Social Justice or Actual Justice For All?

Social Justice is not actual Justice.  It should not replace actual justice and the media should not take sides in helping it to do so.

What is social justice?  It is a concept that involves fair relations between various classes of society and usually involves the distribution of wealth, opportunity, property, and privileges within that society.  Social justice causes often fall into sociological categories that easily correlate to those involved in identity politics: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, nationality. 

Justice is that which allows for fair adjudication between competing claims.  Decisions are based on rules such as the law and the Constitution that provide for fair and equal adjudication between parties without regard to a party’s identity categorization.  Hence, the concept of “blind justice”:  justice will treat all individuals equally.

Justice cares about facts; social justice cares about causes.  Here are some examples of social justice warriors bringing their cause to a case where there are facts not supporting their cause:

• The #MeToo Warriors sought to advance their cause using the allegations of sexual misconduct against then nominee and now Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts did not support their cause.  The warriors chose to deny the facts and/or find them not important.
• The anti-Conservative/anti-Trump Warriors sought to attack and silence a group of high-school boys wearing MAGA hats by claiming that the boys had instigated a racist incident on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  When video tapes and other information did not support their claims, they ignored those facts and continued to fault and attack the boys. 
• The Social Justice Warriors who believe that Trump is the antithesis of all their causes are supportive of any actions against him.  Thus, they support the Mueller investigation in the hopes that it will destroy the President and remove him from office.  Hence, they applaud tactics used by that investigation that at a minimum push the envelope towards denial of 4^th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the repeated use of gestapo-like tactics whenever someone closely related to Trump and his campaign are arrested.
• When a Black child was shot in her car and there was a White man in a pickup known to be nearby, without more the Warriors began demonstrations and claims against the White man whom they claimed was a racist and white supremacist and whom they immediately found guilty of the murder.  When facts proved that the White man was nothing more than a by-stander and that the child had been murdered by a Black man in a case of mistaken identity, the facts were again ignored. 
• The Warriors claim that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, seemingly making one of the qualifications that the president be someone of whom they approve.  Again, they ignore the facts of our Constitution which clearly sets forth the qualifications: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  Clearly, President Trump meets these qualifications, yet the Social Justice Warriors continue to claim he does not.

These are just of few of the more recent incidents that demonstrate that not only is social justice not the equivalent of justice, it is actually often its antithesis.  Social Justice will support lying to further its cause.  It accepts bearing false witness and accepts manufacturing facts that support its narrative and its causes.  It accepts and supports violation of our Constitution and our protected rights if those rights stand in the way of furthering the causes of the Social Justice Warriors.

This approach of the Social Justice Warriors goes hand-in-hand with identity politics that try to pit one identifiable group against another for political gain.  Identity politicians often try to pit a group that is less well-off in some way against another group with more of what the less well-off group lacks.  Socialists and Communists have long pitted the “workers” against the “bosses,” promising a better life to the workers if they will support the Socialist/Communist leaders. 

Identity politicians also pit one group against another; they convince one group that all their problems are due to another group and promise the first group that their life will be better if they support the identity politicians in their fight against the second group.   Look again at the list of social justice causes and see how they compare to identity political hatred:  race – fomenting minority anger against alleged White privilege; sexual orientation – fomenting LGBTQ anger against those whose religious beliefs, while demanding tolerance of diverse orientations do not condone such practices among their believers; nationality – fomenting anger of immigrants and especially illegal immigrants against all those who seek to contain illegal immigration regardless of their views on how broadly or narrowly the legal immigration laws should be drawn. 

Identity politics have always been with us to some extent, though I would argue that beginning with the previous administration they became a much more prevalent tactic, especially of the political Left.  But now, we have that Left using those tactics along with their claims of social justice as a way to negate a legitimate election and silence all who do not fully accept their views.  And the real victims in all of this are facts and the rule of law – the two things that are necessary for justice to prevail.

True Justice, true Fairness, requires that all be treated equally and that the rights of all, not just those of this or that favored group, be protected.  For rights to be protected, facts must be heard, verified, and accepted.  Partisans can argue over what the facts mean and what is their significance, but they cannot deny or make up facts to suit their purposes. 

