It's in the Code ep 158: “No Human Is Illegal, Pt.1”
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 850-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/
In this first episode examining Allie Beth Stuckey’s chapter on immigration, Dan considers Stuckey’s question “what happened?” to bipartisan support for immigration reform. She suggests that liberals and progressives have become radical on the issue of immigration and drifted far from the American mainstream. But Dan argues that Stuckey, and those on the right like her, have misled Americans for decades about their real positions on immigration, masking a desire to maintain a White America. As this has come more clearly into view, more and more Americans have come to oppose their views. Check out this week’s episode to hear more!
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Check out BetterHelp and use my code SWA for a great deal: www.betterhelp.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Axis Mundi Welcome to It's in the Code, a series that is part of the podcast Straight White American Jesus.
I, of course, am Dan Miller, your host.
Pleased to be with you as always, as always.
As always, I want to thank you for listening.
Thank you for supporting us.
I want to invite your comments, questions, feedback, ideas for new episodes, responses to episodes that have aired, questions that you might have, anything and everything.
Daniel Miller swaj, Daniel Miller swaj at gmail.com.
Always value your insights.
As always, behind on responding to emails.
Do not get to as many of them as I would like, but I read them and I value them and you keep this going.
And if you're a subscriber in particular, thank you.
If you're not a subscriber and that's something that you would be in a position to consider doing, we'd ask you to do that.
We are an independent podcast and we can't do anything without you and you've helped us do a lot we want to keep doing that so please if you could consider that and if that's not something you're able to do we get it just go and leave us a review give us a like give us a star let people know that they should listen and keep us going that way i want to dive in this week we are continuing our deep dive into alibeth stucky's critique of toxic empathy her term And we've been working through her book by that title.
And we are turning to her second to last chapter, No Human Is Illegal, where she takes on the issue of immigration.
And folks, everything in this book is bad.
And, you know, I really can't compare one chapter to another, but man, reading this chapter is frustrating.
And I'm not sure if any of us were to sit back and evaluate my own responses to this text, why I find it so particularly frustrating.
I think what part of it might be is that this is a topic that, say, when I was young, growing up in a conservative evangelical church, the rhetoric then was not what it is now.
And were it another topic that is more distant, it would seem, from some of the core concerns of what traditionally has been the focus of conservative American Christianity for the past several decades.
And so when we talk about things like gay rights or abortion, okay, we're right in there.
We talk about trans rights, and that's a little bit further afuted field, but it sort of gets wrapped up in kind of queer issues more broadly.
So you're just like, okay, it's, you know, adjacent.
This topic and the way she talks about it hasn't been.
So I think it's one of those spaces where she, again, to remind us, claims that everything she's doing in this book is through a biblical lens.
And we're not going to talk about her Bible stuff today.
We're going to do that sometime in the next couple episodes.
But folks, if you want to go to the Bible and try to argue that God hates immigrants, it's hard to do.
And so maybe that's why is because the reasoning is just that much more tortured.
And it's just very, very apparent at this point that she is just a cultural conservative trying to baptize all of her issues, you know, in some Christian nomenclature and so forth.
I don't know.
I think that's what bugs me.
At any rate, the chapter drives me crazy.
There's a lot in it, a lot I want to get into.
And so I'm going to have to move through some stuff kind of fast in this episode.
And I apologize and hope that that works okay.
You can email me and let me know what you think.
But I want to start with a question that Stucky poses that I think does a lot of work in this chapter, and I think it provides a useful way for getting into the incredibly slippery rhetoric about immigration on the right.
Again, we're looking at Stucky, not just for Stucky, but because she is so typical of the discourse of the right.
She really has nothing new or significant to offer, and that's kind of her value is that she's not unique.
And we see this, and we can see the ways that this rhetoric works.
to mask the racism and xenophobia of their views on immigration and immigrants.
So on page 108, it's on page 108 of her book, she makes this statement followed by a question.
She says, at one point, not too long ago, both sides of the is aisle shared similar views on this, that is illegal immigration.
The conversation about illegal immigration wasn't centered on empathy for those immigrants, but on what's best for the country.
What happened?
End quote.
It's that question of what happened.
And she follows with a litany of statements and actions on the part of people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the so-called deporter-in-chief, and Biden to make her point.
Once upon a time, there was a lot more bipartisan support.
What happened?
And she touches on something real here.
