the world have used it because they know it works. It allows ordinary people to become vicious killers. Even, in some circumstances genocidal killers.

This is how Applebaum described such language:

“This kind of language was not limited to Europe. Mao Zedong also described his political opponents as “poisonous weeds.” Pol Pot spoke of “cleansing” hundreds of thousands of his compatriots so that Cambodia would be “purified.

In each of these very different societies, the purpose of this kind of rhetoric was the same. If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable.

It is profoundly disappointing to see such dehumanizing language used by the former American President Donald Trump. It is even more disappointing to see such language electrify a large part of the American public. Until recently such language was not common in American politics, but ever since the arrival of Donald Trump on the scene it has become common.

Applebaum pointed out how George Wallace, whom she called a “notorious racists,” did not use such incendiary language when he advocated for “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” He never spoke about blacks as vermin.  He did not say they “poisoned the blood of the nation.” No that is the language of Donald Trump.

Similarly, Franklin D. Roosevelt who sadly ordered the corralling of Japanese Americans into internment camps and he called them “enemy aliens” but never parasites or vermin.  All of this changed with Donald Trump. As Applebaum said,

“In the 2024 campaign, that line has been crossed. Trump blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants—the latter including his wife, his late ex-wife, the in-laws of his running mate, and many others. He has said of immigrants, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country” and “They’re destroying the blood of our country.” He has claimed that many have “bad genes.” He has also been more explicit: “They’re not humans; they’re animals”; they are “cold-blooded killers.” He refers more broadly to his opponents—American citizens, some of whom are elected officials—as “the enemy from within … sick people, radical-left lunatics.” Not only do they have no rights; they should be “handled by,” he has said, “if necessary, National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

 

According to Applebaum the use of such dehumanizing language by the former president is no accident:

“In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he. Is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes. “I haven’t read Mein Kampf,” he declared, unprovoked, during one rally—an admission that he knows what Hitler’s manifesto contains, whether or not he has actually read it. “If you don’t use certain rhetoric,” he told an interviewer, “if you don’t use certain words, and maybe they’re not very nice words, nothing will happen.

 And if you do use such words too much happens!

 Dehumanizing language is the language of hate. Its use by political leaders is sickening. Those who use it  clearly belong in the “basket of deplorables.”

Immigration is Key

 

Rush Limbaugh said there was one main reason Trump was leading over all other Republican presidential candidates. That issue was immigration. He was probably right. Republicans were deeply unhappy with prior Republicans like George W. Bush and then Jeb Bush who promised action and failed to deliver. They wanted action. Their resentment at immigrants, whether rational or not, was driving them to Trump. They wanted radical measures like a ban on Muslims or a ‘big beautiful wall.’ They did not want mild mannered Republican talk. They wanted action and in Trump they thought (wrongly as it turned out of course) that Trump would deliver action.

The broadcasters of right-wing radio understood this, even if the Republican establishment did not. Steve Bannon also understood this. He kept driving Trump on immigration and in the 2016 election Trump won a surprising (to many) victory.  I think immigration was the key to that win. Just like it was key to Joe Biden’s unpopularity in 2024. A lot of Americans expect their president to take firm and decisive action to control things on the border. They believe Joe Biden made a big mistake when he cut back most of Biden’s executive orders to hold back illegal immigration, or at least what they perceived to be illegal immigration. They believed this opened the floodgates to illegal immigration shortly after he took office and then did little to change things until just before the election in 2024. Kamala Harris was appointed Biden’s immigration Czar and many believed she did nothing to make things better while she was Vice-President and hold that against her.

Right or wrongly—wrongly in my view—many Americans believe Democrats have “opened the borders” and they don’t like it.  So on we will know what the American voters in 2014 think about this. Will it be enough to  crush Harris’ chances for election? Time will tell.

 

 

Immigration: Appealing to resentment

 

Trump knew what he was saying. Over years he had honed his message to get appeal from sources Trump understood. The people who felt resentment. This was actually a new base for the Republican party.