The problem currently is that the partisans, with the help of the 24-hour news cycle and a partisan press, rile up their appropriate identity groups first.  Then, when facts are revealed, those facts no longer matter as the mobs scream for their latest social justice cause.  Worked into a frenzy, rationality is lost.  That is just the state that the Social Justice Warriors need their supporters to be in – a state where feelings can be used and manipulated, a state where specific identity groups can be characterized as enemies not entitled to basic rights, or to fair treatment under law, a state where the chosen identity group will believe the promises that they will have all their wants as well as needs fulfilled if they only support their social justice warriors. 

The problem with social justice and its identity political practices today is that it is by its very nature unfair.  The Social Justice Warriors believe that their chosen groups should have all that they demand while at the same time believing that it is appropriate and acceptable to silence and deny even basic rights to the groups they have designated as enemies and those not in line with their “social justice” positions.  Thus, for example, the Left assert their free speech rights, while seeking to deny free speech to those supporting the opposition – it is acceptable to silence and destroy those wearing MAGA hats, while supporting threats and attacks (both verbal and physical) by those on the Left against those on the Right.

Blacks Law Dictionary, defining law in jurisprudence, states that justice is “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.”  This is very different from rendering every person, or every person on your side only, their every desire.  Justice is fairness – to all, not just to one favored group over another.  It takes into account the actions of the individual as a person, not as a mere identity caricature.  And, it requires a respect for the facts and the law. 

Social Justice may be based on high ideals; it can be simply a partisan political tactic.  In either event, it is not a synonym for Justice.    And while Justice allows for Social Justice to push its causes, Social Justice as currently practiced does not allow Justice for all.

Fighting Words, MAGA Hats, and the First Amendment

             “Wearing MAGA hats provokes and insults people of color.”

“Aligning oneself openly with Trump’s movement sends an aggressive political message.”

“Anyone who wears a MAGA hat is racist.”

These and similar statements can be heard from the Left regularly; they have intensified in the wake of the attacks on the Covington boys.   

These and similar statements are a frightening trend that threatens one of the very cores of our Democracy – the First Amendment right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects speech, including symbolic speech.  The wearing of a MAGA hat or other politically identifying apparel (a campaign pin or T-shirt for example) are symbolic speech which is defined as a non-verbal communication that conveys a message or statement to those viewing it.  

While our free speech rights are not absolute, any restrictions must be as narrow as possible so as not to interfere any more than is absolutely necessary with the fundamental right of free expression.  The government can, in appropriate instances, put reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.  “Fighting words,” words intended to incite an immediate breach of the peace, are not protected.  However, the government cannot restrict speech so as to force one to only speak or hold a particular opinion.  Even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of thought, both of which are essential to democracy.  Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in part that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” 

Yet, the Left, in their repeated attacks on the MAGA hat, come frighteningly close to attempts to deny free speech and the free thought behind it.  Their behavior, not only toward the Covington boys, but to many other wearers of MAGA apparel, has a chilling effect on others who might desire to make a similar symbolic political statement but fear the attacks that doing so would bring.  Laura Ingraham has suggested that this is a form of voter suppression.  I would agree. 

Further, I fear that the Left is on the verge of using their attacks of the symbolic MAGA speech as a way to restrict that speech as some sort of “fighting word” exception to the First Amendment freedoms.  That would be a slippery slope indeed, for to restrict an opposing political view simply because it is upsetting to those who do not hold that view would put us well on the way to a country in which any and all opposing speech and its underlying ideas could be banned.  Such a country is not a democracy but a dictatorship.

The Left seems to have little regard for the First Amendment and its protection of speech when that speech is something they disagree with or do not want to hear.  They seem to have no problem with shouting down, intimidating, silencing any thought or expression that is not their own.  This says volumes about their respect for democracy itself.  For it is the sharing of diverse ideas in a marketplace of open and free speech that is an absolute necessity for a democracy that is a government of, by, and for the people.  To care about democracy is to defend free speech, even when it says something that you find offensive. 

Only by sharing diverse ideas, by having tolerance for diverse views and openly presenting and discussing varying ways to address an issue can we grow and evolve as a country.  Symbolic speech has been a powerful movant at difficult times in our history; that speech is frequently political and almost always offensive to someone.  Yet, we need that speech if we are to continue to be the free country that stands as a beacon of free thought to the world.  If only the Left would remember that and defend rather than try to extinguish free and diverse speech along with the thought behind it.

Quietly Delete

This morning I read that Democrat Representative Omar had quietly deleted proven lies that she had spewed at the Covington boys even after the full facts from the full video became public. 

