10 Scary, Whacky, and Weird Bills Introduced in Congress

1. H.R. 899:  To terminate the Department of Education. 
   
   Introduced by Thomas Massie (R-KY), Justin Amash (R-MI), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Jody Hice (R-GA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Raul Labrador (R-ID)
   
   This bill is quite simple.  The above congressmen are seeking to terminate the Department of Education in its entirety.  It's latest action has been a referral to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.  Rep.  Thomas Massie, the key Congressman behind this bill, believes that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to dictate what our kids learn and that's where Massie gets it totally wrong.  The Department of Education's mission is to establish policies to federal education funding as well as the administration and monitoring of their use, collecting data and research, using that information to identify major issues in education and inform the public, and lastly, enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination (US DoE: What We Do)  So if the Department of Education isn't dictating what kids learn at our public schools, then who does?  The states, themselves.  Massie et al get an F for their failure to understand the US educational system on its most basic level.
   
   
2. H.R. 610 Choices in Education Act of 2017:
   
   Introduced by Steve King (R-IA), Andy Harris (R-MD),  Trent Franks (R-AZ), Pete Olson (R-TX).
   
   This snazzily named bill (it's all about choice and the freedom of it, yo!) essentially repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and, instead of terminating the Department of Education, it just limits its activities to providing block grants to states.  Wait a second...I'm seeing a pattern here.  One bill wants to get rid of the ED altogether, which basically means that the ED will no longer be monitoring how our federal tax dollars are being used, and the second bill wants to also do the same thing.  That's two bills involving money and taking away the federal overseeing body of its use. 
   
   This one, however, is packing that all in with the requirement of providing block grants that provide vouchers for kids in case they want to be either home schooled or enrolled in a private school.  Here's the deal with that though:  How do we know that our tax dollars to these kids are going to equal a basic education?  We won't have a body overseeing that.  On top of it, it's giving kids who opt to go to a private school an additional leg up and what kids tend to go to private schools?   Primarily children of the wealthy and this bill makes no income limits in regards to limiting the usage of these sorts of vouchers to children in financial need.  This bill does nothing to eliminate the increasing wealth and opportunity gaps within the country. 
   
   Part two of this bill is the No Hungry Kids Act.  Again, it sounds great except for the fact that it repeals all the current nutritional standards for national school lunch and breakfast programs so they would no longer be required to have fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat/fat free milk available to kids as well as getting rid of the limits on sodium, saturated and trans fats, and children's actual caloric requirements.  In short, this portion of H.R. 610 wants to be certain that our kids eat total crap for lunch because having a nation of obese children who learn to eat crap is a great idea.
   
   
3. H.R. 861:  To Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency:
   
   Introduced by Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), and Barry Loudermilk (R-GA).
   
   I'm not sure what these three bozos were thinking when they introduced this bill because what it really does is get rid of the agency in charge of regulating our existing environmental laws.  Getting rid of the regulating agency doesn't get rid of the environmental laws and those laws would need to be regulated by another (probably pre-existing) agency.  H.R. 861 is just stupid and the three authors of it are all freshmen representatives.  They're new at this whole Congress thing and by god, is it showing with this one.
   
    
4. H.R. 147  Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2017 (PRENDA):
   
   
   Introduced by 60 Republican Members of the House. 
   
   These illustrious members of Congress want you to know something and that is that discriminating against an unborn child due to its sex, gender, race, or color is not okay.  Do you hear me?  It's not okay!  According to this bill, they want to make sure that everybody knows that and nobody forces any pregnant woman to get rid of a child based on any of the above criteria because apparently, the Republican congressmen are confused by all of their clothing labels that say "Made in China" and think we're living in it.   And if you think it's okay to force or coerce a woman into an abortion on based on these criteria, well, you'll be in big trouble as this law makes it criminal.  What I really want to know is how people can tell what gender a child is before its born considering that gender is sometimes different from sex?
   
   
5. H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act:
   Introduced by 30 Republican Members of the House
   
   This bill is pretty weird at face value.   I'm just going to quote the summary of the bill so you can read it yourself. 
   

   This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

   Most of it is easily understood.  By codifying that human life begins at conception, this bill--if made into a law--essentially makes things from certain IUDs, morning after pills, and abortions murder.  It makes no exclusion on whether or not there is something significantly wrong with the fetus either. All embryos are life without prejudice.  This is explicit in the text of the bill, itself.  Nor does it take into account how the "life" began (no exclusion for rape) or whether or not a pregnancy will kill the mother.  It then affirms that each state will have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings (including fertilized embryos) within their respective jurisdictions. 
   
   What about the truly weird part though?  The cloning.  Why are these congressmen so interested in something that you would typically think would be against their traditional values just on the sheer basis of being pure sci fi?   The most likely answer is pretty simple:  fetal stem cell research.  This form of research is performed using embryos created through cloning.  In 2001, the US was restricted to 19 lines that were being cloned for stem cell research  What would happen if this bill passes into law?  It would mean that those embryos could not be aborted or destroyed and any woman currently carrying a clone for research would be forced to term.  We would have our first human clones walking among us.  Outside of the weird factor and perhaps more importantly, fetal stem cell research is considered to be the best hope for a cure of an innumerable number of chronic and potentially fatal conditions and diseases.
   
   
6. H.R. 83  Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act:
   
   Introduced by Lou Barletta (R-PA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Tom Marino (PA-10), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Steve King (R-IA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Mark Sanford (R-SC).
   
   This bill, if passed, would basically take Trump's executive order on punishing sanctuary cities and the states that these cities reside in by withholding federal assistance from them and codifies it.  It also charges the Department of Justice with the duty to monitor whether or not state and local governments are complying with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  Whether or not this will be held as constitutional, if passed, is up to question, however, based on a recent ruling in the 9th District of the US Court of Appeals that found the requiring law enforcement agencies to act as ICE to be unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment (LA Times).
   
   
7.   H.R. 785  National Right-to-Work Act:
   Introduced by Steve King (R-IA), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Andy Barr (R-KY), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Bob Goodlatte (lol do you think he makes good lattes?) (R-VA), Rick Allen (R-GA), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Bill Hulzenga (R-MI), Robert Wittman (R-VA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), David Trott (R-MI), Kristi Noem (R-SD). 
   
   This bill basically states that it will "preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations or to refrain from such activities".  Currently, the law states that employees can form, join or assist labor organizations so what this bill actually does is given an employee the choice to opt out of joining a labor organization at their place of employment.  The proponents for this bill basically argue that the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act (for transportation industry unions) is essentially unfair in that it forces workers to join and pay dues to unions.  Sounds great because having a choice is a good thing, right?
   