The discourse about undocumented immigrants has shifted on the part of the left in recent years.
It's shifted on the part of the right as well.
We'll get to that.
And she expresses like.
faux bafflement at this.
What happened?
And I think it's important to understand the dynamics of this question because it's not really a question for her.
She poses this question for a number of reasons.
And I think before we go any deeper, it's important to understand what that question is doing for her.
So the first thing is when she's like, you know, people used to agree on this and now the left just thinks that this is all bad.
Like, God, what happened?
The first thing is that this question is intended to demonstrate that she and people like her, that they are part of the mainstream.
They represent the mainstream.
And any of us who might oppose their anti-immigrant and anti-immigration policies, we have simply become more radical.
We have left the mainstream.
What she's essentially saying is, you know, hey, we're still holding the positions that most Americans held.
You radicals and liberals and progressives, you're the ones who've moved on this issue.
That's what she's saying.
And it's a way of seeking to rhetorically position herself and those like her as representatives of the American mainstream.
and to position all of us who oppose her as radical and out of step with that mainstream.
That's the first thing that that question is doing.
The second thing, and it follows right from this, these are really two kind of entangled issues.
It's intended to position her and those like her as the reasonable party in the immigration debate.
So anybody who would disagree with her is unreasonable.
Right.
And so what she's essentially saying is, hey, you know, people held this position because it was a reasonable position to hold.
And we are still on the mainstream.
So we are still reasonable.
And again, all you liberals and progressives who think and feel differently, you're not only out of the mainstream, but you're out of the mainstream because your views are irrational.
They're unreasonable.
They're crazy.
That's what she's telling us.
And then third, and I think this wraps everything together, that question is really intended to make opposition to her views incomprehensible.
When she says what happened, what she's really saying is, you know, I just don't understand what happened.
I mean, I can't fathom why anyone would abandon reasonable mainstream positions that were bipartisan, reflected the views of most Americans.
There's simply no way to make sense of this opposition.
That's what she's saying.
And the point there is that there's no need to even listen to or engage those who oppose or disagree with her because their thoughts are irrational and incomprehensible.
There's no point of engaging.
They're just crazy.
There's no way to even make sense of them or render them intelligible.
And so what she's doing with that question, when she runs through this litany of people and says what happened what she's really trying to do is assert that she can simply dismiss any opposition to her right-wing immigration views and policies without having to engage any of it and this again this is a typical move on the right to just say well you're just you're just a bunch of radicals there's nothing we can do there's no talking to you you're just crazy and radical and it's a it's a tactic that she uses throughout the book to avoid having to look at any serious or
meaningful challenges to her views She can set up straw person arguments and avoid significant challenges to her own views because there are none.
She can just dismiss them all ahead of time as being crazy and never have to look at them.
And that's super convenient for her because it allows her to march right past the blind spots in her own argument.
Again, this is not unique to this chapter, but it really, I think, structures the entire chapter moving forward.
And so I'm going to circle back around and I'm going to get to what my answer to that question of what happened is in a minute.
If I was sitting here talking to Stuck and just, oh, gee, shucks, golly, I don't understand what happened.
I'd be like, I can tell you what happened.
I can tell you why the shift happened.
And I'll get to that in a minute.
But what I want to do first to set that up is I want to look at really telling a mission in her own discussion.
When I said that she poses this so that she can like just sort of gloss over blind spots and gaps in her own reasoning.
This is a glaring one that again structures this chapter.
So she once again opens this chapter with a story, and in this case, a very sympathetic account of an immigrant deported from the U.S. And she tells this story recounted in part from a Washington Post article of Maribel Trujillo Diaz.
And Maribel, she and her husband, they came to the U.S. without papers in 2002, escaping, and this is all according to Stucky.
escaping violence, extortion, and kidnapping in Mexico.
She and her family settled in Fairfield, Ohio, and built a good life.
And she applied for asylum a few years after entering the U.S. In 2014, she was informed by ICE that she should remain in the U.S. as long as she could rather remain in the U.S. as long as she routinely checked in with authorities.
In 2016, she was issued a year-long work permit.
But then everything changed for her and her family when Trump became president.
She was arrested outside a family member's house and she was transferred to a detention center without any of her belongings or documentation.
And eventually, she was deported back to Mexico where her parents lived in a hotbed of gang violence.
Okay, so one of a million tragic stories of deportation in this country.