How often do we hear this?  After dragging someone, along with their family and others associated with them through the mud, after issuing any number of threats, after bullying and name calling, all designed to silence and destroy both the individual along with anyone else holding views similar to that individual, after all that, when it is proven that there was a jump to judgement without factual support, the attackers silently delete their vitriol.  No apology.  No remorse for the pain, suffering, emotional and sometimes physical harm caused, not concern for a life and reputation damaged and destroyed.  Just quietly delete and then move on to the next victim.

And what does this do for those who are not yet victims of the hate?  It silences them.  The Covington boys were wearing MAGA hats.  That was their crime in the eyes of the hateful Left, and for that the Left made sure they were punished.  How many parents will let their children wear MAGA hats to a rally next time (or even allow them to attend a rally).  The hat is a form of protected symbolic speech under our Constitution.  The intolerant Left would deny such speech; indeed, they would deny any speech that holds a view contrary to their own.  That is not the America laid out in our Constitution.  That is not the America that not only allows but encourages diverse viewpoints.

The Left’s pattern of intimidation is becoming worse as it tries to capture everyone in its net.  It may be one thing to try to silence an opponent who has chosen to take on the ugliness of political office.  But bullying children to prove a political point is simply not OK.  The Covington boys, their families and their school have been put through an undeserved hell that will affect the rest of their lives.  Quietly deleting proof of the attacks is not a sufficient response.

The Left seems to believe that lying about facts or ignoring them completely is acceptable if those facts are in any way contrary to the narrative that the Left would have everyone believe.  They have even made statements to the effect that facts don’t matter if they hold the “correct” moral view.  Yet, who are they to set themselves up as the moral authority in this land that believes in tolerance of diverse views and values? 

Hating Trump because he beat your candidate does not make your views morally superior.  Those who applaud Trump’s policies such as those that improve the economy and bring unemployment of minorities to the lowest rates ever are not morally inferior.  And, attempting to silence any and all who hold a view that differs from yours is completely un-American.

The Left’s quiet deletion without apology or remorse after wrongfully destroying lives of those holding differing views should not be tolerated.  I would look to the once objective media to call them out, but that is pointless since the media for the most part serves as partner in this behavior and then finds ways to justify it. 

The Left tells us they care about everyone, yet their actions demonstrate a level of hatred I have not seen before in my nearly three quarters of a century on this earth.   They seem driven and blinded by that one ugly passion and it is getting worse.  They seemingly will not be content until they have subjected the entire populace to their views and then have been returned to a position where they can officially exert their tyranny over us all.

I, for one, will not be silenced and I will speak out for all whom the Left attacks and tries to destroy.  I will not let their hate filled actions intimidate me and I will hope that those who have been brainwashed by the lies of the Left will awake and stand strong for the values that have always made America great, beginning with a tolerance for diversity, including diversity of thought.  We simply cannot let our great country be quietly deleted.

The Bloodthirsty Left

Two years and counting since the blind hatred of the Left began to boil.  One would think it would be cooling, but its temperature continues rising daily.

The Left wants to destroy everyone that does not bow down to them and all their views.  Now it is a group of high school boys who were attacked, accused of being attackers, and, though that has been proven untrue, continue to be the subjects of hatred and violent threats.  What did they do wrong?  Well, for starters some wore MAGA hats – an unpardonable sin in the Left’s view.  They go to a Catholic school and assert their Christian faith and values in the face of vitriolic hatred.  Those values are another unpardonable sin.  So, the Left calls for doxing of their names (publication of their names and addresses for malicious intent).  They and their families are receiving hate and death threats.  Their school is closed due to security concerns.  All this for simply peacefully wearing a hat and holding true to their faith. 

This is the Left.  This is their normal behavior.  Silence in any way possible those who do not hold their views.   Destroy anyone who is not them.  We saw this with their attempted destruction of Justice Kavanaugh and his family.  They failed – or did they? They now call for perjury charges against him – for what?  For telling the truth in the face of their lies and false charges against him.

The Left believes that their views are the only ones that should be allowed.  Regardless of their factual truth.  Notwithstanding that in this country we protect diverse views – or at least that used to be one of our ideals.  The Left would silence if not destroy all who disagree.

I understand this tactic of their leaders who, as any examination of the actual facts of their behavior reveals, seek a world in which they hold absolute power and control every thought and act of their subjects, keeping those subjects fully dependent on their every whim.  But, what I do not understand is that their followers accept, indeed follow them.

