Read Mr. Divine’s sermon of June 8,2018 titled Another Glimpse of State Terror in Trump’s America here:
The violence and moral obscenity of separating families, gives ample moral space for Mr. Divine to shift into high dungeon, about the evil of Trump and his Dixiecrat Attorney General Sessions.
But here is information provided by Fact Check, that addresses the vexing question of how many people Obama actually ‘deported’ from the US :
Perhaps the reader might consider the policies of both Obama and Trump as a matter of the degree of sadism? But the question unaddressed by Mr. Divine’s verbose moralizing hysterics, is the very center of an American Immigration policy, that refuses to recognize the contradictory nature of a Nation of Immigrants who will not recognize itself as excising a specific kind of xenophobia! As yet there is no proposed wall at the Canadian border, but there is one being constructed at the Mexican border. The Mestizo invasion, a paranoid apparition that Samuel P. Huntington, proposed in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity has now become a vivid reality.
The stark object lessons of America’s treatment of the Bracero program from 1942 to 1964 :
It is estimated that, with interest accumulated, $500 million is owed to ex-braceros, who continue to fight to receive the money owed to them.
And Prop 187 of California of 1994:
Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election.
During the United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican challenger Michael Huffington both adopted tough policies against illegal immigration. The candidates each revealed that they had previously hired illegal immigrants for housekeeping and childcare. Unlike Feinstein, Huffington had hired a housekeeper who was an illegal immigrant after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Feinstein was narrowly re-elected.
These two instances, allied to a rampant xenophobia in both Parties, as the quoted parts of this Wikipedia entry demonstrate, were simply the precursors to the Trump/Sessions policy of separating children from their parents. Unaccompanied minors were also grated the right to hearings:
Headline: Court Says Undocumented Minors Have the Right to a Bond Hearing
Sub-headline: A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that immigrant children held in detention are entitled to present their case before an immigration judge.
Unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children have the right to a court hearing to determine whether they can be released, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the government’s argument that laws passed after the 1997 Flores v Reno Supreme Court case replaced the bond hearing requirement by giving a federal agency authority over unaccompanied minors. That agency is the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“In the absence of such hearings, these children are held in bureaucratic limbo, left to rely upon the agency’s alleged benevolence and opaque decision making,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the court, later adding: “Not a single word in either statute indicates that Congress intended to supersede, terminate, or take away any right enjoyed by unaccompanied minors at the time of the acts’ passage. Thus, we hold that the statutes have not terminated the Flores Settlement’s bond-hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors.”
Even as ‘unaccompanied minors’ these ‘undocumented’ children still have rights. Yet this whole mendacious history of the abuse of the Braceros, the 1994 Prop 187, and the treatment of the contemporary ‘undocumented’ is indicative of Mr Divine’s historical ignorance, it would get in the way of his self-congratulatory moralizing.
The political opportunity, that the Trump/Session sadism represents, is too ripe an opportunity for Mr. Divine to pass by. As a means to reify in the mind of the reader Divine’s moral superiority. He revels in this opportunity to display his unmatched moral uprightness. The record on Mr. Divine’s ‘political evolution’ from Thatcherite to Neo-Conservative to Neo-Liberal is the story not of an evolution, but a kind of political opportunism, linked to his inherent self-concept as a moral/political arbiter of the good.