   Not necessarily as sometimes the direct benefits of something are not immediately felt.  It's because of labor unions that workers have good wages, benefits, and the assurance of safety requirements that were all brokered by unions through collective bargaining.  Basically, if every employee is within the union, that means that it's not an individual fighting for any of the above perks.  It's all of them.  Without the unions, then those protections are at risk as the power of the unions against their employers will be diminished for every employee that opts out.  Period.  This one is a tricky one as we all want a freedom of choice but at the same time, there aren't that many in politics that are really fighting for our workers.  Politicians may say they are but what have they really done?
   
   
8. H.R. 354 Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2017:
   
   Introduced by 136 Republican Congressmen.
   
   This bill basically deprives Planned Parenthood of all federal funding for any purpose for one year and the only way to restore the funding is if they certify that they or none of their affiliated staff performs abortions and that they do not provide funds for another entity to administer an abortion.  The only exclusions for this are cases of rape, incest or where the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.  Basically, Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States will be stripped of federal funding for any of their services if they opt to perform abortions. 
   
   If they certify that they will not and perform an abortion, they will be forced to repay the federal assistance that they received to the Department of Health and Human Services.  Here's a quick question about that: If a Planned Parenthood clinic performs an abortion based on an allegation of rape and the case ends up being dismissed, is that a violation?   Considering the risks and the frequent length of court times, this bill is pretty nasty even for women who have been raped simply because, if Planned Parenthood is forced to wait for an outcome of a rape case, then it could end up being a late term abortion, which is prohibited.  And that's just one aspect of this bill's grossness as it essentially holds the entity hostage for a right that was already constitutionally protected under Roe v. Wade. 
   
   And lastly, it's an incredible overreach into the legal, non-federally funded activities of a non-profit organization.  The usage of federal funds for abortions is already prohibited by the Hyde Amendment and Planned Parenthood, by law, does not use those funds for the administration of such.  If this one passes, I would love to see an argument about the compelling interest of the state for that case as this bill is clearly punitive, meaning to punish a non-profit organization irrespective of the state laws in which their clinics reside.
   
   
9. H.R. 370  To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare")
   
   Introduced by Bill Flores (R-TX).
   
   Brave Bill (or "Crazy" Bill depending on how you look at it) is the sole sponsor for the only bill that introduces a repeal of the ACA.  Nobody else in the House of Representatives seems to want to touch the damn thing and I can't blame them, considering that many of them are currently avoiding their own offices because of angry constituents about this thing.  This bill seems to be traversing through various committees ranging from the Budget to Education and Workforce and heck, even the House Committee on Natural Resources had a chance of chiming in on it.  H.R. 370 is the super ball of bills right now.  The full list of House Committees is almost comic:  Energy and Commerce, Education and Workforce, Ways and Means, Judiciary, Natural Resources, House Rules, House Administration, House Appropriations, House Budget, Subcommittee on Health, and it's currently residing in...wait for it....drum roll please....
   
   The Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs.
   
   Never mind.  Despite the very seriousness of this bill for millions of Americans, what's happening to it is hilarious and should give us a small grain of hope as this is clearly the pariah of all the bills introduced to the House.  Keep fighting it, people. It's working.
   
   
10. H.R. 392 Fairness to High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017:
    
    Introduced by a bipartisan group of 101 members of Congress.
    
    If you're scratching your head about this one based on all the anti-immigrant rhetoric that we've been hearing so much of along with the accusations of them stealing our jobs, well, behold, for perhaps the first time, a more moderate portion of Congress (except for Chaffetz because he's the nut that wants to get rid of the Department of Education, H.R. 899).   This pro-immigration bill is pretty simple.  It doesn't reduce the number of immigrants into the United States but instead, eliminates the per country limitations on employment-based immigrants and increases the per country limitations for family based immigrants up to 15%.   It also eliminates a portion of an existing law that requires the reduction of annual Chinese immigrant visas.
    
    This increase in immigration, however, is limited to EB-2 or EB-3 visas. In the most basic terms, EB-2 visas are given to "experts" or people with exception abilities.  These people are still required to have a labor certification (a H1B, L-1, or TN status) except in the case where the individual possesses an exceptional ability that is within the national interest.  EB-3's are people who don't meet the expert standards for an EB-2 but are still professionals with labor certifications.  With all the rhetoric about immigrants coming into the country to take jobs and Trump's hold on expedited H1B's (which potential immigrants pay an additional fee for to be processed more quickly), why is Congress looking at passing a bill that increases immigration for certain people? 
    
    There's one answer to that and that's "brain drain".  Brain drain is essentially the emigration of highly educated and skilled individuals from a country.   In short, they leave the country or even their field due to a lack of opportunity.  Coupled with the increasingly prohibitive costs of higher education within the US, the end result is a loss of that expert talent within the country.  The recent severe recession within the US actually sparked a brain drain and now, with Trump in office, the US is likely to experience a more severe brain drain.  Passing a law that opens the door to those highly skilled individuals may help stymie that but not when those individuals are at risk for getting shot and killed.
    
    

The List of the Detained

"In that moment I loathed America. I loathed the entire country. And it was my 117th visit to the country so I know that most people are very generous and warm-hearted. They have been wonderful to me over the years. I got over that hatred within a day or two. But this is not the way to win friends, to do this to someone who is Australian when we have supported them in every damn war. It’s absolutely outrageous." (Mem Fox, The Guardian)

 I am well aware that this list of people who have been detained by CBP and ICE is by no means comprehensive.  In fact, based on an article in The Boston Globe today where it was reported that "the Boston office of US Customs and Border Protection has recently asked local police departments to make more bed space available for the short-term detention of noncitizens", it is likely just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  These are just a few names that have come out of people who have been detained.  Some of them were notable because they were notable people or worked for well known organizations that had powerful backers.  Others were notable simply because of the extremity.  No one knows who the Iranian woman was with the baby or the woman from Taiwan was that Mem Fox saw in the BCP waiting room--all detained alongside her.  How many countless others are there in detention right now, frightened and unsure of what is going to happen next?  

The one thing that can be certain though, based on this strange collection of detainees is that it doesn't matter who you are or where you were born.  You can be an US citizen--even born in this country--Australian, Argentinian or from some small country in the Caribbean.  You can be white, black, or brown--even a permanent US resident--and you can be detained or perhaps even denied entry into the country, itself, suddenly stripped of your own home and, as seems to be repeated again and again, deprived of legal counsel.  