I do not understand how anyone with even half a brain or half a heart or any understanding of American values can accept the behavior of the Left.  Their continued calls for violence against anyone not holding their views.  Their many ways, both subtle and blatant, of intimidating those who are not one of them.  It is as if so many of their followers are in some sort of a drugged state as they follow blindly behind this destructive leadership of the Left.

The Left loves to throw feel good promises to their followers.  I have been listening to their candidates throwing their hats into the 2020 ring.  They all use the word “fight” in their speeches.  I will fight for this or that group.  They continue to stoke the hatred of identity politics.  I have yet to hear any of them assert that they will fight for the tolerance and respect for diverse views that is a cornerstone of our democracy.  Their promises that their government will give every group everything they want is a true “opiate of the masses.”  Yet, that opiate will destroy America.

The bloodthirsty Left cares only about itself.  Promises to this or that group are ways to gain that group’s support, but as soon as they are not useful, the Left will be happy to destroy them as well.  The Left’s thirst is for their own power and to keep that power they will destroy anything and anyone; they will keep necessary supporters not by empowering them, but by keeping them dependent and by feeding them lies.

This is a very scary time to be anything but a lock-step Leftist.  The hatred being stoked by the Left grows daily.  They want their way and only their way and they are happy to destroy any and all who stand between them and the ultimate power that they seek.  Their calls for killing (yes, killing!) of the young boys who they wrongfully accused and attacked, should shock us all, but sadly, it is the sort of thing we hear daily from the Left.  Yet, we must not let ourselves become immune to this.

The behavior of the Left is irrational and bloodthirsty hatred.  It is destructive, both to the specific individuals whom are attacked and also to the people of this country as a whole. Those who are lulled by their promises of a glorious future must see those promises for what they are – useful hooks to lure in support for the Left’s own power.  This is a frightening time for America – a time where we could lose the dignity and diversity of the individual that is a key to this and any democracy.  We must not let the hatred of the Left succeed.

The Bottom Line

It really doesn’t matter how one looks at the arguments, the bottom line is that the Democrats support illegal immigration.  What this ultimately means is that Democrats support violating the Laws that they have sworn to uphold.

The Democrats oppose the wall.  The wall is a barrier to stop migrants from entering our country illegally.  Walls, both those that do exist on our southern border and those of other countries, have been shown to be effective and to significantly reduce the influx of illegal aliens into a country. 

The wall will not change the ability of those seeking to enter the country legally to do so.  Our immigration laws will still be in place, and while there are many problems with those laws, the wall will not fix those problems.  Revision or complete writing of the immigration laws is a complex task that must be addressed by congress, but that is a separate question from the wall.

The wall simply helps to stem the flood of illegal migrants into this country.  The Democrats pre-Trump have acknowledged this; they have supported a barrier.  Now they do not.

So, either the Democrats have decided that they support illegal migration into this country, or they are simply opposing the wall for political gains.  Either way they are violating their oath of office in which they “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Democrats like to cloud the issue and change the focus by attacking those who support the wall.  They claim they are racist, etc., or that they are immoral.  First, morality is not something that the government dictates in this country, so, even if they see behavior as immoral they must tolerate those who have differing moral standards. 

But, I would ask, using their apparent standard of morality, how moral is it to encourage families to take the arduous trek across many countries to get to our border where they face being caught for illegally crossing and then sent back?  How moral is it to encourage those who fund and organize caravans to use the migrants for their own political gain?  It encourages people to turn themselves and their children over to smugglers who are known to put the migrants into the most horrible and inhumane conditions both during the journey and once they arrive at the destination. 

Human beings are crammed into trucks in conditions worse than cattle; those who are walking in caravans are subject to the less than humane behaviors of ill-intentioned members of the caravan including sexual and other assaults; upon arrival at the border, human beings are placed  for days by their smugglers into holding pens of one sort or another that have little if any food or water and inadequate (if any) plumbing.  These things are all documented, although specific numbers of instances or individuals involved remain estimates.  But actively allowing this to happen to even one human being is, in my opinion, inhumane. 

That the Democrats' actions encouraging illegal immigration essentially encourages and tolerates this behavior is indeed inhumane.  It is the heighth of hypocrisy for these Democrats to claim that those who seek to stem this tide of illegality and its resultant treatment of humanity are the ones who are inhumane.  Their claims are nothing more than a distraction; a distraction aimed at having us ignore that they are encouraging such behavior while at the same time violating their oath of office.

