On Trump's executive orders, muslim ban, and uproars...

Donald Trump is turning the White House into his latest reality TV, with main media, social media, Fox News, and everyone else in between providing blow-by-blow of his actions. "First Day In Office!" "First Seven Days In Office!" People heed to the siren calls indeed, that benefits media viewing (that traditionally drops off after the November election, but not so after the Trump inauguration), which has seen media viewership maintained at almost the pre-election numbers.

One has to give it to the very belligerent Trump, for his knack of picking fights and generating soundbites. The list of executive orders he's signed, 17 in total so far, is indeed far-reaching, many of which fulfilling his campaign promises popular among his supporters, including the (beginning) rollback of ObamaCare, killing TPP, putting in motion the building of a border wall along Mexican border, lobbyist ban, ridding the idea of sanctuary cities, and even that so-called extreme vetting of muslims into US. The lesser impact ones about the reopening of the work on the Keystone pipeline with Canada doesn't seem to be much of the public concern (except for the oil industry and environmentalists).

The uproar from the executive order on extreme vetting is swift. By that, we know now that it means an immediate suspension of visa and refugee relocation from a number of muslim countries, including Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. Politicians from both sides of the aisles denounced it, other countries reject it, business leaders (particularly the tech world) speak out against it, but his supporters love it. Afterall, such move is generally a politically suicidal, and any politician would think twice about taking such action, lest the wrath from political establishment will come down hard on them.

Alas, Trump is not a politician, he doesn't generally think twice on anything. And so, he does what he does best, bringing new meaning to the words "shooting from the hip." But you know, that's exactly why his supporters vote him for, which is to be totally politically incorrect.

Truth be told, US takes in far fewer refugees than Europe in total, and the impact of muslims in this country is negligible and outsized, compared to the negative publicity that muslim have generated in the form of terrorist attacks, most infamously 9/11 that went down history books as probably the worst terrorist act on the homeland.

In a way, it's almost pointless to lump the discussions of all migrants as if they are homogeneous, one and the same. A muslim refugee is likely to be far different from a mexican migrant, illegal or otherwise, with perhaps the only similarity they share is being a stranger in a strange land. One could arguably say that, once all these dissimilar strangers land on this soil, their journey would likely be the same, what with the economic struggle, to try to make a better life for themselves and their next generations. Such is the indeed path that almost every migrant generations to this country has gone through over the centuries.

Yet, the other similarity that all these migrant groups share, is their desire to becoming part of this country, their effort to make this their new home, to truly becoming an american, to assimilate, to morph their own culture and identity with those of this new country. That has always been what makes America interesting and what makes it work because, unlike Europe, there is no set overlord class (supposedly) that imposes some class boundary that one cannot break through. Such is the promise of America, that Europe (not UK) or even Asia (like China or Japan) can compare.

Mexican migrants, legals and illegals, have always raced to embrace that assimilation, even though in the process, their culture changes US too, as evident in border states like Arizona and Texas.

Unfortunately for the muslims, those few radicals and those younger generations who choose to become radicalized by extremist views in Islam, have inflicted such harms to this new country that this tiny minority group of radicals, however few in numbers, have managed to alienate themselves from the larger society. It does not help that, in the hope of protecting their own ranks, the muslim communities as a whole fail to forcibly speak out against extremist views like ISIS, Taliban, and al Qaeda, the silent treatment of which has in itself become a tacit endorsement of the view of Muslims v Infidels, Exhibit A being US (the country that has taken them in).

One does not have to look much further than the Boston Marathon bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers), who exhibit nothing more than ungratefulness to US, their new home that extends welcome to them, yet met with the thanks in the form of bombs and mayhem. Their case(s) have nothing to do with sanctuary city like San Francisco and Boston that vow not to work with federal agency to deport illegal migrants, the kind of local policy that groups like Mexicans seek.

