Trump’s brutal immigration policy – Part II

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I will not be saying anything anymore to what is suppose to be Part I of Trump’s brutal immigration policy. Suffice to say that this video not only expresses more words as opposed to a photograph, but also shows candidly and brutally what America is today under Trump’s “zero- tolerance” immigration policy. Simply egregious and pathetic!

Advertisements

Trump’s brutal immigration policy

President Donald Trump’s administration seems to have boasted that in a six-week period beginning April 19 it had separated almost 2000 children from their parents or caretakers accused of crossing unlawfully into the United States.

The separations are part of the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for illegal border crossing.

Now, if this is not a brutal immigration policy, I do not know what is.

I am not saying here that the issue of illegal immigrants to the U.S. has started only during Trump’s administration. It has been there all these times, but the solution that has become Trump’s unilateral decision is so heartless that every time images/videos of children being separated, or cries/audios being heard of children calling their father or mother, it becomes automatically a symbol of the American president’s vile and cold blooded treatment of immigrants.

For how else would you describe a person and a leader of the greatest nation on earth if he allows kids to be dehumanized and considered criminals?

America has always been known to be the bulwark of freedom, of democracy, of equality and justice especially to those seeking asylum due to political instability and violence in their country of origin.

But not anymore. Not in Trump’s America.

Does one has still to wonder why Trump covets the prominence of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping?

Mind you, Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy has come under fire from politicians, immigration advocates and human rights groups.

Even wives of former U.S. presidents, like Laura Bush, described the policy as cruel and immoral and that it beaks her heart, explaining that protecting boundaries is one thing but forcefully separating children from their parents is another thing.

To top it all Trump’s wife, Melania, expressed also her concern, saying, she “hates to see children separated from their families”.

Hopefully this inhumane policy of her husband will spur her to put some sensibility into his head.

She should if she has not forgotten where she comes from.

A kiss was all it was

 

A kiss planted by President Rodrigo Duterte on the lips of Bea Kim, a Filipina said to be married to a South Korean with whom she has two children, while on an official visit to South Korea has initiated a controversy among the many seemingly prude critics and feminist bigots in this country.

Whether the smooch was made on the lips, the cheeks or on the forehead for the world to say the fact is all it was, was a kiss.

So why make a big fuss about it and make it appear like it was a sinful act?

Because it was Duterte who did it, he who has been labeled as misogynist by women’s rights advocates and by some preachy opposition politicians?

For one to be tagged as misogynist, he is one characterized to be strongly prejudiced against women.

Now, is Duterte living up to this disparaging description when he has a wife and daughters to reckon with in the family?

What I am just saying here is that one has to understand where Duterte comes from and learn to know and appreciate him, warts and all, for he is not the traditional or conventional leader that one expects him to be.

Duterte himself has admitted that he is not and can never be presidential in any manner, shape and form. Sadly, this is what his critics from the political circle and the women’s right advocacy groups expect him to act.

Well, what you see is what you get about Duterte and this is what makes him tick with the Filipino people.

But when some entity or group of people look at events beyond the context of having fun and connecting with the crowd by pure entertainment  as Duterte is used to doing when meeting with his countrymen abroad, then that is the time when problem arises.  It could even get worse, as it happened in South Korea, when malice is imputed.

Duterte is not a comedian but he uses his antics to make people laugh and identify himself with them and this is what endears him to the people.

This was a time for laughter and not for retribution, which Duterte is also wont to make.

This is exactly what happened when Duterte asked an unidentified audience member to kiss him in exchange for a book he was handing out.

Since when has kissing been ‘sickening’ and a ‘despicable display of sexism and grave abuse of authority’ when the recipient herself was forewarned not to take it seriously as it was just for fun, a gimmick in fact?

Ms. Kim was game enough and went along with Duterte’s strategy of entertaining his countrymen, saying later that the kiss did not mean anything and it was done to make the audience giddy.

So the question is: if the kiss on Ms. Kim’s lips did not scandalize her, why would it matter to a group of sanctimonious people?