The big question that we need to ask is why do the Democrats support illegal immigration, not why do they not support the wall.  Their act of opposing the wall is a statement that they do support illegal entry into our country; that they do not support our laws, enacted under our Constitutional form of government – the very same Constitution that they swore to uphold.

Let me underscore:  We are not talking about legal immigration when we talk about the wall.   The wall will stem the tide of illegal entries.  Those entries, in addition to promoting many inhumane situations for the entrants, also create problems as well as unthinkable tragedies for those legally in this country. Those impacts include such things as: loss of jobs; higher taxes to cover funds needed to deal with illegals on a number of levels; shortages of resources; strains on communities and social services; rises in homelessness; drug problems related to illegal drug smuggling; victims of various criminal acts perpetrated by illegals; and many others. Certainly, some aliens who enter illegally will not be the source of such problems beyond whatever resources are initially expended to address their act of illegal entry (border agent resources; legal resources; etc.), but the more negative impacts listed above are all also documented.  To encourage the negative impacts on our citizenry, whether that impact is economic or criminal or other, is to fail the promises of the oath of office.

Those who are seeking to enter illegally, who subject themselves and their families to the horrendous conditions associated with illegal migration and who then subject our country to the consequences, sometimes minimal but also sometimes severe, of migrants whose very first act upon entering our border  is to break our laws, all of those people have the opportunity to seek legal entry under our immigration laws which include temporary and permanent visas, pathways to citizenship, and provisions for asylum seekers.  The illegal migrants are simply choosing to break rather than follow our laws.

The Democrats are supporting this illegality.  Perhaps because they support law-breaking, but more likely they are supporting law-breaking as one more weapon in their arsenal in their war against President Trump.   That war seems to be born of an irrational hatred and intolerance of anyone who disagrees with their positions or who keeps them from power.  They are still refusing to accept Donald Trump as the President.  And, opposing him on the wall is another way of opposing him now and in his likely bit for reelection in 2020.  The people should stop falling for these tactics which place Democrat power above the very oath that such power requires.

To summarize:  A barrier such as the wall stops migrants seeking to enter the country illegally.  It does not stop legal migration.  Those who oppose a barrier must admit to the fact that they are supporting illegal migration into our country and all of the consequences that illegal act entails.  The Democrats only took this stance when Donald Trump sought to do his job and stop illegal migration. 

Do not fall for the Democrats' distractions.  At this time their position is to support illegal migration.  That would seem to be the bottom line.  Ask them why they support and encourage the breaking of our laws.  If they are honest, they will tell you it is simply because they hate Donald Trump.  And that is the bottom line.

Initial Thoughts on Trump’s Address This Evening

Following are four initial reactions to the President’s address to the Nation and the Democrat response.

1.  I wish that the President has been stronger in asserting how and why the border is a crisis and why it is essential, even if it means a long shutdown, that he not just sign a bill that does not include funding for the wall/border barrier.  There are strong facts to support these assertions (some referenced in my blog post earlier today).

2.  The Democrat response was as usual an attempt to play on our emotions, to distort the facts and/or lose focus on the exact issue before us, and, of course, to attack President Trump.

3.  Speaking of the Democrats, I do not think that they (or whatever party is the opposition) should be granted equal air time for every Presidential address.  That is divisive.  The President (who won the election) is our Nation’s leader and the one who has the power to give a presidential address.  It is to and for the entire country and we should listen and then, if we are troubled by it, there are many venues for response (best venues for Senators and Representatives would be the floor of Congress, as well as actually negotiating with the president).  But to give the Democrats (at their demand) essentially an equal venue to oppose and attack the president simply furthers the anger and division in our country.

4.  The Democrat response made it clear that there is no hope for a compromise on the shutdown or the budget that addresses the need for border security.  There is a crisis at the border as thousands enter our country illegally with a variety of motives.  I think it time that the President declare a National Security Crisis and build the wall, or have the military build the wall.  Until our border is secure and we get over the daily traumas of and assaults on our border, we are not going to address the deeper problems of necessary immigration reform.  But for the fact that it is Donald Trump who is demanding the wall, there would be many Democrats who would favor this increased border security; it is certainly better and safer that having a line of armed guards across the border which is what it is likely to come to if we don’t secure our border in a more rational way.

Immigration - Borders, Laws, Walls

In my most previous post I argued that people needed to stop arguing over or refusing to accept proven facts, and instead begin to discus the varying perspectives that are held about those facts.  Someone asked me if I would please present such an argument about immigration in full in my blog.  Well, I could write that, but it would be more like a book than a blog. 

