Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Inhumanity of Trump and Its Impact on America

Opinion

A confrontation between ICE agents and Minneapolis residents.

A child of Holocaust survivors draws parallels between Nazi Germany and modern U.S. immigration enforcement, examining ICE tactics, civil rights, and moral leadership.

Getty Images, Stephen Maturen

I am a child of holocaust survivors, my parents having fled Germany at the last minute in 1939 before the war started, and so I am well-versed in what life was like for Jews in Germany in the 30s under the Nazi regime. My father and other relatives were hunted by the Gestapo (secret police) and many relatives died in concentration camps.

When I have watched videos and seen photos of the way in which ICE agents treat the people that they accost—whether they are undocumented (illegal) immigrants, immigrants who are here lawfully, or even U.S. citizens—I was reminded of the images of Nazi S.A. men (a quasi-military force that was part of the Nazi party) beating and demeaning Jews in public in the years after Hitler came to power.


To these men (and to Hitler), Jews weren't human; they were scum. And so they treated them with an absolute lack of respect. They were not acting to enforce a law; their purpose was to rid the country of Jews. The motto was "Judenfrei," to cleanse the country of the contaminating effect of Jews.

If you listen to Trump's attacks on undocumented immigrants and watch ICE agents in action, there is no question that there is an absolute lack of respect; they—and anyone who supports them—are regarded as scum; and that the goal is to free America of these immigrants, or at least as much as possible. To return America to being an overwhelmingly white nation rather than having whites become a minority sometime around 2050.

Why do I call Trump "inhumane?" When we think of that term, we tend to think of horrific acts like the holocaust, or the Rwanda genocide. But "inhumanity" is defined as being cruel, and being "cruel" is defined as causing physical or mental harm or pain. If you think about your experiences reading the news, in your workplace, or even within your family, you will see that, using this definition, inhumanity is rife within our culture. See my post, "Creating a Safer World for Our Children."

With this definition in mind, one cannot listen to Trump's rantings or view many of his actions without realizing that these actions are examples of inhumanity. This is an especially terrible characteristic in Trump because as President he determines the direction of the country and is looked to by half of the population as a force that will move the country forward.

Because of the reverence they show him, his inhumanity, his lack of morals and ethics have altered their perspective. For example, according to a recent Times/Siena Poll, only 19% of Republicans feel that the tactics of ICE have gone too far; 56% think the tactics are just right; 24% think that ICE's tactics have not gone far enough.

This is evidence of Trump's impact on the humanity, morals, and ethics of his supporters. If immigrants arrested by ICE were hardened criminals—as Trump claims—this attitude would be arguably reasonable. But they are not. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminals but law-abiding, hard-working people; this according to the government's own data and people's personal experiences. ICE also uses the same tactics when arresting U.S. citizens or immigrants who are here legally and who are supporting undocumented immigrants.

Most people arrested by ICE have done nothing wrong, other than coming into the country illegally. They deserve to be treated like human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." Until someone does something that warrants being treated differently, they should be treated with respect. And when they do something, the punishment must fit the crime.

Here the crime is coming into the country illegally. Punishment for that is deportation. But the process of deportation must be humane and fair. You don't deport someone who was brought here as a child and lived his whole adult life here, working and raising a family.

The recent examples of abusive, violent ICE actions in Minnesota and elsewhere, the vilification of victims by Trump and other federal officials in the face of videos clearly showing the facts are otherwise, and the actions of Trump and Homeland Security to prohibit any fair investigation of these actions by excluding state and local officials, bring to mind, as I stated at the outset, the actions of Nazi thugs (the S.A.) in 1930s Germany towards Jews.

In the United Staes of America, with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, this should not be happening. If Congress does nothing to stop these actions because it is subservient to Trump, then it lies with the Supreme Court to state unequivocally that ICE's actions violate the 4th Amendment, prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. While there is a general assumption that the 4th Amendment applies to undocumented immigrants, the Supreme Court has not specifically stated that.

The only other recourse is for people to rise up in mass demonstrations, raise the issue in their communities, and vote in the upcoming midterm elections to return control of Congress to the Democrats, thus restoring the balance of power intended by the Founding Fathers. See my article, "The Murder in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans."


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less