By Victor Davis Hanson
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.)
believes that American detention centers that house illegal aliens — over 1
million illegal arrivals during the last six months alone — are similar to
“concentration camps.” A storm of criticism met her historically fallacious
comparisons. Ocasio-Cortez doubled down on her Hitlerian reference by
pedantically claiming that she was referencing “concentration” rather than
“death” camps, and thus despite sloganeering “Never Again,” with a wink and
nod, she was supposedly not suggesting that Auschwitz was quite comparable to
America’s border facilities.
She then doubled down again by visiting the border. On
the basis of no evidence, she was soon claiming that detained illegal aliens
were drinking out of toilets, as well as alleging that immigration officers met
her social-welfare activism with rudeness and sexual innuendo.
Where to start with her abject historical ignorance?
One, America’s detention centers bear no resemblance to
concentration camps of the past. Illegal aliens know that there is some chance
that, after they enter the U.S. illegally, they may be apprehended and
detained. If they really believed the conditions of their detention resembled
“concentration camps,” which historically are scenes of mass death, they would
never have come.
Millions of Russians by summer 1942 were not voluntarily
flooding across German lines on the expectation that they’d survive, much less
thrive, in Nazi “concentration camps.” The German public did not pressure the
Nazi hierarchy to allow lawyers and counselors into Soviet POW camps. Boer
children did not migrate to British territory on the rationale that their
detention would be without hazard.
Certainly, undocumented immigrants — receiving, for
example, “free” transgendered counseling and hormonal treatment while in
American custody — do not resemble the inmates of “concentration camps.”
American immigration authorities are trying to facilitate brief detentions and
expedite both deportations and refugee hearings to curb the number of
detainees. In exact opposite fashion, the wardens of concentration camps
historically have wanted to lock up as many people as possible — not release
them.
Release from concentration camps was often facilitated
only through death by starvation or disease. If Ocasio-Cortez can cite a
historical example of concentration-camp inmates having access to legal
counsel, modern medicine, and communications, as well as nutritious food and
shelter, she might at least offer some parallels rather than her characteristic
half-educated tweets.
If for historical comparison she wishes to return to the
wrong-headed wartime detention of Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens
residing in the United States, then she should at least focus her ire on the
architects of that stupid policy: the yellow journalism and hysteria of the
liberal McClatchy papers of California, the careerism of then California
attorney general Earl Warren, and the patronizing racism of Franklin Roosevelt
— in other words the progressive trifecta that ensured the detentions. (And
while we are on the topic of progressive Supreme Court justices, AOC might wish
to probe Justice Ruth Ginsburg about her past commentary on the oppressed and
abortion — e.g., “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there
was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that
we don’t want to have too many of.”)
Two, the distinction between concentration and death
camps is one without a difference, or at least a distinction of intent rather
than of actuality. The term “concentration camp” grew out of British detention
centers during the Boer War, in which over 30,000 Boer and African prisoners
died under British control, many of them children, mostly due to overcrowding,
disease, and malnutrition.
True, the infamous Nazis camp Dachau was not literally by
design a “death” camp in the way that the later and far more lethal Treblinka
and Auschwitz were, when trainloads of arrivals were unloaded and marched into
their gas showers. Nonetheless it needed several crematoria to dispose of more
than 30,000 inmates who perished at Dachau while under captivity. When Mexico
green-lights and herds tens of thousands of migrants, without sufficient food,
shelter, or medical care, northward across its territory to the U.S. border, Mexico
knows, and apparently is content, that there is going to be chaos when they
illegally cross into the United States. That candidate stuntmen such as Julian
Castro and Corey Booker accompany illegal border crossers suggests that they
too assume that their flock will be better off in the U.S. than in their
countries of birth. Otherwise, would Booker and Castro be leading the innocent
into camps of death?
Ocasio-Cortez apparently has no clue that during World
War II far more people died in concentration camps — some 15 million Russian
prisoners of war and civilians under Nazi occupation on the Eastern Front,
along with millions in China confined to Japanese concentration camps — than in
the death camps designed from the outset to facilitate the Holocaust. Death was
industrialized at Auschwitz; yet in the Soviet Gulag, or on the German Eastern
Front, or in Manchuria, it was foreordained — a result of starvation and
disease once millions were put behind barbed wire.