I'm also keenly aware by making these observations and writing this post that I should probably not plan on flying out of the country myself anytime soon.  That's okay because when someone like Mem Fox, whose chosen career is to write charming children's books, is filled with the kind of loathing quoted above, we definitely have a problem here in the US that can't go without notice. I will be updating this list as it grows as that is very likely going to happen. 

Husband of Stacy-Marie Ishmael--Stacy-Marie Ishmael is a former reporter for Buzzfeed and the Financial Times.  Her husband, whose name was not released, was born in Trinidad, which is locatedin the Caribbean.  He is a permanent US resident and was purportedly denied the right to legal counsel.  When legal counsel arrived, CBP apparently tried to handcuff Ishmael’s lawyer. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/reporter-says-her-trinidadian-husband-was-detained-at-fort-lauderale-airport-last-night-9110815

Henry Rousso--A renown French historian traveling to the US from France (a visa-waiver program country) to the US (Houston) in order to attend a symposium at Texas A&M Rousso was born in Egypt and is of Jewish descent.   According to Rousso, a policeman took issue with his visa and suspected that he was traveling to the US to “work illegally”.
http://time.com/4685685/henry-rousso-houston-airport/

Celestine Omid--Omid is a Visa holder and software engineer from Nigeria travelling to the US for work related purposes for Andela, a start up backed by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan.
http://www.recode.net/2017/2/28/14764064/nigerian-software-engineer-detained-by-us-customs

Hina Shamsi--An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, Shamsi, was detained after flying back from the island nation, Dominica.  Shamsi has worked for the ACLU for 10 over 10 years and has traveled in and out of the US for the last 25 years without having any sort of similar experience.  Shamsi was born in Pakistan and holds a Pakistani passport.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/flying-home-abroad-border-agent-stopped-and-questioned-me-about-my-work-aclu

Sardar Ahmad--Ahmad is a Fulbright scholar and doctor who was born in Afghanistan, had lived in the US and is now a Canadian citizen was detained for five hours at the US-Canadian border before being allowed entry into the US.  During this time, he was asked about his “tribal chief”.  
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/canada-doctor-sardar-ahmad-us-border-detained

Muhammad Ali, Jr.--Son of the late boxer, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad was born in Philadelphia and is a natural born US citizen.  Ali, Jr. reported that he was asked questions in regards to his religion. 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/us/muhammad-ali-son-ex-wife-detained-at-airport-don-lemon-cnntv/

Khalilah Camacho-Ali--Ex-wife of the late boxer, Muhammad Ali, Khalilah was detained until she provided a picture of herself with the legendary boxer to prove who she was.   Khalilah also stated that she was asked questions about the origins of her name and her religion.   Khalilah (nee Belinda) was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois.   Khalilah starred in the film “The China Syndrome” and has appeared on the cover of Ebony magazine 7 times.  
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/us/muhammad-ali-son-ex-wife-detained-at-airport-don-lemon-cnntv/

Mem Fox--Fox is a well-known Australian-born writer of children’s books, whose book, Ten Little Fingers and Ten Little Toes, was given to Prince George as Australia’s official gift to the young prince.   Fox was on her way to a conference being held in Milwaukee and was detained for 1 hour and 40 minutes in a waiting room with others who had been detained, which she described as “the agony I was surrounded by in that room was like a razor blade across my heart”.   She was interrogated for 15 minutes until they realized who she was and let her go.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/28/in-that-moment-i-loathed-america-i-loathed-the-entire-country

Yousef Ajin--Ajin is an Uber driver who has resided legally within the US for 18 years and was held in detention for one month.  Ajin was born in Kuwait and immigrated legally to the US from Jordan in 1999.  Ajin holds a US green card and is a legal and permanent US resident.  He was detained after he visited ICE’s office for his biweekly residency check-in and was detained for two prior convictions dating from 2001 and 2003.  Ajin is Muslim.  
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-immigration-idUSKBN16900X

Sidd Bikkannavar--Bikkannavar has been an employee for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and has worked with NASA for 10 years.  He was detained after flying into the US (Houston) from Santiago, Chile.   During this time, he was pressured by CBP to unlock his NASA-issued phone.  Bikkannavar is a natural born US citizen.  http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban

Juan Garcia Mosqueda--Mosqueda, born in Argentina, has been a legal US resident for 10 years and owns, Chamber, a NYC gallery in the Chelsea neighborhood.  Mosqueda had flown to Argentina for a visit and had flown back to JFK airport only to be detained for 14 hours without access to legal counsel or food and then, escorted to a plane by armed officers. 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/us/gallery-owner-detained-argentina-trnd/

Unknown 5 year old boy--This unknown little boy from Maryland was handcuffed and detained for hours at Dulles Airport.  According to Sean Spicer, he "could've posed a threat".  His mother is Iranian.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-five-year-old-boy-detained-dulles-international-airport-hours-sean-spicer-pose-security-a7554521.html

Daniela Vargas--22 year old DREAMER who arrived in the US from Argentina when she was 7 years old.  Daniela had just been speaking at a news conference, discussing the arrest of her father and brother, before she, herself, was arrested.  Daniela has no criminal history.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/daniela-vargas-detained-dreamer-petition/

Vargas--Father of Daniela Vargas.  Entered US 15 years ago.  Worked at a poultry plant.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/daniela-vargas-detained-dreamer-petition/

Vargas--Brother of Daniela Vargas
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/daniela-vargas-detained-dreamer-petition/

Daniel Ramira Medina--23 year old DREAMER from Seattle whose home was raided and was arrested while he was sleeping.  Daniel has no criminal history.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Dreamer-still-detained-decision-to-come-next-10987158.php

Bernardo Medina--Medina is a 22 year old US citizen who was born in Montrose, CO.  On January 27th, Medina had gone in for sentencing on a DUI conviction and was approached by ICE afterwards, who promptly arrested him even after Medina produced his ID.  Medina was detained for several days at an ICE facility before being transferred to a privately owned GEO detention center.  It was not until ICE received Medina's US birth certificate that they released Medina but not before threatening him with prosecution about the whole ordeal.  Medina was released with a dead cell phone, no phone call to family or friends to arrange a pick up, and $5 in his pocket.