 

One of his advisors was a student of right-wing radio. That advisor listened to a lot of right-wing talk radio. His name was Sam Nunberg. He had studied right wing talk radio. He had heard Mark Levine many times. Nunberg spent thousands of hours listening to right-wing talk radio and made copious notes. He tracked what was being said. He tracked the battle lines between the parties and within the parties.

As Nunberg said,

“So, we have people escaping failed cultures, escaping failed economic systems, and escaping failed governments, coming into this country and bringing all three of those with them. And our country encourages them. Unbridled wave after wave of immigration legal and illegal. It’s taking the country down.”

 

Of course, immigrants are one of the universal scapegoats of authoritarianism or fascism.  There is no more common or reliable object of resentment than the immigrant—the classic other. And they can be blamed for nearly every ill. All  authoritarians and fascists hate immigrants and want them to go away. The sooner the better.

 

Nunberg spent thousands of hours analyzing American conservative talk radio and analyzing them, and his reports went straight to Donald Trump.

Nunberg told Trump he was there to help him market himself.

 

Nunberg said that immigration had made Trump a martyr to the anti-immigration cause. Nunberg had been listening to guys like Glenn Beck. Beck said, long before Trump, “You want to solve the problem of immigration? You know it and I know it. You put up a giant fence. You stop the people who are coming in here because they are criminals, or they want to do us harm.” That became an integral part of Donald Trump’s playbook. That is what he said at his first speech where he announced he was running for the presidency in 2016 at Trump tower on the escalator.  That was what Steve Bannon loved about Trump. That speech energized Bannon; it energized the nation. American was all twisted about immigration. And Trump had a simple solution that everyone could understand. Building a big beautiful fence that will keep those immigrants out. And it all came from Glenn Beck.

Here is what Trump said at a rally in Iowa 2015 long before he declared he was running: “We have to build a fence. And it’s gotta be a beauty. Who can build better than Trump? I build. That’s what I do.”

Anti-immigration is probably the most important plank in Donald Trump’s platform. That is what he was all about. Of the Americans I know who support Trump it is a very important issue. And as Nunberg promised, the crowd loved it. And Trump loved nothing more than the roar of the crowd. He constantly dived in on this winning message.

Nunberg encouraged him to build a wall and to tell the people Mexico would pay for it.  That was better than a fence. And that is what Trump did. 4 months later he said,

I will build a great wall, and no one builds better than Trump. Believe me. And I will build them very expensively. I will build a great, great wall on our Mexican border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.

And of course, as we all know, he repeated this message over and over again. And also, of course, his supporters at every rally chanted, “Build that wall. Build that wall.” And they chanted it over and over again. That together with “Lock her up.” Messages the crowds, fueled by resentment and fear, loved ecstatically.

Most of us have forgotten by now, but this was way beyond the Republican national policy. It became Republican policy but only after Trump secured the 2016 Republican nomination for the presidency. Most of the Republicans supported amnesty or at least a path toward citizenship. No one else advocated for a wall and as a result Donald Trump “stole” the Republican nomination. This simple solution demonstrated to Republicans who among the presidential campaigners had the harshest, heaviest platform against immigration and for law and order. Those were the issues the Republican voters were enthralled with. Support for Trump grew quickly and enormously.

And the right wing flourished under Trump. But America not so much.

 

Whacky Can be Dangerous

 

A lot of people—me included—have been giggling about the whacky claims made by Donald Trump against immigrants. Why do conservatives believ such crazy stuff?

 

The claims were whacky. They deserved our ridicule. But they can also be dangerous.

As political commentator Ana Navarro said, passionately, on CNN,

 

“This thing that Donald Trump said about immigrants eating cats and dogs came out of left field and you thought he was completely absolutely insane. If Joe Biden had said the same thing he would have been pulled off the stage and sent immediately to a loony bin, but because Donald Trump gets away with being Donald Trump, and saying crazy things. What’s happening with Donald Trump, as Kamala Harris said, he always goes to an old tired playbook. He always tries to go against immigrants. He tries to cause fear. He tries to build that so folks vote out of fear. Last week it was about Venezuelan gangs taking over Aurora Colorado. The official of that city said that story was false. This week it is a completely made-up story about somebody eating a cat and it turning into a Haitian immigrant. It may be funny to some people. A lot of people have made funny memes. But it’s also incredibly racist and incredibly dangerous. Because I remember when a whack job triggered by things that were said against Latinos, took a gun and hunted down Latinos in an El Paso Walmart. And I remember when a whack job triggered by conspiracy theories  went to the Comet Pizza Parlour in Washington D.C. and sex ring that the Clinton’s were supposedly running there showed up there with a gun. So, its crazy. It may be funny. It may lead to a lot of memes but it’s also racist and dangerous and it is shameful that it continues to be amplified by people like Donald Trump his followers and his vice-presidential candidate.”