Most important issues are complex, require not just having the facts, but thinking about them and their interactions with other facts and considering the many ramifications of various courses of actions.  It also requires an examination of one’s own beliefs and values and an understanding how they interact with various perspectives on and solutions to current facts and issues.

So, immigration discussions might need to begin with a discussion of what is, and what do we want a country or nation to be.  The definitions (these are facts; these are how the words are defined today) are as follows:  A nation is “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”  A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” 

One can have opinions about the positive or negative ramifications of those definitions.  In the context of immigration this becomes a debate about whether one favors open or controlled borders (some aspects of that discussion are presented HERE 

Reaching an agreement that we need controlled, not open borders leads to the discussion of how to control them.  We cannot discuss that unless and until we agree that there must be some form of control. A person who adamantly advocates for open borders is not interested in controls.  At least some Democrats are advocates for open borders.  They are not interested in discussion ways to fix current problems with our methods of controlling our borders.

(As an aside here, I would note that it is not at all productive for those who seek open borders, or even borders more open than we currently have, to call those who favor controlled borders racist or similar epithets.   Nor is it useful to use the border and its openness or not as a political weapon in the ongoing campaign to destroy the president.)

When we finally get to a discussion of the immigration problem today, it can be focused entirely on whether or not to build a wall or other barrier, or on whether we need to revise our immigration laws and if so, in what ways and areas should they be revised.  In both instances, there are provable facts that cannot be ignored or denied.  And these discussions might also be couched in terms of whether we have a crisis at the southern border.

Facts must play into all of these discussions.  Currently, our country does not have open borders; that is a fact and is why we have immigration laws and procedures for allowing and welcoming immigrants into our country, both temporarily and permanently.  The existence of those laws, as well as their text, are facts; another fact is that some of those laws are being enforced, and some are blocked.  I happen to think that if we have laws, they should all be enforced uniformly against all violators, and it is the President’s job to see that is so (that it is the President’s job is a fact under our Constitution). 

Many of the relevant facts regarding legal admissions are compiled by various agencies and departments and can be found on the Homeland Security website.  LINK .  In the first quarter of 2018 approximately 264 thousand aliens obtained lawful permanent resident status.  Fifty-three percent of these were admissions adjusted status while within the United States, and 47 percent entered as new arrivals.  New arrivals were primarily from 6 countries:  Mexico, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, India, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines.  About 44 percent obtained status as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and an additional 18 percent obtained status under a family preference category. Employment-based preference categories and refugees were the next-largest classes of admission, each accounting for 14 percent of new arrivals. 

As to refuges, over 5,000 refugees were admitted in the first quarter of 2018.  Refugee arrivals increased by 19 percent from the previous quarter.  For the first quarter of 2018, 83 percent of refugees were from six leading countries of nationality: Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Eritrea, and Russia.

Naturalization data is also available on the Homeland Security web site and includes the following.   A total of 163 thousand aliens were naturalized in the first quarter of 2018 compared to 106 thousand in the same quarter in 2017.  Roughly 43 percent were from Mexico, India, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. These were also the six leading countries of nationality during each quarter of 2017.

Finally, there are non-immigrant admissions which include Visitors entering for pleasure or business which comprised 79 and 11 percent, respectively of all non-immigrant admissions in 2017, followed by temporary workers and families (5.1 percent) and students and dependents (2.5 percent).

I would argue that we are enormously generous when it comes to legal immigration.  With such generous acceptance of those entering our country legally, I believe we can justly deal harshly with those who break our laws and enter illegally.  Those who would accept illegal aliens and ignore that their first act on entering is one of breaking the law, are in essence advocates of open borders.

By the very fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and thus not inclined to announce their presence, the exact numbers of illegal immigrants has to be an estimate.  However, statistics and other research can provide fairly accurate estimates.  The figure is estimated at slightly below 12,000,000.  (see full report with its reference bibliography HERE)  

The Department of Homeland Security is required to keep detailed records of known unlawful entries and of apprehensions.  Their detailed report is HERE.  A report from the office of immigration statistics on efforts by DHS to estimate Southwest border security and dated  dated 2017 (see full report HERE).  includes the following:  the U.S. Border Patrol made 408,000 southwest border apprehensions in 2016; survey data, mathematical models, and USBP assessments suggest that a growing share of attempting crossers between ports of entry are apprehended or interdicted; USBP’s observation-based estimate of known got away was 106,000 in 2016.