 

Going to war against China is insane

I find it ridiculous, if not insane, the idea that the Philippines is prepared to go to war if military personnel are harmed by Chinese forces in the South China Sea (SCS).

National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon said the Philippines would always try to pursue talks to defuse tension, but war could not be ruled out as a last resort if its military was provoked or aggrieved.

Esperon was referring to President Duterte’s statement, saying, that if his troops are harmed that it has crossed his red line.

I agree with Esperon’s statement that ‘the Philippines would always try to pursue talks to diffuse tension’, but it should be made clear that a violation of a red line does not necessarily mean an act of war and should be reciprocated in the same manner.

Any which way, the best and rational approach is always to seek for a diplomatic solution.

I am saying this because President Duterte himself has, time and again, said that it is foolish or insane to go to war against China. The reason is very obvious.

The truth is, at this stage of China’s incursion and weaponization of the SCS, to include part of the West Philippine Sea (WPS), China has got us by the balls, or by the throat, if you may, that any adverse movement/action against them will only create a calamitous reaction from them. Suffice to say that we are now at their mercy.

I don’t think, however, that China will do anything displeasing or disagreeable to destabilize this forced ‘marriage of convenience’ between the two countries because doing so will only invite the concern and, perhaps, meddling of the US.

Definitely, this will be an unwelcome event for we don’t want to be caught in the middle of the confrontation between this two militarily powerful countries.

This is even a more insane proposition.

Duterte’s baffling statement

 

President Rodrigo Duterte and President Xi Jinping

Two years into his presidency and I can say with candor that I remain an avid supporter of Rodrigo Duterte.

I always seem to understand what he is trying to say, given his colorful language, the emotion,   and the tonality he puts on it

But Duterte’s recent statement, however, saying, “The assurances of [President] Xi Jinping were very encouraging… ‘We will not allow you to be taken out from your office, and we will not allow the Philippines to go to the dogs,’” is somewhat baffling to me.

In short what Duterte is trying to tell the Filipinos in particular, and the whole world in general, is that China’s leader, who finds himself elevated to the status of president for life, following the removal of the country’s presidential term limits, does not want Duterte ousted as the country’s leader.

This is definitely an instance where I can’t seem to fathom Duterte’s trend of thought.

Now, why would China say that and who are the people alluded to that would try to destabilize and oust Duterte? And why would the Philippines be going to the dogs?

Certainly, Duterte continues to have high trust and support rating from the Filipino people in his governance of the country and I don’t see any reason, therefore, why he is entertaining the thought of being ousted.

Or could it be that the close relationship now between China and the Philippines, especially with the absolute presence and militarization by China of the South China Sea (SCS), have made the two allies unite against one common enemy which is the U.S.?

There is no doubt that China’s military aggression in the SCS does not sit well with the Americans and the latter frowns upon the fact that the Philippines is not raising a hell of a lot more about China’s incursion in the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Duterte had blamed the US instead for the current maritime tensions, saying they failed to stop China’s building and arming artificial islands in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

That is very true and there is nothing much the Philippines can do.

China has established their dominance in the region and nobody, but nobody, could make them move out from that strategic place.

Perhaps this is the only reason why Duterte is being assured of his continuance in office because of his seeming fealty to the Chinese leader. Perhaps an assurance also that after him another Duterte could take over with China’s help.

Sara Duterte?

Just asking.

 

Sereno ousted

 

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Surprised?

Well, not really, if you ask me.

Ever since former president Benigno Aquino appointed Maria Lourdes Sereno as replacement for the ousted late Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court (SC) Renato Corona in 2012 for undeclared wealth, there was no denying that the writing on the wall was likewise ominous for her.

The fact that Sereno leapt over her more senior peers of associate justices was unfair enough, but it was even deemed more unthinkable that Sereno, then 52, was expected to stay in her post until reaching the mandatory retirement age in 2030. It is no secret that it is the dream of every associate justice who have aged and gone this far to head the SC one time or another before retiring.

Perhaps this is the reason why Sereno was joined by only five associate justices at her first flag-raising ceremony.  Local media viewed the absence of her eight other colleagues as a snub, and confirmation that she leads a divided court.

