The news of Tuesday, November 8, 2016, the election, is hardly digested. People, particularly, immigrants (in the vernacular sense) are wondering about what the impact of it will be on immigration law. The fact is no one knows, probably even the victor of the election, as his opinions about nearly everything are unformed. After all, on the Thursday after the Tuesday, he met with President Obama, whom he recently called, non-metaphorically, the founder of ISIS, and indicated he was honored by the meeting and looking forward to his counsel. He then, a few days later, called his election nemesis, whom he wanted to “lock up,” and her husband, good people, as he did the 11 million illegals that he asserted repeatedly needed to go.
So rather than speculate about what will happen, I will tell you a little of what I was thinking about. Several years ago, I read an article by a Time Magazine humor writer, Joel Stein, published in Time about a white resident of Edison, New Jersey, lamenting the state of his home town, which turned Indian. I think about it a lot. One would think an article by Thoreau or from G. K. Chesterton, or Bertrand Russell would be the ones that stick in my head the most; rather it was this one. I invite you to read it. It may make you feel better about the now way-overheated immigration debate.
That is not to say that this is the only cultural artifact I have been thinking about this week. People have been resolving that in light of the Tuesday news, they will take their shock and despair and use it to motivate themselves to get involved in policy and politics. They will take their fear and anger and grief and turn these raw emotions into something positive. It reminded me of the immortal words of Michael Scott, “Society teaches us that having feelings and crying is bad and wrong. Well, that’s baloney because grief isn’t wrong. There’s such a thing as good grief. Just ask Charlie Brown.” Posted November 16, 2016.