 

Once again Donald Trump is an instrument of ignorance and hatred. This is a deadly and combustible mixture that we must expunge from our societies. People, like me, ask where all the hatred and violence in America come from. Some of us blame guns. Others blame a lack of religion or a lack of morality. Some of us blame the other side. There is plenty of blame that can we spread around like shit from a honey wagon, but without a doubt, political leaders like Donald Trump and his cohorts, deserve a significant portion of the blame. Their actions against vulnerable immigrants are despicable and disgraceful. They really are not funny. They are dangerous.

 

Lies have Consequences

 

There are rational claims made against allowing the current immigration system in the US to continue.  Not all objections are racist or bigoted.  For example, as an immigration lawyer said the day after the election on CNN,  in some small towns in America,  they are overwhelmed by thousands of immigrants who have been flown in to make “asylum” claims that amount really to desires to pursue the American dream. These people are not real asylum seekers at all and they are jumping the queue  when there are already millions of legitimate claims for asylum in America that should have their case heard before these.

 

This could have been debated in the presidential debate. Instead, Trump claimed immigrants are eating cats and dogs without evidence to back up his claims. He does this to rile up his base.  Fox News does the same thing. Trump does not care about evidence, or even truth. Neither does Fox News. Trump just wants to make his anti-immigrant statements as pumped up as possible. He wants to throw raw meat to his base. He does not want a rational debate. Rational debate is being obfuscated by Trump’s electioneering and “firehose of lies.’

As Laura Coates said on CNN, “such false claims lead to fear mongering and ‘otherism’ and someone purportedly eating pets.” Such lies trigger hate and make rational debate and discussion impossible. That is exactly what Trump wants to do.  The last thing he wants is to have a rational debate since he knows in a rational debate his arguments crumble like stale cookies on a hot September night.

Such lying can have serious consequences. As Chuck Rocha a political commentator said on CNN the day after the presidential debate, “This is dangerous by the way when you say this in front of 68 million people on TV, for such lies can trigger crazy people to do what they did in El Paso, and take a gun to a Walmart.”

We must demand more from our political candidates. We must not let them get away with such nonsense.

 

 

Keep out the Hate

 

The problem with all the animus at borders around the world is that it interferes with good thinking. Hate rarely improves thinking. And that is a problem in Canada as it is in the United States.

The economist Paul Krugman said one of the problems was a persistent fallacy that has gripped politicians and their followers. He called it the “lump of labor fallacy.” He called that a zombie idea by which he meant an idea that refuses to die—like a zombie—but instead meanders (oops I mean wanders) along eating people’s brains. It prevents them from being smart. It prevents critical thinking.

According to Krugman

“This is the view that there is a fixed amount of work to be done and that if someone or something — some group of workers or some kind of machine — is doing some of that work, that means fewer jobs for everyone else.”

 That is not how the economy actually works, but it underlies Trump’s false economic view of immigration.  And it is a surprisingly resilient idea.  For example, the brilliant writer Kurt Vonnegut also subscribed to the view. He wrote a book called Player Piano in which he saw a future where there would be so much automation that it would lead to massive unemployment. If the machines could do everything there would be no need for workers anymore. As we know, this did not happen. As Krugman said, “But the crude argument that technological progress causes mass unemployment because workers are no longer needed is just wrong.”

 The problem is that there is always a large group of people who could be called, as Krugman did, the “lumpencommentariat.”  These people believe—wrongly—that there is always a limited amount of work to be done so it is unwise to use technology to increase the productivity of immigrants, because they will just take away jobs from Americans in the US or Canadians in Canada.