Divided court indeed, for at the crucial time when Sereno needed her associate justice’s support, eight (8) turned their back and left her to fall in disgrace.

This is what the writing on the wall was all about, so to speak. For one reason or for many reasons, for as long as it not only pleases the ears of those who dislike Sereno, but has found justifiable reason for her to be removed, then the mechanism for her ouster could immediately be initiated.

It all started last March when the House of Representatives’ justice committee voted on the impeachment complaint against CJ Sereno filed by lawyer Larry Gadon. During these times, Solicitor General Jose Calida also filed the quo warranto petition citing Sereno’s failure to submit the required statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth when she was applying for the Chief Justice position.

What happened is that the SC en banc granted the quo warranto petition that questioned the validity of Sereno’s appointment and, voting 8-6, ousted her.

The decision is expected to be immediately executory, pending the filing of a motion for reconsideration by Sereno.

Not a lawyer, I wanted to educate myself on what ‘quo warranto’ is all about and if it has all the legal basis in ousting an impeachable official like Sereno.

This is what I learned, and gladly sharing it with you, after I visited this site: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/quo-warranto.

Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies.

Quo warranto is used to test a person’s legal right to hold an office, not to evaluate the person’s performance in the office. For example, a quo warranto action may be brought to determine whether a public official satisfies a requirement that he or she resides in the district; or whether a public official is serving in two incompatible offices.

Quo warranto is not available to decide whether an official has committed misconduct in office. A person who commits misconduct in a public office may be penalized or even removed from office, but quo warranto is not the proper forum for those cases. Other processes are available for that purpose.

The term “quo warranto” (pronounced both kwoh wuh-rahn-toh, and kwoh wahr-un-toh) is Latin for “by what authority”—as in, “by what authority does this person hold this office?” The term “quo warranto” is still used today, even though the phrase no longer appears in the statutes.

Quo warranto originated in English common law as a process initiated by the crown to find out whether a person was legitimately exercising a privilege or office granted by the crown, or whether the person was instead intruding into a royal prerogative.

Duterte’s decision to close Boracay

Perhaps one can say that this piece is already water under the bridge since President Rodrigo Duterte has already approved the recommendation of the three government agencies, namely, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Tourism (DOT), and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to close the resort island of Boracay for six months.

The description by no less than the president of the famed place as “cesspool” indeed decidedly put a halt to the influx of tourist to the place.

“You go into the water, it’s smelly. Smells of what? Sh*t,” he had said.

Pretty strong and unfavorable words for the local government and stakeholders, but they all had it coming.

I am not writing this to discuss the inadequacies and ineptness of those governing and running their private entities while thinking only of the windfall of earnings they can make at the expense of the tourist who simply wants to experience fun in the Philippines, and the much talked about Boracay in particular, for this issue has received quite a beating already.

But it is perhaps proper and timely to mention here that the shortcomings, the myopic vision, and the vested interests of their own concerns took a toll on the environment, which is an important facet of tourism.

What I want to talk about, therefore, which certainly is not water under the bridge, is in the context of the urgency and necessity of the Boracay closure.

We must admit that the problems that caused embarrassment to Boracay, famous for its powdery white sand and shallow azure water, did not happen overnight, or to put it straightforward, during Duterte’s presidency.

It has been reported that Boracay’s degradation has been blamed on the failure of the local government to enforce ordinances on marine conservation, garbage and sanitation, and zoning and construction, among others.

Also, that at least 300 hotels, resorts and inns have been ignoring an ordinance that requires them to build their own sewage and wastewater treatment facilities. They have instead been dumping waste into canals meant only for rainwater and surface overflow.

Another upsetting revelation is that four of the nine wetlands on the island, meanwhile, are occupied by a shopping mall, a hotel and around 100 illegal settlers.

Talking about impunity by both the governing body and the governed!

While past administrations acted like the three proverbial monkeys exemplifying the proverbial principle of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”, Duterte used his leadership and political will to make a difference in Boracay.

After all, it is the long range plan of sustaining the grandeur of Boracay for the country’s tourism industry that matters most.