A Modest Memo

Yxta Maya Murray March, 2017

A Modest Memo is a satire in the form of a legal memo written for

President-Elect Donald Trump circa November 2016. It counsels Mr. Trump to obtain Mexican funding for a United States-Mexico “Wall” via United Nations Security Council sanctions. These sanctions would freeze remittances (that is, “hold them hostage”) until Mexican President Enrique Pen˜a Nieto wired the United States sufficient monies for construction. The memo, which is entirely the product of my imagination and legal study, contemplates one of the many possible worst case scenarios threatened by the Trump presidency. Through the arts of law and literature, I aim to show how the rule of law may so easily buckle and splinter beneath the increasing tide of United States, as well as global, nationalism and racism. I take inspiration, of course, from Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Propo– sal (1729), as well as the legal-literary experiments found in Derrick Bell’s Facesatthe Bottomofthe Well: The Permanenceof Racism (1993) and Richard Delgado’s Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2411 (1989).

Breitbart News Network 149 South Barrington Avenue Suite 735 Los Angeles, CA 90049 United States

MEMORANDUM November 23, 2016

Subject: “The Wall” To: President-Elect Donald Trump From: Sean M. Miller

Of Counsel to Breitbart News Network

Dear President-Elect Trump,

This memo responds to our exciting conversation about “The Wall” that took place in the men’s room at the Blue Duck Tavern on October 28, 2016. I was the tall, lanky, twenty-eight-year-old Breitbart lawyer wearing the navy-blue suit and red MAGA visor and using the very last stall in the bathroom, if such details might help your recollection. It was at

187 one of your last D.C. fundraisers before your election? The one where Mr. Baio told all of those brave and hilarious jokes?¹ In any event, you may remember that as we committed ourselves to our ablutions, I confessed that I found your campaign promises concerning illegal immigration² so inspiring that when not defending Breitbart against multiculturalist conspiracies,³ I enjoy researching the best legal path to the erection of a Mexican-funded barrier on the United States-Mexico border. “The felicities of the rule of law have long been a passion project of mine,” I explained.

You half-turned toward me and proclaimed in enthusiastic terms your intention to see Mexican President Enrique Pen˜a Nieto “fork over” sufficient monies to cover your Wall’s cost. You also explained in vivid language your intention to amend (or, rather, have Congress amend?) the Patriot Act⁴ in order to hold hostage billions of dollars of Mexican remittances until President Pen˜a Nieto succumbed and wired us funds sufficient for construction. When I mentioned that I had conceived of a moderate and jurisprudentially sound strategy that involves sanctions levied by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC),⁵ you said that I should write to you directly. I do so here with Mr. Bannon’s⁶ encouragement. I am very grateful for this opportunity, and herein I provide my review of the contemporary history of The Wall, my critiques of the Patriot Act approach, and my UNSC-based policy suggestions for acquiring the Mexican financing of the fortification that you seek.

I. Your Account of Our “Undocumented” Problem.

In your energizing calls-to-action on the hustings, you articulated to the People the crisis presented to the United States by undocumented Mexican immigration. You explained that Mexicans carry over our borders a deluge of virulent maladies,⁷ a predisposition toward committing sexual atrocities on American women,⁸ and an avid appetite for our jobs.⁹ Your policy solution championed the building of an “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful,”¹⁰ concrete, 55-foot,¹¹ 200- to 2,000-mile long¹² Southern border wall. Better yet, Mexico “would pay” for it.¹³

However, you indirectly acknowledged that Pen˜a Nieto would not voluntarily write us a check¹⁴ for the project when you suggested that the United States should freeze the $24 billion a year in remittances¹⁵ that millions¹⁶ of Mexican aliens working in the United States send home.¹⁷ This asset seizure would persuade President Pen˜a Nieto to deliver to us the $5-10 billion¹⁸ required for The Wall. In order to capture the remittances, you suggested amending section 326 of the Patriot Act’s “know your customer” provision, which requires banks to extract and surrender customer identifications.¹⁹ Your reform would dragoon companies that issue wire transfers into these disclosure requirements²⁰ because Mexicans do not use banks. You would then use this information to hold undocumented immigrants’ unlawfully obtained monies until Pen˜a Nieto buckled and paid us our ransom.