There is a significant problem with people, especially on the southern border, entering illegally.  As to those entering illegally, some end up in custody upon entry (for example, here are statistics for those in custody as of September, 2017 HERE . We also know (from a variety of reports, and from other research, that illegals enter the country for a variety of reasons:  some simply are unwilling to wait through the legal process of immigration; some are encouraged to come here perhaps as political pawns by entities such as “Pueblo sin Fronteras”; some are child or drug traffickers, gang members, or other form of criminal; some who enter respect and seek to assimilate into American culture while some are in one form or another anti-American.  There are also estimates on things like employment statistics, education, needs for various public services, etc.

The bottom line, as I see it after considering the above, is that we do have an illegal immigration problem.  It is the duty of our leaders to secure and protect our country (this is a fact – see the Constitution).  If they refuse to address the border issue they are failing in their responsibilities to us the citizens.   I find our laws, for the most part, to be good if they would be enforced and not thwarted by things like sanctuary cities and endless litigation.  I would like to see requirements that those seeking entry show that they want to participate in our nation, not change it to some other model; that those seeking citizenship should be eager to give allegiance to our country and its government and institutions, and that there should be some way in which their immigration will benefit this land.  Chain migration (where one legal immigrant can essentially bring scores of family along) should be limited to spouses or other similarly close family member.  And, there should be methods of keeping track of those whose legal entry is for a limited time and a requirement of deportation when that time ends unless there is a renewal of the entry permit. 

Our real problem is with illegal entry and the acceptance of such illegality by many of our politicians.  Not only is allowing this to continue in essence signaling an approval of those who ignore our laws, it is unjust and unfair on many levels.  It is also dangerous to those legally in this country.  Failure to recognize this, to stand for our laws and our people, is gross neglect of their responsibilities and oaths by those politicians who refuse to even negotiate on border security.  We have laws and those laws include a controlled border intended to keep our country secure.  We have methods of changing those laws, but until they are changed, unless we have open borders, the laws and the border controls must be enforced.  Emotional responses to the alleged plights of illegals does not justify failure to follow the law. 

(As an aside, I fail to understand why the anti-Trump politicians who have also become anti-controlled border, seem to place the welfare of those who are not part of our country above those who are.  Similarly, I find it interesting that they now seek all sorts of medical facilities on our very rural and isolated borders where residents of this country have always lived without such concern or facilities.) 

I would do away with our catch and release policy which essentially allows individuals to enter illegally, be detained, promise to return for a court hearing, and be released freely into our country.  While many do return, others do not; some of those that do not have a variety of criminal intents.   Of course, enforcing the immigration laws becomes much easier if there are limited ports of entry into the country.  This is where the wall comes in.  Most defined nations have some sort of barrier around and defining its borders.  Sometimes that is a natural geographic occurrence, and sometimes it is manmade.  But, in my opinion some form of barrier is necessary if one is to maintain, protect, and sustain their nation. 

In the case of the United States, we do not have natural boundaries at many of our borders.  Hence we need some sort of man-made device.  It seems that the wall (or fence as it was called by previous administrations) is what those who have studied the situation seem to find as the best form of border barrier (that includes not only the current President, but also former presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama).  I, personally, would like to have more information about technological capabilities such as drone technology to substitute or supplement border security in places where a wall is not feasible.  But, as a nation, we must protect our borders and a barrier is the first step in that protection. 

With a barrier in place to stop the flood of illegal entries, we can then thoughtfully consider how best to amend and improve our immigration laws and policies.  This is such a complex issue; it will not be resolved overnight.  But it will never be resolved if Democrats continue to use it as simply another way of hating Trump.  I do not understand how, given the facts relevant to illegal entries and illegal immigrants, that the Democrats can stand by and do nothing while urging that our current laws not be enforced.

Tonight the President will talk to the nation about the border.  It is his job to do so and to provide to the nation the assurance that its laws will be enforced and that its border will be secure.  The congress should be helping the President to carry out those duties rather than refusing to even discuss solutions.  If the Democrats have a better solution than the President’s proposal of a wall, then they should present it for discussion.  Ignoring the given facts - that we are a nation that has a controlled border with laws allowing legal entry by compliance with our laws and that those laws are being regularly violated - is not a solution to our problem.  Ours, like most nations, is not one with open borders and to pretend it is in order to further some political goal is a gross neglect of elected office and one which we the people should not stand for, regardless of how we may feel about the President.