Here's how Stucky responds to the story.
And once again, it seems like we talked about this in her last chapter, that she's feeling the temptation to empathy here big time.
Here's how Stucky responds to this story.
She says, quote, honestly, it's difficult for me to see the justification for Maribel's deportation.
She was a responsible community member and a loving mother.
She's not a criminal.
I want you to hold on to that admission.
She's not a criminal.
She just did what every one of us would have done, fled violence for the opportunity of a better life.
Now, four children are without their mom.
We know whom her deportation harmed, but who did it help?
Wow.
You read that and you're like, whoa.
Allie Beth Stucky, there's something going on here.
First, she expresses not only empathy, but sympathy for Maribel.
Second, she admits that there's no clear justification for her deportation.
And third, she goes as far as to say that Maribel is not a criminal.
Big deal.
The question is, what does she do with this?
How does it affect her views?
Does she criticize the Trump administration for targeting law-abiding immigrants with children who are U.S. citizens and the destruction of families that comes from this?
Does she push back on the fact that there is no justification for this?
Does she push back on the fact that the administration said they were going to target violent offenders and they're not?
Does she criticize a system where it's too hard and slow to attain asylum status?
Does she criticize the Trump administration for going back on everything that they said?
As I mentioned a minute ago, no, she doesn't do any of these things.
Instead, how does she respond?
She just drops it.
She says all of that and then she just moves on.
She just stops talking about it.
See these, the stories of people like Merrill, these are the instances that those who oppose the anti-immigration and anti-immigrant policies of the the right, that's what we want to talk about.
But she doesn't engage at all.
And that's why she needs to position everyone on the political and social left as irrational and unreasonable so she doesn't have to engage.
Because folks, she has no response to this, nor does anybody on the right.
Instead of engaging with this instance, she simply drops it and tries to gaslight her opponents into thinking that if they don't drop it, they're being duped by the radicals.
So instead of engaging this issue, instead of sitting with the fact that this feels so wrong to her, instead, she slides into all the rhetorical moves and slights of hand typical of the right.
And this slide, the move that she actually makes when confronted with this heart-wrenching story, the move that she actually makes, this is where we can find the real answer to her question of what happened within the American immigration debate.
This is where we see it.
So let's come back to that question, her baffled question.
What happened?
Here it is.
Alibeth Stucky.
What happened is this.
Those on the political and social left and a lot of politically moderate Americans as well, we saw in the light of day that you people on the right had been lying about your views on immigration and immigrants for decades.
That's what happened.
We saw that you were full of shit and that you were a bunch of liars.
For decades, critics of the right accused them of harboring racist and xenophobic views about immigration.
And for decades, we were told that they, quote unquote, love immigrants, that they support legal immigration, that people need to, this is a phrase I use here all the time, that people need to wait their turn, et cetera.
And moderates in particular, including the mainstream of the Democratic Party, they took them at their word.
And they also believed them when they reported some levels of compassion for those, especially children who'd been in the U.S. for decades, making a positive contribution to society.
Now, Stucky wants to be like, what happened?
She could also compare the policies of, say, the Bush administration on immigrants who were already in the U.S. to the policies of the Trump administration.
She positions this as if everybody on the left made this radical shift and as if the right didn't shift at all.
Okay?
But that's what we were told.
But to be clear.
There were always those of us who saw through that.
We heard the jokes.
We recognized the dog whistles.
We listened to the sermons.
We knew our American history and we didn't believe them.
We didn't believe the people on the right when they said these things.
God, I used to get in so many debates about this with people in my church on just this issue.
And then Donald Trump came along and started saying all the quiet parts out loud.
So Stucky's answer to what changed, her answer is the people on the left just don't like Donald Trump and so they became radical on this topic because he was going to crack down on immigration.
No.
As I've said for years, if you listen to Straight White American Jesus, you've heard me say this for a long time, Trump hasn't inaugurated anything within the religious and cultural right.
He is simply its id.
it's id he is like the unfiltered id the desire that the right has always had he just comes out and says it and claims it he says out loud and brings into the open what has been their perspective for decades so he said what he needed to say to win over Americans to to win the election he fed off of white fears of crime He said he wanted to rid America of violent immigrants.
He radically inflated the danger to build his support.
But many of us always saw that for Trump and for millions of his supporters, the problem isn't violent immigrants.
The problem is all non-white immigrants.