But to the minds of Trump and his supporters, they are one and the same. Those are considered outsider groups that either do not belong here, or choose not to belong here.  Trump has vowed to respond in kind, roll up the welcome mat to send them packing back to their own respective home countries.

In a way, I can almost understand why Trump (and his supporters) do what they do, in the name of principles. If you do not come here legally, or you come here legally but refuse to assimilate, then you don't belong here. Such has always been the "principle" that GOP and any far-right groups preach.

One cannot help but looking at the hypocrisy of the GOP when it comes to the "you don't belong here" principle, than to look at the way in which the longstanding GOP policies have always been hostile to the haves versus have-nots, as a way to whittle down who should belong here and who shouldn't. (Bearing in mind too, that all these "have-nots" are those that truly "belong here," Period.) That includes the blacks, the minorities who struggle to make a living, even the low-income whites (skin color no longer makes a difference anymore when it comes to how much you have in your pocketbook).

It's most peculiar to see the poor white working-class voters reveling Trump as their champion, a billionaire who is worth many lifetimes over compared to their own, seeking to weed out all those who "don't belong", in an attempt to push out those lesser fortunate souls in order to make their own station (however perilous as it might be, without a job or livelihood) a tidbit more secure. Then again, if the party establishments from either GOP or Dems have done a better job taking care of this permanent underclass, Trump wouldn't even be in the White House now.

As to Trump's flurry of actions to appease these poor white working-class voters, I don't expect it to stop. In fact, the more that main media like New York Times and Washington Post denounces it, the more that the world leaders reject it, the better to Trump and the more he'll double-down on it. Ultimately, soundbites count, to Trump, and to his supporters. To hell with everybody else, principles be damned.

On individual level, I find that my best action, is simply to ignore him. That's not ostrich approach to me, but if I am to contribute to the feeding frenzy that Trump seeks, by writing about it in forums and whatnot, it's just going into feeding his ego, and THAT I would not do. That does not mean I won't keep tab on the news and development, that does not mean I won't write to my state representative and senator's office to demand actions. My feeling is, once the frenzy subsides, Trump will come to his sense. But you cannot expect him to see sense when he's in the midst of a fight, which is exactly what is happening now with all the uproars.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do have a few last words:

(a) Trump was not wrong to demanding assimilation from new migrants. Assimilation does not mean giving up one's culture, but in forging a new identity in a new country, there has to be give-and-take. If anyone who refuses to do so, they might as well go back to their old way of life in their old home country. Why bother coming to US or Europe or whatever new country when they want the same-old-same-old?

(b) I live in one of those notable sanctuary cities. While it never affects me in any way, I do find the principle of explicitly harboring illegal migrants curiously annoying. If anything, work out some policy to provide some pathway for aspirants to apply for immigration to this country legally, for chrissake. Sensible and reasonable immigration policy is what this country needs, rather than explicit endorsement for breaking the law. Open borders, no matter what, is not the right way to go. It is for this reason that I applaud Obama's ending the wet-foot-dry-foot policy for Cubans before he left office, which has long ceased to be sensible or effective, particularly in the face of the normalization in foreign policy with Cuba.

(c) Ultimately, all the fights of extraneous policies come down to securing one's economic fortune. During the post-war boom years after WWII, US economy had been flying high for decades. The projection of its will, its willingness to spread the good fortune and democracy, has sustained many a country (and regions), including Germany, Japan, and even China in lifting them to becoming top among the world's economic drivers. It's been more than 70 years now, and we've been living in this afterglow of those boom years (that allows us to really believe in that amazing concept of American Exceptionalism), but all good times will come to an end. US power and influence is waning in various regions, including APAC, Europe, and beyond. In a twisted way, Trump (and his supporters) are telling us implicitly (even if they didn't find the words for it and even if they do not want to believe it that we are no longer exceptional in any way), that we are no more exceptional than the next guy, and we have to put our own house in order first before we can share our fortune. But whether we can become "Great Again" is a different matter, entirely.