Three, if Ocasio-Cortez is worried about maltreatment,
illness, and hunger of the poor, she would find a half-million in dire need on
the streets of America’s major cities, almost all of which are currently
controlled by progressive mayors and city councils, whose zoning and
gentrification and green regulatory polices ensure an absence of low-cost
housing.
To walk in the downtown areas of Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Fresno, or San Jose is to witness many of California’s 130,000
homeless living on the sidewalks and streets among fifth, refuse, feces,
needles, lice, fleas, and rats — history’s traditional ingredients for plague
and death, with our era’s addition of drug paraphernalia. Juxtaposed to these
medieval scenes are soap-box lectures about caring, intoned by progressive
elites such as Mark Zuckerberg, Gavin Newsome, and Nancy Pelosi, who live in
splendor in Bay Area keeps, their private neighborhood security details
ensuring that their constituent peasantry keep their trash, illnesses, and
defecation lower down the hill and outside the walls.
Indeed, California recently has experienced outbreaks of
premodern diseases such as typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and infectious
hepatitis. Doctors warn that plague and cholera might be next. When the
American homeless sleep, eat, and inject drugs where they defecate and urinate,
and their political overseers either allow or enable such miseries, they
collectively refute centuries of public-health progress and medical research,
and are endangering not just the well-being of the homeless but also the lives
of millions in cities who live, work, and walk among such piles of flotsam and
jetsam. Why isn’t AOC berating Mayor Bill de Blasio or Governor Andrew Cuomo
for man’s inhumanity to man on the sidewalks of greater New York?
Four, if Ocasio-Cortez is looking at ways to ease the
burden of overcrowded and overtaxed federal detention centers, I have a number
of suggestions that she might pursue.
She could begin by directing her animus at Central
American governments, the cumulative recipients of billions of U.S. aid
dollars. For selfish reasons, they export their poor to America, both to save
money by reducing welfare costs and to earn remittances from their new helots
who arrive in the U.S.
Or AOC might rebuke fellow Democratic-party grandees who
cynically count on illegal immigration to enhance their own efforts to alter
demography and augment their own electoral power — a rank cynicism whose
natural dividend is the present overcrowding at the border. If AOC believes she
sees inhumanity to be deplored in detention centers, her Democratic strategists
see instead would-be voters who are soon to be harvested.
Or she could fault Mexico, which counts on remittances as
its No. 1 source of foreign exchange, regardless of the condition of its own
expatriate poor who must scrimp to send back $30 billion to relatives who are
largely ignored by the loud moralists in Mexico City. What sort of government
views its own population as expendable human exports, to be driven out from
home, to cross its neighbor’s border illegally, then to work at entry-level
wages and remit money to the needy that Mexico City ignores?
Five, perhaps there is a different, out-of-the-box
workable solution. We are currently at the beginning of the summer vacation
season, when America’s 4,000 colleges and universities have plenty of empty
dorm space and underutilized facilities.
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, to take just a
few examples, might each volunteer to house and feed 1,000 detainees each.
Think of the advantages that would accrue to everyone involved in the present
tragedy. Immigrants would find safe and sanitary 90-day quarters, almost all of
them in university towns that are proud sanctuary cities. Many universities
have top-ranked medical schools. Hundreds of resident interns might offer their
medical expertise pro bono, especially about hard-to-treat resistant
tuberculosis or bouts of little-seen whooping cough. Yale and Harvard law
schools are famous for their legal expertise and could offer immigrants
top-flight counsel about ensuring refugee status. Schools would have incentives
to expedite repatriation before the September commencement of classes.
Our universities are, of course, loci of progressive
caring and are praised for their sharp opposition to what they think are archaic
ideas of sovereignty, border security, and legal-only immigration. And yet so
often our social-justice warriors are distant from the concrete recipients of
their own often loud advocacy. What better pathway for cultural progress than
to have university communities interact with recent immigrant arrivals through
housing, socializing, and schooling immigrants? A kid from Atherton, Cambridge,
or Chevy Chase might learn a lot by living among arrivals from Oaxaca and vice
versa.
At least such first-hand association would ground urban
progressives’ abstract advocacy in real-life caring. Immigrants would at last
be able to socialize with and appreciate their progressive advocates.
In short, the summer-time use of underutilized university
campuses — many of the smaller ones are financially strapped and in dire need
of revenue — as contracting agencies with the federal government is an ideal
solution to those who are worried about the supposed callous treatment in
overcrowded and underfunded federal immigration centers.
No comments:
Post a Comment