Medina's attorney has filed two lawsuits.  The first against ICE is violations of Medina's 4th (unlawful search and seizure) and 5th (due process) rights.  The second is against GEO alleging negligence for holding a US citizen in an immigration detention center, false imprisonment, false imprisonment, the intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/ice-agents-illegally-detained-colorado-us-citizen-for-days-because-he-was-hispanic-lawsuit-claims

55 detained in Mississippi in one day--ICE arrested and detained 55 individuals on Feb. 22.  Only 11 of them are being charged with felony re-entry.
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/34701520/11-out-55-detained-in-february-immigration-raid-charged-with-felony-re-entry

Jesus Vasquez--Vasquez is a 22 year old DREAMER with no criminal record.  He was detained after a routine traffic stop in El Paso, TX.  Vasquez came to the US when he was just 6 years old with his mother.  He is the father of a 4 year old US citizen.
http://www.elpasoproud.com/news/bnhr-dreamer-with-no-criminal-history-detained-during-routine-traffic-stop/667586348

Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos--Guadalupe is a mother of two American born children, who was detained and deported by ICE after showing up for her annual check-in.  Guadalupe had a 2008 conviction for using a fake social security number to obtain employment.  She was deported back to Mexico within 24 hours of being taken in due to her 2008 conviction, according to ICE.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/arizona-garcia-de-rayos-protests/index.html

Family of 5 from Afghanistan--This family of 5, all of whom had Special Immigrant Visas in return for work that their father performed for the US Government in Afghanistan during the war, is being held in isolation without access to legal counsel after flying into LA.  The government initially had tried separating the father from his wife and three children but that was blocked by a court order from Santa Ana.  Neither his wife or children speak English.  Holders of these "Special Immigrant Visas" are required to have both performed services for the US government for one year as well as having to undergo a thorough background check and screening.  (Freed after 4 days in detention)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-afghan-idUSKBN16C0XD

Americanische Grenpolizei

In 1987,  I had the great fortune to travel to both East Germany (the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR) and the USSR.  Both of these countries, at the time, were very restrictive in their travel.   The DDR was still under Russian control and supervision with the wall separating the Divided Germanies still intact and the Iron Curtain of the USSR had still not fallen.  I've lost count of the number of times where I've been asked questions about my travels into both of these countries as they both were so radically different from my trip to France or England or Sweden due to that extreme isolationism.  One of the things that often surprises people is that the one point that I will always make was that, between the two countries, my trip into the DDR was infinitely more terrifying than my trip within the USSR  (a little of which you can read about in my blog post here:  "From Russia With Love"  ).  

The key reason why my travels within the DDR was more terrifying than anything that I had experienced in the USSR (and I had some pretty hair raising experiences there) was the amount of exposure that I had with the Deutsche Grenpolizei.  The Deutsche Grenpolizei were the DDR's border patrol and the highways within the DDR had routine checkpoints for travelers not only entering into the country but also travelers within the country, itself.   At these checkpoints, the Deutsche Grenpolizei would prepare to board our bus and we would have to be ready with our passports open to our photos for inspection.

As we approached the first checkpoint, our tour guide, Dieter, a rather chipper and fun loving guy became very uncharacteristically sober.  Dieter informed us that we needed to prepare ourselves.  He walked up and down the aisle of the bus to make sure that every single one of us had our passport in hand.  After he was certain that we all had them, he let us know that we were approaching the first checkpoint into the DDR and that it was at this time that he had to really make sure that we all understood the amount of danger that we were in once the Deutsche Grenpolizei boarded our bus.

In order to make sure that we did not suffer any incidents, he told us that we all needed to look straight forward at the seat in front of us with our passport held up in our hand next to our faces from the moment they stepped onto the bus until the moment they stepped off.   We were not allowed to lower our arms, not even if they grew fatigued in that position.  We were not to talk, smile, laugh, or frown but, instead, needed to keep our faces as blank as possible so as not to draw any attention to ourselves.  Above all else, we were not to resist showing our passport to the Grenpolizei and we sure as hell shouldn't even look at them, even if they asked us a question (which, of course, we would all have to truthfully answer).  A few of the more cheeky passengers within my group made a few jokes about it, perhaps in response to the awkward stress of this unexpected shift, and our normally chipper Dieter shut them down entirely, expressing again that such antics could not take place at all once the Grenpolizei boarded the bus.   He practically begged us to be quiet and emotionless until we had safely passed through the checkpoint.

The bus was filled with low murmurs of my tour group talking among themselves.  I remember wondering what the hell my grandfather was thinking by sending me to the DDR in the first place.  As we made the final approach to the checkpoint, Dieter startled us all by shouting, "Quiet!  Hold your passports up!".  It seemed like an eternity before it was our turn to be boarded.  I was seated along the aisle and I felt like I was staring so hard into the seat in front of me that I could've bored holes into it.  Despite that, I couldn't help but see several Deutsche Grenpolizei board the bus and for a moment, my concentration on the seat in front of me broke to steal a quick glance at these men climbing the steps into the bus in their military uniforms with assault rifles slung over their shoulders.

I quickly snapped my sight back onto the seat in front of me.  Seeing those assault rifles was enough to know that Dieter really wasn't kidding.  I was absolutely frozen as they made their way up the aisle, pausing now and then to stare at someone's face.  When it was my turn, I stayed as still as I possibly could.  I don't think I even breathed.  After what seemed an extraordinarily long moment, the soldier, as I saw him, moved on and I relaxed only slightly.  Behind me, I could hear him ask something in German and froze again, wondering if one of those cheeky members had smirked.  Whoever it was, they must've spoke German because I heard a soft "nein" in response.  After several more minutes of total silence beyond the faint footsteps of the soldiers on the bus, they walked back down the aisle and disembarked.  Dieter, who was still at the front of the bus, put his finger to his lips in a "shhhh" gesture to remind us to be quiet and wait.

When Hans, our bus driver, fired up the bus again and we started moving forward, the sigh of relief was audible.  The tension had been lifted and now, everyone was talking about how crazy of an experience that was that a simple border crossing could be so scary.  What we didn't consider was that this was an experience that we'd have several times over again as we made our way up to Berlin and back then, back into West Germany.  By the time we had made it to West Berlin, the excitement over the horror show novelty of it was gone.  When some of us decided to go into East Berlin one evening to explore on our own, we remembered Dieter's advice even in passing some of the Deutsche Grenpolizei on the streets just beyond the Wall.  Even then, a couple of the guys in my group, perhaps bolstered by beer, made the mistake of ending up on the bad side of the Deutsche Grenpolitzei at Checkpoint Charlie.  Both were detained for a long while.  One wouldn't even talk about what happened to him while the other had been hit in the face and said that they had stripped searched and performed a cavity search on him before saying no more.   They weren't the same after that.