 In France in the 1970s their political leaders also believed in the same idea. When Mitterand came to power in France he feared a steep rise in unemployment and to counter that he thought it would be wise to reduce France’s retirement age from 65 to 60.  I admit I once thought it was economically wise as well. French politicians believed this would encourage more people  in the work force to free up jobs for young people. Unfortunately, for France it did not work that way.  As Krugman said, “Mitterand’s successors have spent decades trying to undo the damage.”

Now being a retired guy, who I often feel did not retire early enough, I admit early retirement also has a lot of good things going for it. It’s complicated.

But the ones who really screwed things up were Donald Trump and his immigration “architect,” Stephen Miller. Miller told everyone that one of the things he and Trump wanted to do was “turn off the faucet of new immigrant labor.” Not just illegal immigration either! All immigration even the immigration America desperately needed. Trump and Miller were hostile to almost all immigration.

 As Krugman pointed out,

 “Remarkably, Trump issued an executive order meant to deny visas to highly skilled foreigners, many working in the tech sector. Miller and his boss apparently believed that this would mean more plum jobs for Americans, when what it would actually do was undermine American competitiveness in advanced technology.”

 

In other words, Trump and Miller turned back a lot of people that could really have helped the American economy! And they did that out of animus. Hate interfered with their thinking.

The fact is that when incomes rise people find things on which to spend their money. That creates new jobs to replace those displaced by technology or newcomers.  Now some jobs are lost in such circumstances and we must be alert to help those people out. But we must do that smartly, not just by increasing tariffs or keeping valuable people out of the country.

As Krugman explained,

“Machines do, in fact, perform many tasks that used to require people; output per worker is more than four times what it was when Vonnegut wrote, so we could produce 1952’s level of output with only a quarter as many workers. In fact, however, employment has tripled.”

 

Keep out the hate; keep in clear thinking and we’ll all be better for it.

The Lump of Labor Fallacy

 

Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at an Ivy league university, the winner of a Nobel Prize in economics, and a columnist for the New York Times where he tries his best to explain economics to ignorant people like me. Sometimes he tries to explain the economics of immigration. He has written a number of articles on that subject for the New York Times.

He explained in one of those columns that there was a common fallacy among people who commented on immigration. In his colorful way he put it this way:

What did Kurt Vonnegut, the novelist, and François Mitterand, the socialist president of France from 1981 to 1995, have in common with Donald Trump? Both, at some point, believed in what economists call the lump of labor fallacy. This is the view that there is a fixed amount of work to be done and that if someone or something — some group of workers or some kind of machine — is doing some of that work, that means fewer jobs for everyone else.”

 

Donald Trump is a regular contributor to this fallacy. For example, he uses it again to explain why he believes in increasing tariffs at the border. Sometimes, tariffs are warranted, but Trump usually advocates them when they will do the most harm!  He makes the same mistakes when it comes to immigration—calling for restraints on immigration when the US really needs immigrants! Then he gins up his base to  hate the immigrants.

 We all know Trump is hostile to immigration but many of us don’t understand the false economic basis for that position. It is important for us to understand this so we don’t follow Trump’s hatred. Trump’s fallacy is followed by many people who are opposed to legal immigration and therefore it is particularly pernicious. It gives a false economic polish to animus that is very unhelpful in discussing an issue that is permeated with bias.

 

Paul Krugman has a colorful name for this economic mistake: “the lump of labor fallacy.” He also refers to it as a zombie idea. By that he means an idea that has long been discredited but keeps on influencing people anyway “eating people’s brains” along the way. These are ideas we really must get rid of.

 

Another example Krugman frequently lambasts is the trickle-down theory of economics which says giving tax breaks to rich people is better for non-rich people than giving them actual cash. That idea too has long been discredited but clings to life among those people who most benefit from it—i.e. rich people.

Funny how that works. Not.

Such fallacious ideas make it much more difficult to solve problems that are already difficult–problems like immigration.

Side Benefits of More Immigration

 

There is another huge economic benefit to immigration that is often forgotten by my American friends, as Paul Krugman pointed out:

 

immigration appears to have been a big plus for U.S. economic growth, among other things expanding our productive capacity in a way that reduced the inflationary impact of Biden’s spending programs.”

