Trump
Ethnic Cleansing: Trump’s New Strategy

     

          If you were under the impression that ethnic cleansing takes place only in other countries with maniacal dictators, perhaps it is time to reflect on the recent behavior of President Trump in regards to recovery efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria.  By some accounts, the disaster recovery in Puerto Rico was a clear example of the deliberate and prolonged neglect of a large segment of U.S. citizens.

An estimated 3,000 Puerto Rican residents died as a result of Hurricane Maria – not just from the immediate storm but also from the inadequate recovery efforts that allowed too many victims to suffer from the limited access to clean water, food, transportation and medical attention. The level of human misery in Puerto Rico, which continues to this day, was apparently of little consequence to President Trump who boasted that the recovery effort was one of the most successful in U.S. history.  Making matters worse, President Trump even now rejects the estimate of 3,000 deaths from Hurricane Maria, suggesting that the high death estimate was merely a political ploy by Democrats to “make me look bad.”   

Trump’s suggestion that the 3,000 deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria was a political ploy by Democrats is consistent with other conspiracy theories that point to his detachment from reality, including such things as:

·        Promotion of the birther theory regarding President Obama;
·       The claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11 on rooftops;
·        Suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination; and
·        Claiming that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election.

President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Puerto Rico and its leadership, even delaying the waiver of the Jones Act to expedite the delivery of needed resources. Indeed, his disdain for other non-white and immigrant groups has been shown through statements and policies, including the separation of Latino children from their families;  legal action to end the DACA program;  travel restrictions based on religious beliefs;  and the consistent derogatory statements made in reference to Mexicans,  Haitians, black athletes, and war heroes like the late Senator McCain.  More recently, the Trump administration announced the transfer of $10 million from the FEMA budget to ICE  — an action that further underscores the priority placed on the removal of unwanted groups.  Perhaps it is time to ask: Is President Trump developing a program of ethnic cleansing? 

As defined by a United Nations Commission, ethnic cleansing is defined as follows:   
“….rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. “
Since he became president, Donald Trump has implemented a number of programs that could fall under this definition of ethnic cleansing,  including  arbitrary arrest and detention; confinement in ghetto areas (i.e., families in detention centers); forcible removal;  displacement and deportation (i.e., even asylum seekers);  deliberate attacks or threats of attacks on civilians (i.e., especially protestors at campaign rallies); and robbery of personal property (that is, seizure of personal property from forcibly removed persons). 

Although Trump has yet to implement some of the most coercive practices that have been utilized globally by current and past dictators, following is a listing of the various practices that have been used to achieve the objectives of ethnic cleansing:
  • Murder
  • Torture
  • Extrajudicial executions
  • Rape and sexual assaults
  • Severe physical injury to civilians
  • Use of civilians as human shields
  • Destruction of property
  • Attacks on hospitals, medical personnel and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

Without intervention by legal advocates and human rights organizations, one wonders how many of these most coercive practices President Trump would implement given the opportunity and growing support by his conservative base.  Yet, the withholding and delay of needed emergency assistance and the resulting 3,000 deaths of Puerto Rican citizens presents tangible evidence that President Trump has added a new dimension to the ethnic cleansing formula. 

Apparently, it is not enough to separate families, deport asylum seekers, place immigrant children in detention centers, and publicly disparage immigrants and non-whites – it now appears acceptable to simply delay or withhold emergency assistance in order to punish or remove unwanted segments of the U.S. population.  To say the least, this is a disturbing development and made equally frightening by the many “pro-life” Republicans who choose to remain silent on this issue.

Political leaders often embrace positive satisfaction ratings, but should they?
It should come as no surprise that political leaders enjoy quoting the positive ratings from surveys of the communities that they serve – a sort of badge of honor for their job performance.  Ex-Dallas City Manager A.C. Gonzales is no exception, making reference to a recent citizen satisfaction survey of 1,512 Dallas City residents that showed an overall community that, with some exceptions, appeared quite happy with City services.  Mayor Mike Rawlings has also referenced these positive ratings from these surveys as well. At the national level, Republican nominee Donald Trump recently pointed to positive student satisfaction ratings to counter allegations of fraud in lawsuits against Trump University.  Indeed, positive ratings are like candy to politicians, whether deserved or not.
But how much faith can we place in these satisfaction ratings? In a recent column by Dallas Morning News columnist Robert Wilonsky, he noted the apparent paradox of the City’s continuing high ratings given the multitude of problems that are left unresolved, such as potholes, loose dogs mauling citizens in poor neighborhoods, contracting irregularities, deteriorating air quality, traffic congestion, and a host of other issues.  Wilonsky also pointed out that the survey vendor’s report curiously omitted information about the ages represented by the study respondents.  Indeed, the report tells us nothing about the satisfaction levels across racial-ethnic groups, income groups, age groups or other key demographics – information that would provide more insight on how well the study sample mirrored Dallas’ diverse population. The City of Dallas is now 41 percent Latino, 24 percent black, 3 percent Asian, and 29 percent white – a diverse community of residents that are entitled to have their voices heard in surveys sponsored by their tax dollars.
While City leaders have no problem embracing citizen satisfaction ratings, we should be cautious about embracing the results of satisfaction surveys, especially those that consistently show their sponsors in a positive light. In the case of the City of Dallas, there is reason to believe that these satisfaction ratings could be inflated and a self-serving exercise for City leaders:
  • Past community surveys for the City have shown a pattern of under-representing certain racial-ethnic groups, age groups, non-English speakers, and the lower income  – groups who are more likely to have negative experiences and opinions of City services. Loose dogs and potholes, for example, are more common in poor neighborhoods.  To what extent would the positive ratings diminish if the voices of such residents were properly represented in the survey?
  • Of course, the survey vendor’s quality of work may be spectacular, making it easier to eliminate the competition. However, the most recent City satisfaction report omitted standard demographic information about the 1,512 city residents that completed the survey.  One has no idea if the survey respondents accurately reflected the diversity of this community by race, ethnicity, gender or age. This is information that is considered standard in industry research reports — information that is commonly used to judge the scientific credibility of the survey findings. Why have City staff allowed the omission of this important information from its report?
  • Given the positive ratings that the City continues to enjoy from these surveys, it is not surprising that the survey company that conducts these surveys has enjoyed a preferred vendor status for many years. While the survey contract is bid competitively, the same out-of-state vendor has been successful in obtaining the contract year after year even though there are various local vendors that are equally qualified to conduct the work.  Are City leaders and staff concerned that a different vendor would change the positive ratings that they enjoy?  
          Community satisfaction ratings provide one measure of the City’s performance in serving a community, but provide an incomplete picture of its actual performance since key groups are often omitted or under-represented in such studies. The fascination of City leaders with these positive ratings and comparisons to other U.S. cities creates the false impression that everything in Dallas is just peachy.  A guided tour of City neighborhoods tells quite a different story.