I don't think any of us were the same after that either and it didn't take a strip and cavity search to instill that in us.  I guess the idea that even a slight human expression could get us into trouble with this militarized police force scared us to death.   These were things that we didn't even experience in the USSR where all of the Russians that we interacted with were generally welcoming, smiling and more.  My most scary experience that I had in the USSR was resolved amicably in the end.  The DDR, on the other hand, felt dangerously restrictive with its assault rifle wielding polizei that I mistook for soldiers at the time. 

Those repeated instances of having to be still and show my documents to the Deutsche Grenpolizei became the frame for what I viewed as the utmost in restrictive states.  It was a circumstance that I'd never even imagined having a close parallel here within my own country.  Even the changes in airport security post-9/11 weren't even comparable to the Deutsche Grenpolizei as it was simply wait in line, showing your id and ticket, and getting scanned before being allowed access into where you boarded your plane..  No big deal.  I never once imagined any setting where travelers within the US would ever be stopped and had their documents checked, especially after this process at TSA, had taken place.

Which, of course, brings us to what transpired on a Delta flight from San Francisco to New York on Wednesday where the passengers aboard the flight were told by a flight attendant, "You'll need to show your papers to agents waiting outside the door." (Rolling Stone)   While the Customs and Border Patrol assert that they "requested consensual assistance from passengers aboard the flight" and that it "did not compel any of these domestic passengers to show identification" (Rolling Stone),  one could argue that the Deutsche Grenpolizei expected consensual assistance in the review of our documents when they boarded our bus back in 1987.  Nor did the Deutsche Grenpolizei compel us to do so either.  In fact, other than that single question asked, the Deutsche Grenpolizei did not say a single word to us directly.  We were just made ready to provide our documents for viewing as advised by our Austrian tour guide.

Even though there are stark differences between what the Deutsche Grenpolizei and the CBP were like in both instances, the similarities are striking.  It certainly doesn't help that we're also in an era where the militarization of our police forces is rampant in our discourse. The CBP, notably, did not wear militarized uniforms nor did they carry assault rifles but instead, looked, thankfully, like your typical police officer.  I'm deeply grateful for that.   However, the recent detainment of a number of US citizens by the CBP also should be added into the perceptions of what the CBP can and cannot do to people who may chose to not comply with them.   Perceptually, non-compliance could, at its most extreme, be equated to being detained by a potentially militarized CBP during which one's life is turned utterly upside down and sifted through with a fine-toothed comb--including one's social media history.  Is it any wonder that everyone, even if they were disturbed or troubled by their experience on that Delta flight, complied?  

And for the record, the Deutsche Grenpolizei?  They were the German Border Police.  I can only hope that the CBP realizes that perhaps their actions have deep connotations and similarities with such an ugly thing.  In the US, our right to travel unrestricted is one of our inalienable rights.  Let's not see that change. 

Self Reflection and The Road Not Taken

Time seems to pass by so swiftly sometimes that the realization that two weeks, a month, or even a year has passed seemingly unnoticed as one long streaking blur of events that we often forget to take the time to stop and reflect upon the course that we're traveling.   In today's world, it seems that there is no time to stop at points where the road that we were traveling upon diverges and splits into two in order to ponder which path to take as the traveler does in Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken".   We're just simply too busy, too absorbed in the constant inflow of information, activity, things that need to be done, and things we want to do to even notice the journey that we're on.   The leisurely walk of life is long gone and instead, has been replaced with something akin to the high speed Eurail. 

Is living one's life at such a frenetic pace without taking the time for self-examination and reflection of where one is going good?  I sincerely doubt it.  I have no doubt that most would agree though. Some, however, would argue that they simply have no time at all for either of those things and view the ability to do either as a luxury.  Yet, I challenge those who hold that latter view to stop and consider whether that point of view is actually true or not because I often imagine that it is most likely untrue.  That somewhere in their lives, there are things that could be skipped for an hour or so whether it be not watching one's favorite television show or not spending that hour perusing posts about food, memes, or animal videos on Facebook.   If such time exists, then why is it that it is not taken?  Our lives are important so self-reflection should be on the top of the to-do list.  Where am I going?  What am I doing?  What can I do better?   Are these not important questions to ask oneself?  Instead, I don't think it is actually that the time does not exist but that perhaps fear of asking oneself questions about the course of one's life can be a truly frightening prospect because it forces the asking of those very questions.

Years ago, I was just such a person who felt like they had to be doing something at all times.  If one task was completed, well, there was another already lined up for me to start.  Then came the dreadful day when I had just finished ironing the last shirt that needed to be ironed and as I was putting away the ironing board,  the realization that I had nothing to do next struck me.  I was suddenly terrified at the prospect of having free time in which my thoughts could freely run amok around my head because there was nothing left to do.  My house was clean, my garden tended, the laundry was done.  There were no dishes to be clean and my son was contentedly playing with his toys.   So I stood there before my dryer, trembling, and had a panic attack.   All because of a little thing called free time that led me to have that other thing called self-examination where I asked myself why the idea of thinking was so darn scary to me.

I knew why.  It didn't take long to understand the reasons behind my fear and constant need to keep busy, to keep from thinking.  I was unhappy at the current course of my life.  I found myself in what I viewed as an abysmal situation where I was entrapped into a controlled way of life by my father, whom I worked for, and in a marriage that I knew was not working as neither my husband or I loved each other anymore.  I sometimes joke that the reason why I got a divorce in the first place was because I ran out of ironing.  It's pretty much true.

Self-examination can be frightening.  It can highlight our flaws, our unhappiness in some aspect of our lives, and bring it all into razor sharp focus.  As frightening as it may be though, we arguably have just one life to live and so, self-examination becomes absolutely pivotal.  If we are breezing through life with the rate of a high speed train, are we then taking full advantage of this life or are we risking wasting that precious time where we could be making our lives or even ourselves a little bit better?  Self-examination of oneself and one's course in life is important, especially in this world where everything seems to race by at the speed of light simply because it does.  The busier that we are, the more packed our schedules are with that constant inflow, then the faster our lives pass before us until the day comes where our lives are no more.  That should be reason enough to pause and reflect.