Difficulties present themselves with this proposal, however: It would require a reform of the Patriot Act. As I am sure you know, such an amendment would mandate time-wasting Congressional approval.²¹ More importantly, it would aggravate liberals in this country, who excoriate the Act for its severe treatment of terrorists and the individuals who give them aid and comfort.²² Brandishing the Patriot Act under the Left’s noses would only encourage yet more distracting complaints that your incoming administration resembles that of strongmen such as Augusto Pinochet when he exercised the full flowering of his powers²³ or Adolf Hitler when he enjoyed the enactment of the Erma¨chtigungsgesetz.²⁴

The contested character of the undocumented Mexican immigrant himself only doubles your dilemma. While those who voted you into office agree with your assessments of these invaders as carriers of deadly viruses and as rapacious miscreants,²⁵ undocumented immigrants enjoy the sympathy of the millions of leftists who imperiled your victory to such a degree that some extremists grumble that Hillary Clinton legitimately won the popular vote.²⁶ Mexicans,²⁷ themselves, also enjoy a stunning sum of voting power in this country.²⁸ An objective study of undocumented²⁹ Mexican immigrants shows why they garner such unjustly preferential treatment: These people consistently demonstrate their tenacity and inventiveness by getting here,³⁰ winning U.S. jobs,³¹ convincing U.S. citizens through their accomplishment of their humble trades that said jobs no longer qualify as noble work,³² colonizing our cities with their sprawling colorful families and admittedly enchanting cuisine,³³ and winning allies with none other than the former President himself³⁴ by virtue of their undeniably astonishing work ethic, etc.

In other words, the droves of undocumented Hispanics currently hurtling into this country prove formidable adversaries both in terms of the seeming economic gifts³⁵ that they bring, as well as for the admirable parts of their character that we must acknowledge, at least privately, in the gentlemanly spirit of good soldiering.³⁶ These laudatory features will only cause trouble in your efforts to immobilize their money.

Yet if you acted with the support of our allies in the United Nations, then your gambit would enjoy an international moral confirmation, which would help defeat any nasty objections at home.

I thus conclude that seeking a Resolution from the United Nations Security Council will prove the best path toward getting the Wall—or, as you shall see, “the walls”³⁷—built with the aid of our South-of-the-Border neighbor. The United States has already helped pave this potentially very lucrative route, as I am sure you know. It did so in the form of sanctions sought against (just as an example) Iran for Iran’s failure to comply with UN Resolution 1696, which required Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium.³⁸ The United States froze these monies pursuant (in part)³⁹ to a raft of resolutions approved by the Security Council under Articles 39-41⁴⁰ of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.⁴¹

We could follow suit by freezing Mexican remittances pursuant to U.N. sanctions. Since Pen˜a Nieto will be both shamed and face immense political pressure by a U.N. incapacitation of these funds, we can use this newfound leverage to persuade him to pay us the $5–10 billion we need for The Wall.⁴² We may proceed under the articles of the U.N. Charter, which hold so much promise for a leader with your particular appeal.

II. An Overview of Articles 39 and 41 of Chapter VII of the

U.N. Charter and What They Can Do for You.

Articles 39 and 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations’ Charter address “Actions With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.”⁴³ They create two steps for the seizing of assets from a threatening state.⁴⁴ The first, codified under Article 39, requires that nine out of the UNSC’s 15⁴⁵ members issue affirmative votes determining the existence of any “ threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”⁴⁶ Once the Council hands down this decision, it may decide the safeguard measures to take under Article 41.⁴⁷

Under Article 41, the UNSC decides on which nonmilitary tactics it will use to pressure the aggressor state into more peaceable behaviors, including “the interruption of economic relations,” such as sanctions.⁴⁸

A) An Article 39 Threat?

The first question would require a UNSC resolution that illegal Mexican immigration to the United States constitutes a “threat to the peace,” a standard that appears less taxing than an actual peace breach or an aggressive act.⁴⁹ In the interests of the ease of doing business, we should proceed under this clause.