Non-white immigration is the problem.
And that is what is reflected in his policies.
And that, bringing the lies of the right into the plain light of day as has been going on for the last 10 years, that's what provoked change.
That's what shifted for people on the left was a need to protect the vulnerable and to protect people who were not criminals, who were not violent offenders, who were not a threat or a risk.
And that is what Stucky goes to great lengths to hide and may not see at all.
I can't read Stucky's mind.
I don't know how much of what she says is posturing and rhetoric and how much is stuff that she sincerely believes.
I don't know.
It doesn't matter.
The effects are the same either way.
So that's what happened, Alibeth Stucky.
You folks are a bunch of liars.
We knew you were a bunch of liars.
And now everybody knows that you're a bunch of liars.
And people have had to shift direction.
And so this is what brings us to how Stucky actually proceeds in this chapter and how she understands stories like the one she opened with.
She simply plays the card that the right has always played.
which has again come out more into the open in the past decade.
What she does is she casts all immigrants as a threat and a danger that must be countered.
So essentially, even though she doesn't say this explicitly, but this is the logic of her argument, even someone like Maribel is a danger because she is an immigrant.
The story may seem tragic, but she's a potential danger because she's an immigrant.
We are not in the world of Alibeth Stuckey and Donald Trump and all the people who support her and listen to her podcast and support him and his policies.
We are not simply confronted with some dangerous immigrants.
No, all immigrants are a danger because they are immigrants.
And this is a line that absolutely structures this chapter in Stucky's book.
And again, it's a line that structures the rhetoric and arguments on the social and political right.
And Stucky is subtle at this.
She's good at masking this.
And it's why if you talk with people like her, it's often difficult to figure out exactly what's going wrong with their argument or why we really disagree with them.
But sometimes you're like, we'll sort of paint yourself into a corner and you just be like, I don't understand.
like how we got to this point because i know i disagree with what they're saying but everything they're saying sounds reasonable and so forth she's good at this so what i want to do with the rest of this episode is i want to take a few minutes and i want to look at how this actually plays out in her discourse.
Some of the mechanisms that she uses to make this slide into a slide from legal immigration is good and we're after violent immigrants to all immigrants are dangerous and need to be removed.
I want to look at some of the mechanisms that she used to get there because again, these are so typical of people on the right.
So here are a few of the rhetorical strategies and shifts that I find in her chapter, and I hope that these make sense.
Let me know.
The first is, and this is a really basic one, a big overarching one, happens all the time in public discourse.
She conflates different populations and policies.
And this is a central strategy on the right.
Okay, so in my view, I'm not an expert on immigration, but in my view, there are at least two broad and complex policy issues at play in debates about immigration.
The first is what to do about regulating the flow of immigrants coming into the U.S. at the borders.
And the second is what to do about millions of undocumented immigrants and their citizen children.
who are already in the U.S. and often have been for decades, people like Maribel.
But those issues are often conflated on the right.
They're collapsed down together.
So when people on the right talk about securing the borders or keeping illegal immigrants out or whatever, they wrap all of those already inside the U.S. within that description.
And for me, these are separate issues.
They're already here.
So when stories like Maribel's come up, when we ask, well, what about situations like hers?
That's what happens.
Like, okay, well, yeah, but like, what about this story over here?
They say, well, you know what?
We got to secure the borders.
We've got to regulate the borders.
We got to secure the borders.
We got to stop the flow of illegals coming into this country.
And you'll be like, okay, but I'm not talking about undocumented immigrants coming into the country, those who are already here.
But yeah, we've got to secure the borders.
See, you see that conflation?
It happens all the time.
There are two completely distinct issues that are collapsed together.
And that is when she says what happened, that's a shift that has happened on the right as well, Alibeth Stuckey.
There used to be people on the political right who could recognize a distinction between those two groups of people who no longer do.
And this occurs throughout her chapter.
She has nothing to say about the Maribel's of the world, only about closing borders.
And it's by conflating those that she can think or try to get us to try to get us to think that when we talk about securing the borders, it has anything to do with people like Maribel.
It doesn't.
It's a constant rhetorical bait and switch.
And so when people on the left talk about, you know, sanctuary and related issues, that's primarily what we're talking about is those who are already in the country who are law abiding, who are good people, many of whom have, again, children who are citizens and so forth, it has nothing to do with closing borders.
the border opening the border regulating the border whatever okay That's the first thing.
