New Culture Of Denying Refugees Into U.S. Alive And Well In Vermont

Rutland, Vermont just said no to Syrian refugees,
following the lead of Donald Trump 

My hometown of Rutland, Vermont has been getting national attention recently over the intense debate there over whether to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in that small city.

Vermont has welcomed refugees from a variety of places over the past few decades, but as the Trump crackdown on refugees continues, it's affecting Vermont in a lot of ways.

If events this month prove anything, Vermont might be moving away from its embrace of refugees, too.

The debate over refugees has been pretty loud in Rutland right from the start. Vermont is generally quite liberal, but Rutland is kind of on the conservative side, at least by Vermont standards.

So the idea of Syrian refugees arriving there has gotten both lots of support, and lots of opposition.

Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras had aggressively championed the arrival of Syrian refugees in his city.

Make that former mayor.

Louras  was up for re-election on March 7 - Town Meeting Day - and his principal opposition came from David Allaire, a member of Rutland's Board of Alderman, who was against settling refugees in Rutland.

Allaire trounced Louras in the election. Allaire got 51 percent of the vote to Louras' 34 percent. Other candidates got small margins.

"I got smoked. Clearly I got smoked....It was a good old-fashioned political drubbing," Louras admitted to VTDigger, a Vermont news site. 

Part of Louras' problem was he never recovered from the fact that he was not particularly forthcoming to the public when the deal to bring Syrian refugees was being hashed out early last year.

But I'm convinced, and many others are, too, that just the idea of Syrian refugees in Rutland made many Rutland residents squeamish, to say the least.

Louras also told VTDigger:

"I think it just demonstrates that Rutland is still, as I said during the campaign and even before the campaign, Rutland is still a microcosm for the national conversation on refugees and immigration. I think the vote reflects that."

That Rutland is a microcosm, as Louras suggested, has certainly attracted plenty of national attention.

Breitbart, apparently Trump's favorite news source crowed:

"While Vermont is generally a refugee-welcoming state, the idea of dumping 100 Syrian refugees into this small city in Vermont that is already struggling economically seemed to defy common sense and logic, even to an area that preferred Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump."

Slate, on the other hand, has a completely different take on what's going on in Rutland, and what happened to Louras.

Says Slate:

"The city of Rutland, which went for Clinton by about 13 points, is 96 percent white. Its population is both aging and shrinking - down to 15,824 in the latest American Community Survey estimate from more than 19,000 in 1970. 

In this, too, it represents America: Cites and towns without immigrants are shrinking. Those that take them are growing. This is true even in the quintessential Sun Belt boomtown Houston, whose white population has dropped by 300,000 residents since 1980, even as total population grew by 500,000. It is certainly true of older cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and New York. 

And it's true of small towns, which increasingly face a choice: stay white and wither, or get diverse and grow. 

Rutland is taking the former path."

Which is too bad. As a Rutland County native, this area of Vermont could have a lot going for it. It'll never be the Vermont manufacturing and railroad hub it was during the early 20th century. But, with the rise of rural tourism and arts, a resurgent back to the land movement of sorts, and an internet age where a creative economy can rise, Rutland has potential.

Rutland also doesn't have to look far away to see how an influx of refugees affected another small Vermont city: Winooski.

A couple of decades ago, Winooski was a down-and-out community on the northern border of Burlington, which is Vermont's largest city.

A thriving textile industry in the early 20th century had died out, just as a marble quarrying and railroad industry in Rutland did the same at about the same time.

Frankly, Winooski was a low-income mess, a place nobody wanted to go to. It was a place Burlington commuters got through as quickly as they could to reach their more upper crust suburban homes in places like Colchester, Essex and Jericho.

Then Winooski started welcoming refugees from all over the world. It was at first an economic decision: The Vermont Refugee Resettlement program figured they could house refugees in Winooski, because the bad economy meant rental prices were low.

And so they came. From Vietnam. Serbia. Bhutan, Nepal. Somalia. Other places.

I won't say this created a utopia. The Winooski school system had to struggle with a huge influx of students who had to learn English as a second language. That was expensive, too. There were cultural differences. Fears that the immigrants would take away jobs from people who had lived in Winooski for decades.

But a funny thing happened.  Winooski turned......vibrant.

Oh sure, part of it was because of a big downtown redevelopment project hatched by a visionary City Council and some developers.

However, much of Winooski's new prosperity came from those refugees. I hate to traffick in stereotypes, but many immigrants tend to be entreprenurial. Interesting restaurants, shops and events sprouted in Winooski.

That attracted interest, and other businesses arrived. Most of them were created by locals who are not refugees, like this really cool Winooski barber shop I now frequent. Other businesses opened because of newer refugees.

OK, Winooski, may have a few too many hipsters nowadays, but that's a lot better than the doldrums the community was in years ago.

Winooski is cool. Rutland could be cool, too.

People are afraid of change, that's just human nature. Plus, we shouldn't change things just for the sake of change.

Sometimes, though, we have to overcome our fears.

Progress in Rutland is stalled now, because of anti-immigrant sentiment both locally and nationally.

As National Public Radio reported, two Syrian refugee family settled in Rutland before Trump shut down that program and before Allaire became mayor.

To be sure, many Rutlanders welcome the refugees.

Says NPR:

"Speaking through an interpreter this week, members ofone family said they felt relieved to be in Vermont. 'At first, we came her and we were surprised bythe very, very warm welcme by the people of Rutland,' one Syrian said. 'The mayor, our caseworker, our host family, all came and welcomed us, and since then, it never stopped, and people have just welcomed us and helped in every way."

That's one part of Rutland. One part of our nation. The ones ready to judge on a newcomer's character, not background.

The other Rutland, the other nation, cowers in fear. Shut the door, and lock us inside, safe from the world.