International apologists for soft rather than hard power have bemoaned the vagueness of “threat,” “breach,” and “aggressive act,”⁵⁰ worrying that the rule of law does not drive Article 39 determinations.⁵¹ A glance at history—UNSC resolutions concerning unmanageable Palestine and raving Yugoslavia— does suggest that armed conflict should exist prior to an Article 39 finding of an interstate threat.⁵² However, and happily, the liberals are correct: the UNSC does not find itself bound by any definition of “threat to the peace.” That is some of the good news I am here to deliver to you in this brief: In invoking Article 39, we will adhere to “the rule of law,” but there are really very little in the way of legal limitations here.⁵³ And for a man like you, President-Elect Trump, the only law with which you need concern yourself is the law of the deal.⁵⁴

“Threat to the peace,” in other words, can mean whatever you want!⁵⁵ Insofar as we seek precedent, the UNSC’s 1990’s response to the Lockerbie bombing demonstrates that a nation’s failure to secure its rabble will constitute a threat to international peace.⁵⁶ Furthermore, in 1991 the UNSC responded to “massive [refugee over]flow” when it enacted Resolution 688 to restore peace after Saddam Hussein’s savaging of the Kurds.⁵⁷

We thus find ourselves at a perfect legal moment for a determination of an Article 39 breach. As you have already carefully explained, the national penetration⁵⁸ by overflowing Mexican sexual predators and murderers and carriers of lethal contagions⁵⁹ threatens international peace just as did explosive Libyans and rampant Iraqis.⁶⁰ “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” you clarified during your June 2016 announcement of your Presidential bid.⁶¹ “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”⁶² A month later, you alerted us to additional, possibly even worse, hazards created by undocumented immigrants. In a three-page memo that you circulated to the international press, you warned that “tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico.”⁶³

That an Article 39 threat exists is to us perfectly obvious, of course. However, as noted above,⁶⁴ such a threat must receive affirmation in the form of 9 votes from the UNSC before it issues a sanctions resolution.⁶⁵

B) Can We Get the 9 Votes?

The legal niceties of the UN Charter will require that you⁶⁶ obtain 9 votes on the UNSC regarding a threat to the peace. Specifically, you must persuade 4 permanent members⁶⁷ and 4 temporary representatives⁶⁸ of the UNSC that Mexicans’ illegal immigration into our union qualifies as such a peril. Who, you might ask, are these UNSC members?

Sitting permanently on the UNSC we find, beside ourselves, Russia, the People’s Republic of China, France, and the United Kingdom.⁶⁹ Each of these member states must determine that an Article 39 threat exists in the form of an illegal Mexican invasion:⁷⁰ A quirk of the Security Council requires that every signatory sitting permanently possess a veto power.⁷¹

Yet your timing could not be more perfect! The UNSC’s permanent members also hate and fear their immigrants, or wish ill luck on Mexico, or love you. When British PM and super-Brexiter Theresa May gave her keynote speech at the Tory conference in October 2016, she literally embraced “parochial” anti-immigration politics, warning that illegals would be “controll[ed].”⁷² And in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and the Bataclan attacks, even that milquetoast (and probably politically doomed) Franc¸ois Hollande takes his page from Marine Le Pen and declares war on France’s own dangerous aliens.⁷³ Both of these countries’ leaders take strength from the ascendant powers of their more “glorious” constituents, which has motivated them to seek international support when embarking upon their hasty expulsions of wretched Eritreans and Syrians.⁷⁴ In you, they will know that they will obtain the most consoling reciprocity.

Beijing also looks plausible for a “yes” vote, since it competes with Mexico’s NAFTA advantage.⁷⁵ While it fears your threat to increase tariffs to 45 percent,⁷⁶ your corporate interest in Taiwan,⁷⁷ and your trial balloon about Japan going nuclear,⁷⁸ Xi remains a businessman—and you know he wants that Big Mac!⁷⁹ You could barter concessions—perhaps on aluminum or steel⁸⁰—and also wave the Russian trikolor at him.⁸¹ As for Russia, as you well know, Vladimir Putin regards you as a true friend as long as you keep faith on Syria.⁸²

Then you would take four votes from the list of temporary seats: These are Egypt, Japan, Senegal, Ukraine, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Sweden, and Italy/the Netherlands (who are splitting 2017 and 2018).⁸³ Egypt is a lock,⁸⁴ particularly since they’ve been looking for love since the Rabaa massacre.⁸⁵ Japan sees you as the only cure for China,⁸⁶ and will keep dancing in the hopes of a free South China Sea⁸⁷ and any post-TPP trade joy.⁸⁸ Former Russian protectorate Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev also seeks mutual goodwill on curbing unstable elements (the press, protesters).⁸⁹