The second rhetorical move that she makes is, and again, this is typical on the right, and we've talked about this on the podcast.
is affirming legal immigration, but then basically working to eradicate it.
Saying, well, of course I affirm legal immigration.
Immigration needs to be done in a way that's legal, but then you like narrow the framework of legal immigration so far that you essentially choke it down to nothing.
And again, for decades, we've heard from the right that they affirm legal immigration, but they're also the ones that say who make legal immigration harder and harder to accomplish.
And Stucky is absolutely typical of the right on this.
And her comments.
Together with things that are actually going on in the country right now, they highlight the racial dimension of this.
So here's a telling example from her book.
She starts with a kind of, you know, of course immigrrants are good, Lion.
Here's what she says.
She says, There's no question that legal immigration allows people into our country who offer incredible contributions to our culture, economy, and overall health as a nation.
We can hear her, hey, hey, I've got no problem with legal immigration.
She could be Uncle Ron.
She could be your pastor.
She could be the person you work with.
She could be your brother-in-law.
She could be any Trump voter who says, hey, I've got no problem with legal immigration.
Except then she goes on to say this.
She says, and I quote, for better or for worse, immigrants, especially in large numbers, change a country.
She goes on a couple pages later to say this, we have to acknowledge that changes within the population alter the direction of our country.
So yeah, it turns out legal immigration might be okay if it's rare.
And when we're talking about, as we are with most immigration debates in this country, when we're talking about almost exclusively non-white immigrants, When you start talking about the character of a country or changes within the population, what you're essentially worrying about is that immigration will make it so your population isn't white enough.
We no longer have enough of a population of white European ancestral stock.
It changes the complexion of a society.
And she backs this up.
If you want to know, say, well, I don't know.
Does that have to be racial?
I don't know, but the stories she backs it up with are scary stories about what Arabs are doing to Germany and Scandinavia.
And she then follows that by talking about the evils of Americans who support Palestine, always aimed at non-white populations.
She also wraps asylum seekers up in this.
She says, again, quoting her, while immigrants are incredibly beneficial to a society, it is not immoral for a country to limit the number of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers it accepts.
So now we're not just talking about people, you know, coming in because they want a quote unquote better life or better economic opportunity or something.
We're also talking about those who are fleeing persecution and so forth.
We're going to come back to this when we get into what she has to say about the Bible and stuff in another episode.
But for right now, she just wraps it up with that.
We got to keep out not just, you know, not just immigrants per se, but refugees and asylum seekers as well.
And we've seen how this plays out.
We have seen the Trump administration revoke visas, seek to denaturalize citizens, tighten parameters of people coming in legally, narrow the parameters for people seeking asylum, and so forth, all in an effort to undo or curtail legal immigration.
So when Stucky or anybody else comes at me and says, oh, of course I support legal immigration, I'm like, no, you don't.
You want to define legal immigration out almost out of existence.
Okay.
Another strategy she uses, and it follows from this is using false either or reasoning, putting us into a false either or choice.
Think about that quotation, right?
Again, when she says that it's not immoral to put limits, I don't think any reasonable person argues there should be quote unquote no limits on immigration.
She goes on to say that quote, no nation's government, no matter how rich and powerful, has the capacity to care for every person on the planet or represent all of their competing interests.
Allie Beth Stucky, no one would ever suggest otherwise.
Nobody has ever argued that the U.S. needs to care for every person on the planet.
This is rampant hyperbole.
But this is how those reductive either or terms work.
Either you have highly restricted, limited immigration, or there are no safeguards at all.
And this is typical of the religious reasoning on the right as well.
Think about purity culture.
Think about the arguments that are made for people having to abstain from sex before marriage.
If you get into that literature, if you grew up in one of those youth groups, you hear the same thing like, either you remain sexually absent until marriage or you're going to lead a licentious lifestyle sleeping around and being sexually unsafe and so forth, this radical either or, okay?
I think a reasonable position would recognize there's a huge continuum between having no parameters at all on who can enter the country, which I don't think anybody is actually advocating on the one side, and basically trying to do away with non-white immigration on the other.
There's a huge continuum in there.
That's where the debate is.
But that's what she wants us not to see.
So she creates these false either or options.
She also, and this brings us back to this overarching theme, plays the standard fear-mongering game to make it so that everyone is a potential threat..