"I enter'd upon the Execution of this Plan for Self Examination, and continu'd it with occasional Intermissions for some time. I was surpris'd to find myself so much fuller of Faults than I had imagined, but I had the Satisfaction of seeing them diminish"  --Benjamin Franklin, "The Art of Virtue"

Protest in the United States

Occupy Seattle

Lately, I've been seeing consistent debate over whether or not an armed protest could be perceived as being a "peaceful" protest or not.  Probably the most common argument justifying the bearing of arms during a protest is that, unlike unarmed "peaceful" protests, armed protests are dealt with differently.  Or, as one individual put it in the comments on Oregonlive.com,  "Do it legally??  Where have you been??  We'll get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, and shot with rubber bullets...ya right!!". That is actually a very troubling statement in regards to the perception of protest here in the US when the bearing of arms during a protest is seemingly justified based on instances where unarmed protests have been subject to pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and more.

Probably the most well known protests over the last few years have been the protests in Sandtown-Winchester in the city of Baltimore (2015),  Ferguson, Missouri (2014) and, of course, the Occupy Movement (2011-2012), which has a presence in nearly every major city in the US.  In all three cases, the protests were largely peaceful, largely unarmed, and were frequently subject to what are called "non-lethal weapons".  Non-lethal weapons would include tear gas, pepper spray, flash bang grenades, long range acoustic devices (LRAD), rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and more.  To test the theory that "armed protests don't get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, and shot with rubber bullets",  I ran a search on Google using the terms "armed protest" and "tear gas".  Given that I am very keen on following First Amendment issues and protests, I already a pretty good idea what the search return was going to look like and I was right.  The returns were not discussing any armed protest that had been tear gassed.  Instead, the returns were links to discussions of how unlikely it is that tear gas would be used on an armed protest.  Not very surprising. 

Baltimore, 2015, courtesy of The Blaze

On the face of the issue, it seems like the theory that "armed protests do not get tear gassed in the US" seems to be true.  However, that isn't the only question that has been brought up as of late in regards to protests, both armed and unarmed.  In this post and in additional posts, I'll be discussing the questions of whether or not armed protests are legal,  whether they can be construed as "peaceful", whether the differential treatment between Ferguson and Baltimore are related to race or not as presented by the media,  and a review of why people protest and whether or not it is smart to engage in an armed protest.

Is it legal to engage in an armed protest? 

Yes, an armed protest in the US is legal and protected under both the First and Second Amendments.  There is no question of the legality of such a protest.  In fact, there have been multiple armed protests where no arrests have been made whatsoever.  However, just because one is bearing arms does not mean that, should one engage in illegal activities during such a protest, that one will be allowed to walk away free of charges.   All other laws still apply regardless of whether one is toting a gun or not.


Though the bearing of arms during a protest is a legal form of protest,  the problem remains that it is still an armed protest.  While an unarmed protest may be a much more chaotic scene, often due to a strong display of force by the overseeing police, an armed protest is, logically, a much tenser situation simply because there is a great deal of weaponry on display.  While the latter may seem more controlled, an armed protest can quickly turn into an army and that is precisely what increases the tension and, thereby, risk of the situation.  While the police obviously use more caution with such an event, if the trend is going to become more armed protests in the future based on the avoidance of having non-lethal weapons used against protesters, it is almost an inevitability that something untoward may happen. 

Can an armed protest be considered "peaceful"?

If the aim of the protest is to peaceably march or engage in any other non-violent means of protest, then yes, even an armed protest could be construed as peaceful. However, the largest issue with qualifying an armed protest as "peaceful" is that the outright display of force also indicates an expectation and preparedness for the possibility of a threat of violence.  In that sense, the status of whether such a protest is actually peaceful when the underlying cause for the bearing of arms is that expectation of violence shifts the bearing of arms in a protest as an offensive move in order to defend against potential expected violence through a show of force.  To put it bluntly, as I noted in the preceding paragraph--that "peaceful" armed protest can turn from a protest into an army within seconds, depending on treatment.  While the argument that has been seen has been to avoid being the target of non-lethal weaponry, any armed protest that should happen to turn into an outright gunfight will be more likely to receive actual bullets as opposed to rubber ones. While the use of non-lethal weapons may be eliminated, the reality is that the bearing of arms during protest actually increases the risk and danger towards participants and those in the surrounding area.  Thankfully, at this time, armed "peaceful" protesters and their overseeing police have acted with the utmost responsibility in that regard.

Courtesy of Mashable

Additionally, I would argue that the intention and target of such a protest also should be considered.  Mosques have been the target of armed protests over the last few years and even recently.  In a country where burning a cross with the "intent to intimidate" (Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343, 2003) may be banned as a hate crime, one has to wonder where precisely the more intimidating act of standing armed outside a place of religious worship with overt hostility would fall in terms of being comparably intimidating.  Surely, those within the place of worship would be infinitely more intimidated by a group of armed and angry protesters outside than should those same protesters had lit a cross in front of them.  Such an act is reprehensible, deliberately intimidating, and ergo, I find it highly difficult to consider such a protest as being "peaceful" in intent as it is a protest motivated directly out of hostility and with the intent to intimidate those within through the display of force.  If the fellow depicted on the right was outside your church and angry at you, would you feel that he's there peacefully?   No?  Neither would I. 


Is the differential treatment of an armed protest such as the militia in Oregon compared to those largely unarmed protests in Ferguson and Baltimore a matter of race? 

 

Occupy Portland, Courtesy of Oregonlive.com

The media has been largely focusing on the differences between treatments of Ferguson and with the militia holed up at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge as a basis of differential treatment due to race. However, the protesters in Ferguson and Baltimore were not the only ones to get tear gassed, pepper sprayed or shot at with rubber bullets.  Those things also happened at Occupy encampments, which were notably unarmed, across the nation, regardless of skin color.  To make it poignantly clear, one can be a 70 year old white former US Poet Laureate and still find oneself getting beaten by a truncheon at a protest.

Despite the fact that various Occupy Protests across the nation did find themselves on the receiving end of non-lethal weapons, one particular Occupy--Occupy Oakland--still stands alone in terms of a disproportionate police response even in comparison to the other Occupies nationwide.  According to the US Census Bureau, the demographics for the city of Oakland is very racially mixed with 34.5% of the population being white, 28% being African American, 25.4% being Hispanic/Latino, and 16.8% Asian.  The activities by multiple police departments from the surrounding area on the night of October 25, 2011 were so extreme that the police department and Mayor of Oakland came under severe criticism and an investigation by the Department of Justice was ordered.  The crowd at Occupy Oakland  (click for footage of the event) on the eve of October 25, 2011 was a largely interracial crowd and the worst injury was an Iraq veteran by the name of Scott Olsen, who sustained a skull fracture and severe internal  hemorrhaging in his brain after being struck in the head by a beanbag round. 