That leaves only one more country, though the path here proves less steady. Bolivia looks like a solid negative⁹⁰—except that it is also in bed with Russia, and hopes for Putin’s money to build a “nuclear research center.”⁹¹ So some negotiating room exists with the Bolivian presidency, though our triangulating with Russia and Bolivia does increase the odds of Evo Morales getting a weapon.⁹² That is not a problem, however, since you think that Bolivian-level armament is inevitable anyway and that we should extract goods from proliferation while we have the chance.⁹³

As to the rest of the temporaries—all, except perhaps for Ethiopia and the Netherlands, appear to constitute a clear Negative.⁹⁴

No matter. You see in the preceding analysis that you remain the holder of an excellent-to-solid batch of yes votes.⁹⁵ And even if you do find this a hard bargain, you have waded into far choppier waters before, Mr. President-Elect. After all, you are the man who played Khrushchev to Walter Hoving’s JFK in 1979 (gaining you Tiffany & Co.’s air rights for Trump Tower),⁹⁶ who practically strangled Ed Koch and sued the Chinese for a cool $1 billion during the 1980’s Manhattan West Side Yards war,⁹⁷ and who pioneered too-big-to-fail by terrifying your creditors to forgive $960M worth of debt in the 1990’s.⁹⁸

“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward,” as you wrote in The Art of the Deal.“I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”⁹⁹ Your defenestration approach ensures that any signatory would do far better as your friend than your foe, as you taught us in Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life: “When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get even’ . . . . If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people, because it is a good feeling. . . . I love getting even.”¹⁰⁰

I possess the utmost confidence that you will experience the tingle of that “good feeling” during these negotiations, Mr. President-Elect.

C) Determinations of Sanctions Under Article 41

Once the UNSC offers up 9 votes agreeing that illegal Mexican immigration poses a threat to the United States’, and thus, international, peace,¹⁰¹ it may then issue sanctions under Article 41 in the form of freezing remittances. The protocol for imposing sanctions under the UNSC often involves the development of a Sanctions Committee, which a temporary member of the UNSC chairs.¹⁰²

As in the Iran example, sanctions may include freezing the assets of entities or individuals.¹⁰³ Note here that there exists no law nor limitation on whom may suffer these UNSC prerogatives.¹⁰⁴ The UNSC’s latitude to act against private people (like your Mexican remitters) found itself reaffirmed with the levying of sanctions against Libya and its fanatics post- Lockerbie.¹⁰⁵ Similarly, in 2013, the UNSC stranded and beggared peaceless North Korean nuclear-testers,¹⁰⁶ and in 2015, targeted Al-Qaeda and ISIL madmen for “undermining [state] stability.”¹⁰⁷ Also, take special note that in the circa 2015 case of ISIL, the UNSC’s sanctions measures moved specifically against remittances!¹⁰⁸

Thus, the UNSC would possess the legitimate and precedented power to order sanctions in the form of freezing individual illegals’ remittances held by wire transfer organizations like Western Union.¹⁰⁹ Friendlies we position on the UNSC’s Sanctions Committee and its affiliates would do an excellent job of investigating and designating these sanctionees.¹¹⁰ Our Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) agents could also lend a hand by conducting its own dragnet of aliens, perhaps pursuant to an Executive Order.¹¹¹

The scope of these sanctions against millions of as-yet unnamed individuals would prove groundbreaking,¹¹² and require a breathtakingly massive expansion of the UN Sanctions Committee apparatus¹¹³ and possibly OFAC so that they might conduct relentless blanket searches.¹¹⁴ This move would likely pass muster under the U.N. Charter’s gossamer legal limitations.¹¹⁵ Enlightened domestic legal precedent concerning OFAC’s rampages also skews favorably. Moreover, if Ryan or Schumer clutch their pearls at your audacity, you could even dispense with Congressional permission (at least, at first).¹¹⁶

One potential problem exists with this plan, however.

D) Possible “Wrinkles” in the Plan.

