George Handlery about the week that was. Historic and contemporary immigration. Crime and psychiatry. About what was and what can be. True or false: A wall is a wall? The present’s new past. The extended present and its pitfalls. The misuse of missile defense.
 
1. Supposedly, densely inhabited countries can prop up their dropping population by immigration. Indeed, a demographically oriented migration policy can make sense. This is why it has been applied by the classical countries of immigration. In their case, though, the purpose of immigration has not been to replace natural growth but to accelerate it. The goal was to populate empty spaces. However, these receiving countries have adjusted their policy of acceptance. Measures were introduced to filter immigrants by considering their skills and their willingness to adapt in the pursuit of success. At present, not infrequently, immigrants, who often demand entry as refugees, are unskilled. This coincides with the growing structural unemployment of unqualified indigenous workers. All too frequently, not only skills but also the aspiration to accept the values that cause social mobility is also missing. That is why, given the absolute numbers involved, the rags-to-riches stories are becoming rare among some immigrant groups. Most of their members are satisfied by the returns from bad jobs that mean dead end careers in shrinking industries ending in welfare dependency. Aggravating is the implications for the social order, public security and to the principles of the host’s political system.
 
2. Deadly accidents caused by reckless drivers – frequently with a “migration background” – “racing” multiply where the writer lives. A recent case happened in a 60 km/h (45 mi.) zone with the culprit doing 180 (105 mi). The show-off led to the death of a person. In general crime, including needlessly violent crime, result in understated sentences and quick parole. The trend seems to be universal in societies that can be called politically and economically developed. This makes one suggest in jest that perhaps the Sharia should be introduced to protect normal people. A correlation with the growing input of psychiatry in the adjudication of cases seems to offer a partial explanation. Psychiatry sees the criminal as a victim of before-the-act circumstances the criminal did not choose. This makes the delinquent a victim of “society” which owes him a debt and lacks the right to be judgmental.
 
3. An item dealing with the manipulative construction of the “presents new past” that exploits “erased history” and “distorted history” must be mentioned here. Something that might call itself a “Pictorial Essay” is available on the internet. It consists of many pairs of pictures that appear simultaneously on the monitor. One side illustrates the hardship of Gaza’s civilian – but not Hamas – victims of Israel’s retaliation. The other side has photos of the National Socialist liquidation of Europe’s Jewish population. The suggestion, in case you have not guessed it, is that Israel is doing in Gaza the equivalent of Nazi genocide in occupied Europe. The material does not deserve the effort a detailed refutation of its suggested implications and specific distortions. Nevertheless, one detail is too provocative to resist. It has to do with fences and walls. The presentation implies that the Israeli security walls/guarded crossing points equal the purpose and operating principle of the ghetto-enclosures erected around those held for elimination. (Here the display chooses to suppress a third “wall” namely the Iron Curtain whose Berlin Wall section grabs the attention of the West.) Here there is only space to emphasize the main difference between the “walls” to illustrate the purposeful distortion of the presentation. The central point is that these “walls” serve different purposes. Keeping undesirables out (Israel’s barrier) is not the same as keeping those to be killed from fleeing (the enclosure around Ghettoes). Importantly, those behind Nazi walls had not done anything to damage their captors. Their retention did not increase the security of those retaining them. A change of the policy of those who rule Gaza would quickly result in “tearing down that wall”. Analogously, the ignored Iron Curtain was not erected to keep the “the world’s exploited” from entering the paradise built in Soviet Zone of Europe. No, the reason for the barrier was to keep the population from running away. The point: a wall is a wall. However, not all walls are the same.
 
4. Lack of clarity concerning “what was” and, therefore, “what can be” plays a major role in a much aired scandal. The papal readmission of the schismatic bishop Williamson, a denier of the Holocaust (which he calls a wildly exaggerated event) helps here to make a point. (Having “seen it”, the bishop’s position is for the writer not suited for sober discussion.) The purpose here is not to discuss the merits of his thesis or the implications of letting such a person be a prince of the Church. Exploring the connection to the previous item, here we do not have a case of not knowing about the past and its most essential feature, namely that it was “different”. In this case, we encounter a new, remodeled, Orwellian past. One is reminded of Soviet photos, in which Trotsky was once present, then gone, and finally replaced. Eliminating and replacing the inconvenient is also the fate of events such as the mass murder by starvation of 4-7 million Ukrainian peasants. Some time ago, a letter writer noted that it was not that bad. First, they were not killed as Ukrainians but as peasants. Second, they were not actively murdered only sort of made to die by themselves. Third, they had only themselves to blame. The exterminated ignoramuses were just not progressive enough to greet the policies they resisted. Regrettably, hardly anyone creates a scandal when such views surface. In retrospect, this might appear to be a critical error of our time. Condemning mass murder and isolating those who defend it is a critical task. Mass murder is what it is irrespective of the numbers (would three million make it better than six?) and it does not matter who did it and who the victims were. Ignoring this conjures up frightening future perspectives.
 
5. As we had to expect, Obama is being reduced in size by events that unfold while standing on the bridge. Some of them are beyond his control and would have arisen regardless of who is President. Obama’s problem is that he got the job for swinging a magic wand. In reality, he, as others, has only a normal stick in his hands. Even if he can get the economy to fix itself – if not he is in hotter water than a crab that is being converted into an appetizer – it will not help on the long run. Besides smaller atrocities, the electorate has even forgotten 9/11. His merits in the recovery, once economic security is reestablished, will be viewed as normal. The voter of industrialized countries, most eminently the American electorate, is inclined to live in what the writer would like to call an “extended present”. The term suggests that, in reality, the present is a moment inserted between the past and the future. This reduces it into a passing detail of an ongoing process of change. For many, perhaps reflecting the declining standards of education, the past and the future are not perceived as being significantly different from the present. The result is the subjective extension of the present into a natural and permanent condition. This distorts perspectives and clouds the judgment of the enfranchised.
 
6. Sent to “build bridges,” Joe Biden told the Security Conference in Munich that the US will retreat from her earlier foreign policy. Abandoning unilateralism implies coordinated action with allied participation. Biden also said that, in case she perseveres on her current course, Iran must expect further sanctions. Washington’s position has several implications. One is that the logical alternative to unilateralism is joint action. Unfortunately, acting against anything but snowmen in July is what some allies fear more than Beelzebub dreads holy water. Furthermore, in Iran’s case, the promise implies more than raising the price of nuclear armament. It is also a warning that, should sanctions fail, everything will be done to prevent it. This is likely to prove to be anathema to the US’ leading allies. Should this become apparent, the premise of the Bush-bashing foreign policy will be compromised.
 
7. At the same venue, the Vice President announced that, America holds on to her plan to install in Poland and the Czech Republic, a missile defense directed against Iran. Every effort will be made to receive Russia’s consent to the project. She still opposes stationing as it is planned in a zone which she regards as her own sphere. The success of stationing is not without dangers. The ten anti-ballistic missiles could serve as a convenient excuse not to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The cop-out could be that Europe is sufficiently protected by the rockets. Therefore, the claim might be made that vigorous action is not indispensable.