Different Kinds of Gulags

Before you think we have gone soft, sympathy is not directed towards the intruder. On the contrary, the one’s that deserve sympathy are the productive wealth creators who bear the burden of invasion from unwanted social deviants, no matter where they come from or what culture they follow. The inherent right for community identification security is fundamental. The problem arises when governments decide to protect the survivability of the regime, while infecting the indigenous society with foreign parasites as official mandate.

Guantanamo detainees, in contrast are there because they are suspected terrorists; so says the Defense Department. The CIA facility at the Guantanamo Bay prison was constructed over the past year as the agency confronted one of its toughest emerging problems: where to hold terrorists for interrogations that could last for years. Its hard to equate immigration detainees with dedicated killers, but the reality of everlasting custody is only a difference in condition. Is a gulag defined by a minimal level of cruelty or torment, since we are told that torture is not employed? Or is an internment camp a gulag state of mind?

What constitutes the right to live in a locality? Birth place has been the common factor, as governments relish the opportunity to certify citizenship. But what happens when a national subject runs amiss with the authorities? Take the plight of chess champ Bobby Fischer. “Mr Fischer is detained in Japan and is wanted in the United States for violating international sanctions against Yugoslavia in 1992. Fischer has argued that his US passport had been cancelled without due process. He is also applying to have his deportation order reversed, and is applying for asylum in Japan.” While the specifics of his predicament are compelling, the net result of a stateless status shares some of the same fate as those misfortunate souls in the Baxter detention centre.

Paul Bovtinck in an insightful essay: The Damnable Modern Passport provides invaluable background about the history of state issued papers of identification. With a rye sense of irony the future will soon become the now. “The new passport will mean progress beyond your wildest dreams. The country, once vulnerable to malcontents, innumerable illegals, mafiosi, terrorists, brooding novelists and other such vermin, will be made safe once and forever and for all time.” Sounds like a good idea, right? “This entry/exit system will record the entry and departure of every non-U.S. citizen arriving in the United States and will notify the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] whether foreign nationals departed the United States under the terms of their visas.” Getting to sound even better! But what will happen to ANYONE who raises the ire of officialdom and has the same kind of exposure as Bobby Fischer is now experiencing?

The distinction between the effective restraint to travel unencumbered and the loss of one’s citizenship should be apparent. The trap governments love to bait you with is that the State has the legitimacy of granting the privilege of citizenship. The entire purpose of a nation state is supposed to invoke a mechanism to protect similar individuals that share the same culture. So what should be done with those persistent trespassers?

Deportation should be a national priority – swift, decisive and unconditional. Citizens are the valid inhabitants, aspirant candidates need to apply and stand in line. But what about those individuals that have no home that grants them passage? Where is their sanctuary? Isn’t it curious that STATES lay claim to all the land and parse out the left over plots to the peasants . . . and then demand that the peons pay all the costs to run the kingdom? Surely there are islands that can become citadels for stateless refugees. Self-sufficient remote geographic communities could be carved out of the wilderness of some South Seas paradise. The mere downside that the fruits of free trade may not reach their shores should not be a discouragement to such a concept.

Think about a place were the dregs of humanity, the unwanted and the undesirable can congregate in a separate environment, no longer to be a burden to the rest of formal civilization. Why stop such a straightforward alternative to the manufactured gulags? Indubitably, the Bobby Fischers’ can find a game among the chess-masters who might find such a place as a stimulating gambit, to the castling maneuvers used to protect the king. The common sense is to maintain your own selective community standards, while tolerating the black pawns fight their way to mate is a game worthy of play.

The gulag that now exists and we all labor under has a ‘Gitmo’ charm that would make even Fidel envious. How many coerced citizens might want to renounce their own citizenship and join in with those stateless untouchables, away from those RDIF chip passports portals? Detention of dissenting citizens has much in common with internment when a rogue State can rescind your papers and cancel your civil rights. Just another Good Day in Amerika, mate – it’s called the Baxterization of unwanted patriots.

SARTRE – March 15, 2005