![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.womeninandbeyond.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Surge-888x1024.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Sulphurous Hail
\nShot after us in storm, oreblown hath laid
\nThe fiery Surge, that from the Precipice
\nOf Heav’n receiv’d us falling, and the Thunder,
\nWing’d with red Lightning and impetuous rage,
\nPerhaps hath spent his shafts, and ceases now
\nTo bellow through the vast and boundless Deep.<\/p>\n
\nJohn Milton, Paradise Lost<\/em>, Book One<\/p>\n \n The print edition of today\u2019s Washington Post<\/em> leads off with a five-column, almost banner, headline, in large bold letters: \u201cAt the border a reset but no surge<\/strong>\u201d. In the United States this week, with the declared end of the Covid emergency came the end of Title 42, a Trump era cruelty which barred entry into the United States on the grounds of maintaining health protocols (where have we heard that before?). That meant that starting yesterday, the country could anticipate a `surge of migrants crossing the border\u2019. This was not the language of rabid far right nationalists. This was the language of the mainstream press, and so, perhaps, worth noting. CNN<\/em>, May 10<\/a>: \u201cHundreds of US troops are set to begin a new mission along the southern border Wednesday as officials and a surge of migrants brace \u201cfor the unknown\u201d after a Trump-era border restriction expires late Thursday.\u201d PBS New Hour<\/em>, May 11<\/a>: \u201cThe city of San Jose is preparing to welcome a significant influx of immigrant families in the coming weeks as Title 42 expires, creating a surge in immigration along the United States’ southern border.\u201d New York Times<\/em>, May 11<\/a>: \u201cIn San Diego, some had been waiting in the same spot for days. State officials are concerned that a major surge in migrants could overwhelm homeless shelters and hospitals not just in the city, but across California.\u201d Yesterday, May 12, The New York Times tried to explain that \u201csurge\u201d is a term of art<\/a><\/em>: \u201cOn some days this past week, more than 11,000 people were apprehended after crossing the southern border illegally, according to internal agency data obtained by The New York Times, putting holding facilities run by the Border Patrol over capacity. Over the past two years, about 7,000 people\u00a0 were apprehended on a typical day; officials consider 8,000 apprehensions or more a surge.\u201d<\/p>\n Words have meanings, and some words have ideological power. Often \u2013 as in the case of stampede<\/a> or brunt<\/a>or surge \u2013 the power of the word outweighs and obscures the word\u2019s supposed meaning or content. What do you see, what do you feel, at the invocation of a surge? A surge is a force of nature: \u201cA high rolling swell of water, esp. on the sea; a large, heavy, or violent wave; a billow.<\/a>\u201d Large. Heavy. And most significantly and ominously, violent.<\/p>\n People do not constitute a surge. People never constitute a surge. There never was going to be surge at the border, unless the Rio Grande suddenly exploded. There could have been and there still might be an increase in the number of people, fellow human beings, applying for asylum. That is not a surge. That the government, irrespective of which regime we are in, considers one number a trickle and one number a surge and, who knows, another number a tsunami<\/a> is not so much irrelevant as dangerous and should be called out and rejected. The news media should be called out as well for passing the term off as somehow neutral. It is not.<\/p>\n (By Dan Moshenberg)<\/p>\n