 

In other words, if it were not for immigration inflation in the US would probably have been worse!

There is another added bonus caused by immigration: If immigration is not squelched by a new Trump administration or something similar, or deportation is not radically increased, those immigrants will help pay for Social Security and Medicare in the US.  The independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office .B.O expects that 91% of new adult immigrants between 2022 and 2034 will be under 55 compared with 62% for the overall population.  Those are people that pay into those social programs. The rest are more like what Hitler called useless eaters. People like me. Seriously, that means there will be a lot of additional workers contributing to these programs without drawing from them for many years.

Paul Krugman had an interesting conclusion about all of this:

 “The bottom line is that while America’s immigration system is dysfunctional and really needs more resources — resources it would be getting if Republicans, pushed by Trump, hadn’t turned their backs on a bill they helped devise — the recent surge in immigration has actually been good for the economy so far, and gives us reason to be more optimistic about the future.”

 

I think my American friends should take a closer look at the economics of immigration.

 

 

Economic Reality at the Border

 

The American economy in the post-pandemic has been amazingly strong to the surprise of many—particularly the American right and their supporters. Of course, it doesn’t help that the Republicans have a strong interest in persuading the American public how bad the American economy is working. It is in their interest to deny that the economy is doing well, just as it is in the interest of the Democrats to say the economy is doing swimmingly. Added to that, the Republicans are interested in proving the weak economy is very much the fault of immigrants. In fact, they blame nearly everything on immigrants, their favourite scapegoat.

So where does the truth lie? Let’s take a look.

According to Paul Krugman the Nobel prize-wining economics professor the American economy is doing surprisingly well and not only that, but the cause of the buoyancy is also surprising. Immigrants are driving the economic boom.  According to him, “immigration is helping the U.S. economy — indeed, that it may be a major reason for our surprising economic success.”

 

Krugman pointed out how during Covid many people were deeply concerned that millions of American workers would lose their jobs and as a result many of those would lose their skills. Many of those might permanently lose skills. Investment and new business did in fact drop, but economists at the American Congressional Budget Office made projections just before Covid struck and then later realized some fascinating things. First the fears many Americans had that because of Covid millions of workers would be laid off and would leave the work force for good. That did not happen.

As Krugman explained

“If we compare the current state of the U.S. economy with Congressional Budget Office projections made just before the pandemic, we find that real G.D.P has risen by about a percentage point more than expected, while employment exceeds its projected level by 2.9 million workers.

How did we do that? American workers and businesses turned out to be more resilient and adaptable than they were given credit for. Also, our policymakers didn’t make the mistakes that followed the 2008 financial crisis, when an underpowered fiscal stimulus was followed by a premature turn to austerity that delayed a full recovery for many years. Instead, the Biden administration went big on spending, probably contributing to a temporary burst of inflation but also helping to ensure rapid recovery — and at this point the inflation has largely faded away while the recovery remains.

 

Instead of driving down the American economy as Trumpsters feared, immigration actually increased the economic potential of the economy. As Paul Krugman said in one of his series of New York Times articles on the subject,

“The budget office recently upgraded its medium-term economic projections, largely because it believes that increased immigration will add to the work force. It estimates that the immigration surge will add about 2 percent to real G.D.P. by 2034.”

 

As a result Krugman concluded, “there is no good evidence that immigrants are taking away jobs from workers born in America.

 

Here is another unjustified common concern: Immigration will put downward pressure on wages because relatively uneducated immigrants will compete with better educate native born Americans. Krugman actually said he once believed that too. So did I. But unlike Krugman I am not a Nobel Prize winning economist.

Krugman says studies have shown that immigration has very little effect on the wages of native-born workers even when they have similar education levels. He says this is because the immigrants often complement the native born workers because they bring different skills to their occupations. They work together well! As Krugman said,

“Have wages for lower-wage workers declined? On the contrary, what we’ve seen recently is a surprising move toward wage equality, with big gains at the bottom.”

 

I was constantly told by friends in the US that immigration was wrecking the economy because the immigrants were taking advantage of the system. I t looks like that was not true.