She has some stories about undocumented immigrants who've committed horrible crimes, and she argues that if they were not here, these crimes would not have happened.
And she uses this as an argument for radically restricting immigration.
You've got to keep immigrants out because you just don't know when they might be dangerous.
And here's the effect of this rhetoric.
When it combines with that collapsing of controlling the borders and expelling undocumented immigrants, that first thing that she does, It effectively amounts to the claim that all immigrants are a potential threat.
Despite data that shows lower instances of violent crime by undocumented immigrants and so forth.
They are all potentially a threat.
And to circle back around, this is another way of dealing with the Maribels of the world.
We can just never be sure that immigrants aren't a threat, so we need to act as if they all are.
Now, Stucky bristles in this chapter at the accusation of xenophobia.
But folks, the literal definition of xenophobia is viewing all outsiders as a threat, which is exactly what she and those like her do.
Okay?
And then a final thing that she does, and this is like, you know, gaslighting of a high order.
She tries to argue that strictly limiting immigration is in the best interest of immigrants.
Okay.
She says that stricter immigration control would be good for immigrants because then they won't undertake the dangerous journey to get here.
She also says, and this is the most ridiculous one for me, she also says that, you know, having open borders, quote unquote, creates a brain drain.
for immigrants countries of origin because of the people who leave.
Now, here's my question for this.
I've had this conversation with people.
I have heard this argument made before, and I've had this conversation.
Which is it?
Is it that we're attracting the best and brightest from these other countries, and like somehow we're hurting them by taking their brains away, by taking their best and brightest?
Or is it that we're attracting violent criminals?
Which is it?
I thought the thing was that a bunch of violent criminals are flowing across the borders, not that a bunch of brilliant and capable people who could be helping their own countries are flowing across the borders.
So she wants to say it's in their best interest, not that.
not to come.
Okay.
Here's what all of this boils down to.
It has become increasingly evident over the past decade in particular that what critics of the right always said, that was correct.
That the things the right was telling us were lies.
They do not only oppose violent criminals coming to the U.S., nor do they support legal immigration.
They want to maintain a predominantly white America, and they want to do it by ensuring that non-whites do not enter the country and by removing as many non-whites as possible from the country.
So that is my answer to Stucky's question of what happened.
Again, we saw the truth of what's going on, and we see it in her chapter.
It's all there, folks.
So those who had previously taken them at their word and acted in good faith to find reasonable solutions with regard to immigration and to come up with compromises and so forth, changed course.
There's no mystery here.
There's only an effort to mask what's really going on on the part of Stucky.
Hey, so let me wrap some of this up.
This is a long episode.
Need to tie this up.
In her reflections on immigration, Stucky echoes virtually every defining feature of the right's current discourse.
Almost everything that anybody on the right says about immigration is here in this chapter.
And so it's a great sort of lab almost to dissect it and pull it apart and see how the rhetoric works.
She simply has no answer for the inhumanity of deporting millions of law-abiding people and destroying their families.
So what does she do?
She just denies their humanity.
They're all potentially a threat.
There you go.
And her willingness to sacrifice them.
to the ideology that all outsiders are a threat.
Again, a textbook example of xenophobia.
Do not tell me it's not xenophobic.
You can send me the emails and stuff, and you can send the sympathetic ones talking about how, like, I understand everything you're saying, but my brother-in-law is this.
I think he's a really nice guy.
I don't think he's a xenophobe.
Sorry.
It's the definition of xenophobia to position all outsiders as a threat.
Okay.
Her willingness to sacrifice people like Maribel to that ideology, it also shows us the real target here is not violent offenders or securing the borders.
It is the maintenance of a predominantly white America.
It's right there in front of us.
And again, all the elements of this ideology are present in Stucky's chapter.
And if we cut through those rhetorical shifts, if we look at them, I'm trying to sort of pull them apart and look at how they operate, the real vision comes through.
As we move through this chapter, we're not done with this chapter.
And I know that if you're listening, you've probably got questions or other issues that I haven't brought up.
And hopefully I'll get to those in the next couple episodes.
We're going to have more to say about her views.
And she has a lot to say about, you know, borders and sovereignty and so forth.
We're going to talk about that.
We're going to look at the vision of God that she claims licenses these racist and xenophobic views.
And I'm really interested in seeing that.
We're going to take a look at those in the next couple episodes.