Certain constituencies may react to your sanctions scheme unfavorably, unless you succeed in selling the idea as a righteous and necessary one. This issue relates to the above-noted controversial character of illegals.¹¹⁷ Subversives may argue that illegals’ remittances to Mexican family members qualify as symbols of love and utter sacrifice on the part of hardworking economic refugees who brave racism, the dangers of illegal immigration, the perils of criminal incarceration, and the degradation of doing jobs that American Whites refuse to even consider, etc., etc.¹¹⁸ In other words, they will try to shame you out of pursuing illegals in terrifying sweeps¹¹⁹ and freezing their assets.

To quash this resistance, you will accomplish with remittances the same magic that you will have already practiced against the tropes of “Mexicans” as well as “threat to the peace” and “the law” —that is, the complete subjugation of a social, racial, or jurisprudential idea to your personal will and vision via politics. You will help us see remittances not as icons of loving-kindness, but rather as polluted, stolen property.

I predict that in the end you will find very little meaningful pushback at all. Domestically, there exists an expressive movement agreeing that Mexican remittances qualify as ill-gotten gains illegally obtained from drug dealing, prostitution, and other “disgusting” ventures.¹²⁰

Internationally, you also find a ready audience, and for many of the same reasons. The current geopolitical observer witnesses the rise of wildly popular “strong leader[s],”¹²¹ like yourself, who may not find themselves cozily grouped as Left or Right, but rather cherish the U¨bermensch’s greater aim—that of composing the country in the way that they like. And with these winners arrives an increasing international affection for masculinist ultimatums that see U.N. signatories quite happily fleecing undesirables of their money. In 2011, Bolivia froze the assets of a cement company majority-owned by a political rival of President Evo Morales.¹²² In May 2016, Lord Reginald Norman Morgan Empey advanced a U.K. bill that would use frozen Libyan assets to compensate IRA victims for their losses¹²³—but Parliament blocked it as a human rights violation.¹²⁴ In July of that year, Russia threatened to freeze Ukrainian assets in response to an unpaid debt.¹²⁵ In September, Egypt froze the assets of human rights activists and three Non-Governmental Organizations.¹²⁶ A month later, China readied legislation that would freeze the assets of troublemaking “hackers.”¹²⁷ In making your proposal to the UNSC, you will prove yourself the First Citizen of this stalwart company of Caesars who do not fear spreading economic ruin in the pursuit of a more prosperous state.

You see, Mr. President, the moment for crushing Mexico beneath your heel has come. We find ourselves at the precipice of a bolder world. The new order looks to you as a leader of this golden age, indeed, as a man who will not only break inferior foreign powers, but also profitably sow discord and anxiety at home.

E) You Are a Great Man and This Plan Will Make You Even Greater

It is here that I come to the most exciting part of my proposal, which announces that you cannot lose this battle even if you fail to get nine votes on the Council.You have ingeniously promised a Wall that will not—I emphasize, will never—deter Mexican migrants from pursuing illegal entry into our country, no matter how high its reach or thick its breadth. Mexicans’ love for each other and their hunger for prosperity, combined with their aforementioned tenacity and ingenuity,¹²⁸ will always find them massing in our nation’s cities and agricultural centers: People brave enough to risk their lives to gain an existence less broken by terror and poverty will discover a multitude of strategies to breach yours or any fortress.

But you knew that anyway. And that is why, when you made your promise about the Wall, you did not guarantee to keep out migrants at all. On the contrary, this country would be up s***t’s creek if you did.¹²⁹ No, you proposed a method of social control far more effective than any one measly barricade. You offer the American people not one Wall, but so many walls—yes: You will bring us many, many, many walls that will spring up not on any geographical border, but rather within the psyches of an embattled Hispanic minority, or anyone whose unluckily darkened complexion or tendency for expansive gesturing could cause them to be mistaken as such a one.

Many years ago, in my stupid youth, I studied literature, history, philosophy, and psychology. From these seemingly useless disciplines,¹³⁰ I will concede that I gained manifold weapons for today’s war against a changing America, which has so veered from the ordered liberty of my father’s youth into a stranger’s wasteland (my poor Papa, now a bitter Gulf War veteran of Scots-Canadian descent, who lives on a pittance in Dinuba, California after the local K-Mart closure).¹³¹ In any case, during my second year at Stanford Law School, I whiled away one idle afternoon reading the turgid and often incomprehensible work of a Bulgarian-French theorist named Julia Kristeva, who invented the notion of “abjection.”¹³² Abjection qualifies as a febrile psychological condition that causes undesirables to comprehend themselves as soiled and outside of the social order.¹³³ These scapegraces cope with their flaws by obsessively attempting to cleanse themselves of their degeneracy.¹³⁴ While Kristeva herself bemoaned such a state, it stands, of course, as the most desirable attitude we could ever hope a racial insurgent to possess. For when such creatures battle themselves, they divert all of their energies away from the lobbying necessary for their promotion in the political hierarchy.