Clearly, the next City Manager for Dallas, as well as the next Mayor, will have a long list of City-related needs that will require their immediate attention. If the results of citizen satisfaction surveys continue to be used by City leaders and staff as a benchmark of their annual or periodic performance, some changes will be needed to inspire more confidence in the ratings provided by this survey.  First, it is absolutely essential that the public is provided access to a detailed methodology that describes the steps used to conduct the study, including the extent of support in languages other than English.  This is important because many studies confirm that over half of Latino and Asian adults prefer to communicate in their native language, a fact that improves comprehension and survey participation.  Second, the report must provide a detailed demographic profile of the survey respondents – a standard requirement in all research industry studies – and perhaps the only evidence that the random selection of City households resulted in a fair and unbiased representation of the City’s diverse community.  Lastly, to remove the appearance of favoritism in the vendor selection process, City staff should be required to justify the continued selection of one vendor over several years despite the availability of various equally qualified survey vendors.
Donald Trump: The New Chicken Little

As the story goes, an object fell from the sky and hit Chicken Little on the head, prompting Chicken Little to panic and create hysteria throughout his town to warn others that the sky was falling. The sky was not falling, of course, but considerable chaos followed before the truth was discovered.

Like Chicken Little, Donald Trump would have everyone believe that the sky is falling – that is, that uncontrolled immigration and border security is threatening America. To protect America from certain doom, Trump is proposing to build a wall that would keep all immigrants out, deport the 12 million undocumented persons in the U.S., and deport citizens that were born to undocumented parents.  Our Chicken Little has succeeded so far in creating considerable hysteria regarding immigration policy as well as support for his proposed remedies. As the following charts illustrate, however, the hysteria is based on a fantasy that contradicts two key facts about immigration trends in the U.S.

Fact 1:  China, not Mexico, is sending the most immigrants to the U.S.

A special report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed immigration levels for the period 2000 to 2013, shown below, which illustrated some interesting trends.  First, the level of immigrants to the U.S. from Mexico declined significantly from 400,000 to 125,000 during this period.  Secondly, in 2013 there were more immigrants to the U.S. from China (147,000) and India (129,000) than Mexico (125,000).  Clearly, immigration from Mexico has been declining over the years and does not merit the hysteria that is commonly associated with it.

 “China Replaces Mexico as the Top Sending Country for Immigrants to the
United States,” Research Matters, U.S. Census Bureau, May 1, 2015 
Fact 2:  Border apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen dramatically over the past 14 years, and were higher in 2014 for non-Mexicans. 
In their current report on border apprehensions, the Pew Research Center analyzed U.S. border apprehensions since the year 1970 and revealed yet more evidence that “the sky is not falling.” Apprehensions of Mexicans peaked in the year 2000 with an estimated 1.6 million apprehensions, which declined dramatically to 809,000 in 2007 and 229,000 in 2014.  Interestingly, border apprehensions in 2014 for non-Mexicans (257,000) are exceeding Mexican apprehensions. Are border walls and deportations planned for non-Mexicans as well?
“U.S. border apprehensions of Mexicans fall to historic lows,” Jens Manuel Krogstad
and Jeffrey S. Passel, Pew Research Center, December 30, 2014.   
Ratings of the political candidates show that Trump and his supporters are either unaware, uninterested or indifferent to these facts.  News anchors have explained Trump’s popularity “angry voters” who are tired of establishment politicians and an admiration for Trump’s no-holds barred approach.  In my own view, Trump is the Pied Piper of our times who has managed to persuade a substantial segment of likely voters to suspend reality by embracing a fantasy that simply does not exist.  Trump would have us forget that Mexican immigrants:
  • Are frequently the caregivers for the children of middle to higher-income families;
  • Are concentrated in the construction industry that builds our nation’s infrastructure;
  • Have defended the U.S. in past wars through active participation in our armed forces;
  • Have kept our Social Security system solvent because they are not qualified to benefit from the millions of dollars that they contribute annually;
  • Are taking the jobs that most Americans do not want but are nevertheless important to our economy, such as agriculture, construction, restaurants and hotels. 
It is indeed difficult to imagine that Americans would be willing to abandon their mutually beneficial relationship with Mexican immigrants, especially when recognizing that the sky is really not falling when it comes to immigration trends.  Perhaps it is time for the political candidates to start talking about some real problems, like the economy, healthcare, and education. If they must talk about border security, perhaps they should begin a conversation about the other border or ports of entry into the U.S.