“Us vs. Them”: unsustainable and unequivocally destroying communities
It’s practically inconceivable to suppose we can make a monumental difference in the crisis unfolding regularly. Similar to most issues unraveling in the United States, partisan resistance is the current apodeictic reality. The chronic “Us vs. Them” psyche seems to have become such a norm, that it has spiraled into every aspect of the fabric of society. Instead of having the coherence to discern the urgency of bi-partisanship, leaders have resorted to going rogue and declaring their determinations and authorizations as the provision for others.
Take for example Greg Abbott in Texas – who some argue has been a total calamity for the state and, quite frankly, the country – choosing to line up a row of cars on the Southern Border to prevent Haitians from attempting to claim lawful refuge.
The “steel wall” of cars, as Abbott called it, is only the latest of the stark images coming from the crisis unfolding in Del Rio, Tex., where nearly 15,000 border crossers, many Haitians living in Chile and other South American nations, have arrived.
The Homeland Security Department is investigating reports that Border Patrol agents on horseback attempted to grab migrants and push them back toward Mexico, captured in scenes Sunday along the Rio Grande.
“What we did, we put hundreds of Texas Department of Public Safety cars and created a steel wall – a steel wall of DPS vehicles – that prevented anybody from crossing that dam that you’ve seen people walk across,” Abbott told Fox News in an interview Tuesday. “We effectively … regained control of the border.” (Suliman, WAPO, 9/22/21)
Perhaps Abbott is drawing some sort of vision of Trump’s disgraceful border wall; thus, because Biden made it point to stop construction when his administration took over, Abbott wants to show his imperishable loyalty to the Trump base. Yet this has become the new protocol for the GOP and Trump loyalists, which is to declare something incomprehensible as the “solution.” Abbott making a pronouncement that the wall of DPS vehicles somehow halted immigration at the Southern Border is unpalatable, as well as erroneous. And yet it’s allowed to go on, and allowed to be something viable for future methods of obstruction.
You practically have to bathe in xenophobia and racism to regularly conduct these methods of subversion to the greater crises at hand. Haiti’s residents, who just endured a 7.2 earthquake, as well as unconditional desolation due to violence, are merely attempting to flee a disastrous condition. They are entitled to a process of lawful immigration, an opportunity to try and better their life. I think this is the concept the “populists” don’t seem to grasp; that while they are defiant in their preservation of laws and standards, they have zero willingness to follow these same laws and procedures. We have learned this concept time and time again: the solution for the immigration crisis is not halting people from entering our country; but rather trying to curtail the detrimental effects in these countries. It should be the task of all superpower nations, if you will, to attempt to rectify the tribulations. Money equals power, as they say. The United States, as well as other influential nations, have the resources to affect change. Somehow, though, the “populists” turn, solely, to this ineffectual strategy of pettiness and incapability.
What has become a more remarkable characteristic lies in the fact that the ideology is destined to be so dysfunctional and useless; it almost allows more people to support it. A case in point is Abbott’s decision to secure the border with the line of vehicles. The real solution will come from DHS and then processing, which, of course, is standard protocol. Abbott’s showing is just a play for the supporters who seek affirmation of enforcing xenophobic operations and demonstrating this unwarranted act of subjugation.
We have irrefutably reached a point in our country where it’s one side or the other; we have known this for some time. However, the problem with this continuous methodology is consequential for development, progress, and stability. On one side, it’s entirely unexacting to see chaos, dysfunction, a lack of perspicuity, and eventually defiance. The other side presents stability and discernment, but also, at times, a forced perception to look as though they are more inclined to do the “right thing.”
But again, let’s look at the context of the situation at the Southern Border. One side features a decision by Abbott to put up a defense of vehicles to stop innocent refugees from crossing a dam. The other side, presumably, would have executed the correct protocol to methodically process these refugees based on conditions. It’s implausible to discern Abbott’s decision in the first place, based on the notion that the crisis is sequestered to an entirely different division of the government – as well as located in a very isolated, controlled territory at the border. If you look at the incident closely, it’s almost as though Abbott takes inordinate pride in painting a picture of dysfunction and chaos. And it’s not just him: Miller, Trump, McCarthy, and McConnell; they all have this philosophy.
Finally, the idea of moderation within the political sphere looks relatively unachievable at the moment. That’s what scares me. Even when political issues looked bleak in the early 2000s, there always seemed to be a decorum when it came to discussions and rationality. When you analyze the immigration crisis, it can’t be managed by a polarized stance. It will take immense cooperation and a commitment to fighting root issues within the countries struggling to find stability for their citizens. Images of state vehicles lined up look more like what some authoritarian country might do to people looking for options: not the United States of America.