Your call for a Wall, and for Mexico’s payment of it, creates just this distracting debasement. It finds its justification in the contagious and dastardly menace of illegals¹³⁵ and their facsimiles. When you paired your call for a Wall with a condemnation of Hispano-American Judge Gonzalo Curiel as “Mexican” and “biased”¹³⁶ (during that unfair lawsuit¹³⁷) you revealed that the American scourge expanded beyond the category of “illegals” into an ever-widening circle of suspects¹³⁸ that might include not only U.S.-born Mexicans but also the whole farrago of dusky Nonwhites we seek to ban (Muslims¹³⁹) and silence (Blacks¹⁴⁰). And then you were, sir, elected, gaining your taxonomic theories their former sheen¹⁴¹ of political clout. This election, moreover, will allow you to make your case of racial contagion to the Council, and some of its members will¹⁴² vote with you, garnering your viewpoint an international status, even if you do not formally succeed.

Thus, every unredeemed racial minority or those with unclean ideologies will now regard themselves as so weighed and measured on both local and global levels. In order to maintain their middling social positions and personal safety, they will attempt a constant and impossible delousing to rid themselves of any signs of deviance. Depression, despair, addiction,¹⁴³ and even a vivacious pox of hate crimes¹⁴⁴ can only ensue. These metastasizing ills will suppress effective dissent. Indeed, your strategy of persecuting a complex class of minorities and their friends resembles that of not only contemporary China¹⁴⁵ and Egypt¹⁴⁶ but also the efficiencies of the French Terror¹⁴⁷ and Stalinist Russia.¹⁴⁸

In other words, you, like those great men of yore, have discovered a technology that will so mesmerize the American public that your first legal success (in the form of UNSC upvotes) could snowball into the deliverance of all powers—Congressional, then judicial, then military, then each and every other illusion that composes that historical relic, the rule of law—straight to you.

Bravo, sir! Yours is a most impressive feat. Yet you must remain on your guard. I have noted that there remains a distressing quantum of resilience in the Hispanic people, who free themselves of White supremacy’s mental shackles long enough to build families, alliances, and even racial pride.¹⁴⁹ This hidden source of political calories will only feed powerful movements against you. You have witnessed the gains of Black Power, with its attendant flowering of culture and self-love and astonishing political reach.¹⁵⁰ You behold the radical gender reconfigurations created by gay marriage (though you deny that it bothers you).¹⁵¹ You see women floundering about in their supposed emancipation.¹⁵² You continue to withstand Muslim defiance, such as when the “Gold Star” father Khizr Khan brandished the United States Constitution at you at the Philadelphia Democratic Convention.¹⁵³ As well, the annexation of Ukraine will not be easy.¹⁵⁴ Assad looks to us for aid, but the Syrian rebellion remains fractious.¹⁵⁵ Iran plots and waits.¹⁵⁶ Our acquisition of national and also global supremacy is not assured.

Still, your strategy remains the best hope in our sight. Please forgive me one reference that leaks out from the long dribble of the humanities: Sigmund Freud. In his Civilization and its Discontents, Freud wrote that “guilt . . . expresses itself as a need for punishment. Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual’s dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city.”¹⁵⁷

That garrison, Mr. President, is your Wall. In order to prevail against the forces of chaos and racial defilement, I advocate that you bring your request to humiliate Mexico, its descendants, and, ultimately, the whole wide world of its Nonwhite brethren, by lobbying the UNSC to freeze remittances and build your structure with the wealth handed over by Pen˜a Nieto. By so doing, you will not only build a huge concrete Wall that will delineate the ever-pregnable contours of this country, but you will also invent millions of invisible walls, which you will import into your enemies, who will then become the objects that you conquer.

Should you have any further questions, sir, you can reach me at any time at Sean.Miller156@gmail.com or at 555-554-2311.

Sincerely, and yours, Sean M. Miller, Esq.