But that just leaves us more unsafe. What we don't know CAN hurt us, much more than the risks we do know about.

Of course we shouldn't let in everyone and anyone into the United States. We have a long, long history of both embracing and combating immigrants.

It seems we do better durung times when we welome people from other countries.

Yes, vet the hell out of all would-be refugees to the United States. Yes, we don't need or want a stampede of millions of immigrants all at once.

But let's leave the door cracked open, shall we? The nation we save might be our own.

Don't Expect The Trump Inaugural To Be Entertainment Event Of The Year

Donald Trump will have trouble grooving to the music
during his inauguration. Practically nobody wants to perform there

Usually, during the inauguration of a new American President, there's usually lots of parties and entertainment in addition to the pomp and circumstances.

Seems this year, though, the incoming administration is having an incredibly tough time trying to book the entertainment.

During the two Obama inauguratios, we had a few people you may or may not have heard of, like Aretha Franklin, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, Sting, Mary J. Blige, Sting, Alicia Keys, Katy Perry, Brad Paisley, John Legend, Marc Anthony and Smokey Robinson.

This year, for Trump, let's see... we have Jackie Evancho, who took second place in "America's Got Talent" a few years ago. (She is good.) Oh! And the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

As the Boston Globe points out, incoming Republican presidents rarely get the star power during inaugurations like Democrats do.

But you'd think with all the glitz and glitter that comes with the "Trump brand" for lack of a better term, you'd think things would be more dazzling during the parties.

It doesn't seem to be the case this year, despite the attempts from the Trump team.

Earlier this year, the Trumpsters said Elton John would perform, but that turned out to be news to Sir Elton. So, no "Rocket Man" at this  year's inaugural."

Though in my opinion, it would have been fun if Elton John showed up at the Trump gala to sing just one of his hits, namely "Funeral For A Friend/Loves Lies Bleeding." That would have fit nicely.

Andrea Bocelli, the tenor, declined Trump's invitation to perform, too. They were going to have the Radio City Rockettes, but they and the internet rebelled, so no Rockettes kicking up the heels. Again, though, it would have been nice seeing the Rockettes kick Trump in the butt, while Elton John sang "Funeral For A Friend."

I'd pay good money to see that!

Garth Brooks and Celine Dion sent their regrets to the Trump team, too, so I guess we won't hear from them.

However, Trump Inc. has booked the band The Reagan Years (America's Premier '80s Tribute Band!)  and the Star Spangled Singers.

This whole situation is delicious.

As Renee Graham wrote in the Boston Globe:

"It doesn't matter whether stars are declining Trump's request because they oppose his rhetoric ad proposed policies or because they just want to avoid backlash from their fans. This is tangible defiance that Trump can't ignore, because it makes him look foolish and ineffectual. And you don't have to be Alec Baldwin to recognize ow deeply that kind of thing wounds the petulant manchild who will be president."

Not to mention paragraphs like that which would also bother our Beloved Petulant Manchild.

Trump's team is of course spinning this. Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn said "You know, this is not Woodstock. It's not Summer Jam. It's not a concert. It's not about celebrities. As Donald Trump tweeted himself, it's about the people. That's what we're concentrated on."

Meanwhile, another HUGE concert might be brewing to compete with the Trump inauguration.  Nothing's confirmed yet, but a promoter says he's organizing a big, multi-star concert on inauguration day.

I don't know if it will actually happen, but it sounds fun!

This Ad Is Why Many Republicans Loathe Donald Trump

Connor Edldridge, a Democrat, is running for
U.S. Senate from Arkansas. He just
gave a early view of how Democrats
will use Donald Trump to
go after Republican opponents  

I've never heard of Connor Eldridge.

Eldridge, a Democrat, is apparently a former U.S. attorney running for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas.

I haven't researched Eldridge, so I have on idea if he'd be an awesome U.S. Senator or a jerk.

But he's released a campaign ad which illustrates perfectly why many Repubicans are terrified of the idea that Donald Trump will probably win the Republican nomination.

Trump took Indiana last night, Ted Cruz dropped out, so it's pretty much a guarantee Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee.

The Eldridge ad, which in my opinion is incredibly effective, is at the bottom of this post.

Republicans understandably don't want to lose control of the U.S. Senate. Especially if Hillary Clinton or (long shot) Bernie Sanders becomes president.

Just one reason for their fear is that Clinton or Sanders, along with a Democratic Senate, will almost surely appoint a relatively liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his campaign ad, Eldridge easily ties Trump, very brutally, to the billionaire's misogyny. The implication is that being that a cad like Trump is just horrible for women.

Eldridge helpfully points out in his ad that as a federal prosecutor, he's gone after people accused of domestic violence and sexual harassment.

Eldridge also points out his Republican challenger, just might support Trump in the general election.

Conservative pundit Erick Erickson (did I mention he's really really conservative?) commented on Eldridge's ad this way.

"This is brutal. This is exactly what you can expect throughout the country in the general election. This is the ad for the Democratic challenger in Arkansas and provides a helpful roadmap to other Democrats on how they are going to take back the Senate."

I almost never agree with Erickson. Here, though, he's spot on.

Many Republicans are no friends of women, what with their attacks on Planned Parenthood, opposition to equal pay and other issues. But at least most politicians know enough to be respectful to huge constituencies, unlike Trump.

Women make up a little more than half of all voters, so you'd think they'd consider that.

This also crystalizes why I am both fearful and hopeful of Trump. Fearful that he'd somehow actually win and hopeful that he'll inadvertently roll back the worst of Republican or conservative weirdness.

You definitely can't paint all Republicans with the same brush you do with Trump. But Trump's ickiness might rub off on other Republicans, whether those other Republicans deserve it or not.

Here's the ad. (H/T Joe My God)