Huey P. Newton Gun Club, courtesy of Vice

Probably the strongest counter, however, towards the argument that the disparate treatment of the militia in Oregon and the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore as being solely an issue of race would be the occasional armed protests held by the Black Panthers or their offshoots.  Not long after the events of Ferguson, Missouri unfurled on national television, a group of around three dozen armed protesters, calling themselves the "Huey P. Newton Gun Club" marched through Dallas, Texas in direct protest of what they called "police terrorism".  Notably, these armed African American protesters were not tear gassed, pepper sprayed or shot at with rubber bullets--nor were they arrested. Also in Texas in August of 2015, The New Black Panthers, once again, engaged in an armed protest outside of a county jail.  Although it was reported that a "huge contingent" of police officers were present for the protest, there was no violence nor any arrests made in response to this protest.

Based on the above observations, it is potentially very likely that more force may be used against an unarmed African-American or mixed racial protest than a predominately white unarmed protest based on Occupy Oakland, Ferguson, and Baltimore.  However, the fact remains that the actual different between whether or not a protest gets subjected to tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets at all is whether or not it is armed.  An armed protest, regardless of skin color, is far less likely to be the recipient of non-lethal weapons and for obvious reasons.  As stated previously, the tensions of such a protest are much higher as any potential perceived overreaction by police monitoring the situation could very well erupt into a gunfight within the city streets of the United States.  That's damning.

Is it, therefore, "smart" to engage in an armed protest?To this, I would very clearly say "No, it is not smart".   Probably the most memorable and horrific protest within the last 50 years would be none other than the protest at Kent State University.  In early May of 1970, students at Kent State University had been engaging in anti-war protests for several days that culminated into violent and riotous confrontations between protesters and the local police department.  In response to threats of more destruction to the city, the Governor of Ohio made the decision to declare a state of emergency and called in the Ohio National Guard to Kent State.  The circumstances of the protests were extremely tense with tear gas and rocks being exchanged by the Guard and the protesters, respectively.  Finally, on May 4, 1970, after the Guard had been present in the area for less than 48 hours, 28 Guardsmen present at a noon rally on the campus turned and opened fire on the students, firing between 61-67 shots in 13 seconds, killing 4 students and wounding 9 others.  In the investigation of the shooting of these students, the guardsmen involved testified that they were "in fear of their lives" and both the criminal and civil courts found that these Guardsmen acted in "self-defense."

Kent State University, courtesy of NPR

While the protesters at Kent State University were armed merely with rocks and bottles, the incident should remain as a stark reminder of just how quickly a protest can turn deadly.  If rocks and bottles being thrown can make trained Guardsmen in a tense situation open fire "in fear of their lives", then how much more likely is that it that protesters carrying actual deadly weapons may instill that same level of fear?  All it takes is the slamming of a car door, a car backfiring, or any other noise to be misconstrued as a gunshot and we could find ourselves confronted with the reality of another Kent State but this time, perhaps far worse.  When engaging in an armed protest, one may be almost guaranteed to avoid tear gas and rubber bullets but at the possible expense of one's own life if just one little thing goes wrong.

Lastly, it is also not smart in terms of garnering support for one's cause.  The goal of any protest, generally, is to highly, spread awareness and garner support for a cause in the hopes of exerting a change over an issue perceived by the protest group.  Protests, by nature, are disruptive and that is why James Madison made sure to include the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment.  All of the provisions included within this amendment are there because they are those rights that are most likely to cause friction and faction within American society.  While it still protects majority opinion, ideologies, and beliefs, what it really services are those behaviors and beliefs that are held to be contentious by the majority and probably the most contentious would be protests due to that disruptive tendency.

As such, the more mainstream media will have a tendency of latching onto those behaviors that are more sensationalist and fractious than all of the behaviors exhibited at a protest.  This observation was actually made by none other than Martin Luther King, Jr. in his "I've Been To the Mountaintop" speech:

That's always the problem with a little violence.  You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking.  I read the articles.  They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers are on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor.  They didn't get around to that."

What King is saying here is quite simple:  Do something negative, something that can be perceived as violent, and the media will run with it and not the issue that you are trying to present.  In the case of Ferguson and Baltimore, the press focused on the rioting, the burning buildings, and the looting--not the hundreds or even thousands of peaceful, law abiding protesters present to protest the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, respectively.  At the various Occupies across the nation, it was any broken windows, refuse in the parks, blocking the streets, fires lit and any other perceived riotous behaviors that because the "issue" presented by the press--not the issues that Occupy was protesting about in the first place.  In the case of armed protests, they're going to focus on the fact that they are armed.  Is what the militia in Oregon doing a protest or an armed standoff?   See my point?   It's quite literally handing a reason to sensationalize to the media, itself, prepackaged into its sensationalist glory.   In every single one of these cases, the response by viewers is almost always the same--loss of support for the cause of the protest, itself.   The acts involved in how a protest is engaged because a reason to dislike the protests themselves--not the issue that is being protested against. 

King was right.  If one is going to protest to generate awareness of an issue, don't give the press something to use to smear your movement right off the bat.  That should be a no brainer at this point if one looks at every single protest over the last 4 years with a neutral view and take note of how each and every one has been presented in the media. 

Final Remarks

Collectively, we should find it deeply sad that we have come to this point where individuals in our nation feel that the only way that they can safely exert their First Amendment rights is through using the Second Amendment to assure that right.  While this is both a completely legal form of protest and there may very well be justification that an armed protest will be less likely to be on the receiving end of that tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets, it is still not without risk.  If anything,  the risk increases exponentially, when recollecting Kent State and they had rocks and bottles--not guns.  Additionally, racial bias, while it may be a factor in overall level of response, does not seem to be the prevalent factor in whether or not a protest will be subject to the use of non-lethal weaponry.  If that were the case, then those Occupies that were predominately white would've gone totally unmolested.  Instead, they were frequently subjected to the same weapons like this footage from Occupy Denver but on a lesser scale.   Likewise, the instances of armed African-American protest marches being held without violent confrontation also counter the argument that race is the predominate factor of whether or not non-lethals are used against a protest.  Instead, the key difference really does seem to be whether or not it is armed and that, unfortunately, makes sense.

