There are so many things that are confusing me this morning. I am just going to run through a few. You are each welcome to straighten me out on any or all.

(1) Deportations. I must not be the only person totally confused about what the Trump administration wants to do to various categories of non-citizens. The administration has taken actions against specific individuals, against specific groups, and against wide swaths of people from specific places. There has been a lot of push back, of course, and a lot of litigation filed. The extent to which the administration pays attention to any of the courts is unclear. The most obvious example is the Obrega Garcia case, where the Supreme Court has said that the administration must attempt to facilitate Obrega Garcia’s return from imprisonment in El Salvador. This is the ruling of the Supreme Court, and it appears it is being ignored by the president who says he always follows the courts. Then, there is the utter confusion on the case of 350,000 Venezuelans who had been given Temporary Protective Status by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court has said that Trump may vacate that TPS, but I don’t think it has set any rules yet as to how that would or could work. In the meantime, the court has said that the U.S. cannot deport specific alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang of Venezuela without giving them certain specific rights to contest their deportation. But now, if the revocation of TPS for Venezuelans would simply allow the administration to tell all 350,000 goodbye and good luck (which maybe it does), is it possible that the alleged members of Tren de Aragua would have more rights to contest their position than other Venezuelans, or would it mean that, to the extent that the court gave them those rights, they would lose them, as they would be thrown into the overall Venezuelan pot?

And then, of course, there is a question of who has free speech and other constitutional rights. When the constitution gives certain rights to “persons”, does that mean citizens, or legal residents, or everyone? Until now, the thought was that it covers everyone. Is the court going to change that? The court has declared that corporations are people for the purpose of having certain rights; will it now say that corporations have more rights under the constitution that live persons? And what about birthright citizenship, which is another constitutional provision that declares that anyone born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically a citizen. If a child born to parents who are not supposed to be here is denied citizenship, (in addition to potentially leading to stateless people, or to family breakups) on the basis that that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country, how can they be, say, deported which is something that can only happen through the jurisdiction of the country? See my points?

Did you happen to see an article in yesterday’s print edition of the Washington Post by Philip Bump? It was titled “What you – yes, you – should know about interacting with ICE”, and was on page A16. It was basically a guide as to your rights if you are stopped and questioned by someone from ICE, or someone who claims to be from ICE. Basically, when you should cooperate with them, or when you have to. When you can and should stay silent or walk away, and what to do if they restrain you or tell you that you are being detained.

If someone came up to you and told you to get in the car and drive to Lubbock TX right now without missing a turn, you would need to look at your GPS, because otherwise you might not even know which way to turn out of your driveway. And if you were told that you couldn’t use GPS or a map or call anyone to ask them, what would you do? What if you were being given instructions by your abductor, and told to turn right, veer left, go straight, when you had no idea if they were giving you good instructions, or leading you to a place of no return?

After reading Bump’s column, I came to realize that knowing what to do if ICE stops you, knowing your rights, or what the possible results of disobedience might be whether or not you are within your rights, is the equivalent to being forced to drive to Lubbock. The laws and regulations governing the right to stop you on the street, ask you questions, detain you and so forth depends (even when it is clear) on your own personal status, and on the authority of the particular individuals who stop you. They are complicated enough that it is unlikely if you will ever memorize them, or know which rules apply to a particular crisis situation, and it is equally unlikely if the person stopping you knows the rules either, or cares what they might be.

(2) I am equally confused about what is going on in Israel and environs. A friend asked me the other day what I thought, and I repeated what I have been saying for some time now. I just don’t know.

Clearly, what is going on in Gaza is unacceptable. Israel’s actions are unacceptable; Hamas’ actions are unacceptable. The only man who can fix things turns out to be powerless, and the leaders of “moderate” Arab countries turn out to be only partially interested because they know that any solution might adversely affect them. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, etc., it is NIMBY writ large. Not in my back yard. For Israel, it is Stand Your Ground writ large. I can do anything so you won’t destroy me. For Hamas, it is catch me if you can (and if you do, I don’t really care, someone else will take over and perhaps I will be a martyr). For the poor folk who happen to live in Gaza and cannot leave, it is more than you would like to admit, the equivalent of Jews in central Europe during the Hitler years, who both couldn’t leave and, if they could leave, had nowhere to go (because no one would take them in) and had to stay where they were awaiting rescue or annihilation.

I understand that I have no control over this situation, and no influence, but I also know that if I ran this particular zoo, it would remain a zoo under a leader who was totally confused as to how he should lead.

(3) I will stop. As usual, we could go on and on. But to what avail?