None of us should like this reality regardless of which side of the political spectrum we may sit on.  The irony is that, for the unarmed protesters that get beaten, tear gassed and pepper sprayed, they're often called "dumb hippies" by the right side of the political spectrum and those armed protesters that are frequently that same right?  Well, the Left is more likely to perceive their protests as not being peaceful at all because of the presence of those guns.  In either case, the way either the Left or Right view each other as protesters overall is a lose-lose situation.  What we really should be saying is that the right to peaceably assemble is our guaranteed right under the First Amendment and should be treated with equal caution and care regardless of whether the protest is armed or not and regardless of skin color.   That is the very essence behind the First Amendment.  If we do not, then we will continue to be confronted with the deeply troubling scenario that for every unarmed protest that gets gassed or sprayed, it becomes another justification for an armed protest and this is not in the best interest of any of us here in the US.  We all absolutely need to work together as communities to scale back from where we are at now instead of letting it worsen.  The picture below should never be a sight that we ever want to see in the United States again and none of us--whether we be activists, citizens, law enforcement or a Guardsmen--should want this to encapsulate protest in the United States.   It's said that a picture is worth a million words.  What does this one say?

Ferguson, Missouri

How to Tell the Difference Between Your Neighbor and a Terrorist

People are running scared after the recent attacks in both Paris, where 130 lives were lost, and in San Bernadino, which resulted in the loss of 14 lives.  It's not hard to imagine why either.  The very nature of a terrorist attack is to instill terror and what better way to instill terror than to attack when and where we least expect it.  It is the most paranoia inducing form of warfare against another nation that specifically targets what would traditionally be viewed as "non-combatants".   Basically, you and I.  You or I could be standing in line at the grocery check out or sitting in a theater--doing perfectly normal, average things--when a bomb goes off or gunfire erupts.  How is that not frightening to imagine one's life being snuffed out when one least expects it?  That's how terrorism works and because those who do these things could be living in a house down the street from you or I, it's very easy to start casting an eye of suspicion on any neighbor that would be of Middle Eastern descent or, worse yet, you know for a fact that they are a Muslim.  However, to cast that eye of suspicion and distrust onto your neighbor because of these facts is simply wrong.  How can I say that with such confidence?  Easily--because of numbers.

According to data from the Pew Research Center, the worldwide Muslim population was between 1.6-1.7 billion in 2011 and Islam represented the second largest religious group in the world at 23.2% of the total global population.  If the belief that any adherent to Islam could be a terrorist were to be held, that would be akin to viewing nearly 1 out of every 4 people as a potential terrorist anywhere that you go in the world.  Additionally, with those kind of numbers, if they collectively agreed with the fanatical idealism of terrorists, we would be seeing far more terrorist attacks worldwide than what we actually are seeing at this time.  Obviously, nearly 1 out of every 4 people being a terrorist is highly improbable.  On top of it, just like in Christianity with its history of conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, Islam has several different offshoots, many of whom are in conflict with each other and may even make your Islamic neighbor more of a higher priority target than even you.   After all, your Islamic neighbor moved to the US for a reason and the odds are infinitely more likely that it was to escape religious persecution just like how my own Catholic great-great grandparents came to N. America from Ireland to do the same than immigrating here with the intention of killing some of us. 

Even viewing those of Middle Eastern descent as being potential terrorists also makes the erroneous assumption that your Arabic neighbor is Muslim when he could be Christian, Agnostic or even an Atheist.  Up to an estimated 10% of those of Middle Eastern descent worldwide are actually Christian, which would  make it highly improbable that they would be associated with IS.  Even making the assumption that only your neighbor of Middle Eastern descent could be a terrorist would be a false assumption as Islam is not specific to any single regional descent or race in the US.  Converts to Islam here are African American, White, Hispanic and more.   Trying to figure out how to tell if your neighbor is a terrorist keeps getting trickier and trickier, doesn't it? 

If your neighbor whose wife wears a hijab may be of a group that IS wants to see exterminated from existence, then obviously, they're not likely to be a terrorist.  They're here wanting to live a better life with safety and security in mind for their family just like you or I want.  That would also very likely include your Middle Eastern neighbor whose wife doesn't wear a hijab as they could very well be Christian or an atheist--also highly despised groups by IS.  And if your white neighbor down the street could actually be a convert to Islam, well that means that they could be a terrorist for all you know though the odds are still that they aren't.  After all, one of the most notorious white converts to Islam in the US was John Walker Lindh, who was captured as a combatant in Afghanistan, fighting against allied forces.  So really, that terrorist could be any one of us.  When we really step back and look at all of this information, it starts looking like trying to figure out if your neighbor is a terrorist or not is a next to impossible task because it could be anybody and it could be nobody even remotely in your vicinity. 

How can you tell if your neighbor is a terrorist if they could theoretically be anyone?  Well, I'd say that, at this point, you probably wouldn't be able to tell until they are walking out their door with a bomb strapped to their chest and an AK-47 in their hand.  That is how you can tell the difference between your neighbor and a terrorist.   In the meantime, instead of casting the eye of suspicion or even hate towards your neighbors that you know are Muslim, try instead to treat them with respect.  After all, once upon a time, the US was viewed as a melting pot, where people whose ancestries from around the world could come in the hopes of seeking a better life for themselves and their families.  Even our most formidable enemy fell before us and not because of war--it was because of our bounty and quality of life that made Boris Yeltsin weep in a grocery store in 1989, signalling the dissolution and end of Communist rule within the USSR.  

If we can make a formidable foreign leader weep and feel inspired at our nation's existence and our qualities that make this nation great, then what better way to fight IS here in the US than by doing the same?  IS feeds and grows its army off of hate, despair, and disenfranchisement.   If IS's recruits feel that they have nothing more to live for so that they are willing to commit suicide in order to harm us, then we fight IS on US soil using what we do best--by being that symbol of hope for a better life in a a far kinder world.  Casting that eye of suspicion and hate on our Muslim neighbors is precisely what IS wants us to do so that they can grow their army and it is why they strike in the way that they do so that we begin to view our neighbors with hate and fear.  Instead of acting precisely in the way that IS desires us to, we give our neighbors something to live for by showing them kindness, hope, and the opportunity for prosperity in a far kinder world than that which they left.  It's hard to want to die when you really do have something to live for. 

Sources:

Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures
America's Changing Religious Landscape, Pew Research
Islam in the United States, Wikipedia