Points of View Are Not Facts; We Need Both and We Need to Understand the Difference

Apparently during a meeting at the White House about funding for the wall last Wednesday, the following interchange took place:

Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: “I reject your facts”

Nielsen to Pelosi: “These aren’t my facts.  These are the facts.”

If people are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone accept given facts, then how can we ever have a discussion, let alone resolve differences or solve important issues?

Unless we wish to discuss apples and oranges as if they were the same thing, we must be willing to accept facts – things that provably exist.  That is not to say that we must have the same opinions of those facts, but we must all begin discussions of issues with an acceptance of those things that simply are.  Then we can express differing opinions about those facts and their significance to the particular issue that we are discussing.  It is during that presentation of differing views that we have the opportunity to learn from those who seem to disagree with us.  It is that sort of discussion that allows differing sides to move forward to a compromise of or solution to their disagreement, a solution that might change for the better facts that exist in the future.

But, if we are unwilling to accept given and provable facts, if, instead of arguing about their significance, we choose to dispute the indisputable, we are unlikely to move forward.  If we dispute pure facts themselves, then the dispute is essentially some version of "I am right and you are wrong" and each side simply tries to convert the other side to their “facts”; when the conversion does not occur, the conversation ends.  There is no solution to such a dispute.

However, if we begin by accepting the provable and certain facts, then we can evaluate those facts from differing viewpoints and perspectives.  We can accept the relevant facts on an issue and also the fact that differing experiences often lead people to interpret facts differently.  That is the beginning of a rational discussion and hopefully a rational resolution to a problem. 

Here’s a quick example.  Let’s say I run a stop sign, and there is no dispute about the location of the stop sign or a nearby tree, that I ran through the stop, and (we are assuming I’m truthful here) that I assert I did not see the sign.  Those are facts.  What we might dispute is whether, given the location of the sign and the tree, I should have seen it, or, whether the city should have placed the stop sign in a more visible location.  Those are interpretations of the basic indisputable fact of the sign’s location.  But if we spend our time disputing where the stop sign was located or if there really was a tree located near it, etc., then we will never get to a resolution of issues such as whether I should pay for damage I caused by running the sign or whether the city should move the sign or trim the tree that may have blocked it.

So, when we discuss immigration, there are certain facts that, while we might not like them, are indisputable.  Things like the numbers of illegals in this country; the numbers crossing our border both legally and illegally, the numbers in custody; the numbers of children; that some are criminals; that some families are separated at the border; that border agents have rescued aliens and that some aliens have died in our custody; that sanctuary cities protect aliens from ICE; that there are a variety of reasons why migrants seek to enter America, both legally and illegally.  These and many other facts can be specifically supported with statistics and other evidence.  Similarly, the laws and their requirements can easily be read.  These are all facts.  If we are going to actually have a productive dialog about immigration, then we must accept the facts that exist – all the facts, whether they further our argument or not -  and discuss their significance to our country in light of varying views and interpretations of those facts.  We can try to understand those views that differ from ours and try to persuade those who hold them to perhaps see some of the facts from our perspective instead. 

But, if we are going to reject those actual facts that don’t support our position, if we are going to turn facts we don’t like into something refutable that belong to the other side of our issue, then any attempts at discussion must go nowhere.  Facts, indisputable evidence, is not something about which we can rationally disagree.  And so statements such as that made by Speaker Pelosi are simply a way of blocking any rational discussion of the immigration issue. 

We can have both facts and points of view on an issue.  Indeed, that is what our democracy relies upon – an acceptance and encouragement of diverse voices on an issue as we move forward to correct problems related to provable facts.  But, we can’t make up the facts.  We can’t choose which facts to accept.  The facts simply are.  It is the picking and choosing of facts to make up a narrative pleasing to one side or another and then an assertion that only that narrative is correct, that creates the impossible animosity that grips our country today.

It is easy to assert that our views are facts.  But, simply, they are not.  And, until people can accept that fact, until they can distinguish the two, there is little hope for resolution to issues and much likelihood of continuing hostility toward, instead of tolerance of, those holding differing views.

Revenge, Jealousy, and 2019

I did not write in this blog for some time because, quite frankly, it seemed pointless.  Each political “crisis” or issue was beginning to seem like just a rehash, over and over, of the same points, just dressed in different clothes. 

On any issue, the President asserts a position fairly consistent with the platform on which he was elected.  The Democrats go all out to oppose that position, primarily by ad hominem attacks on the President and his supporters.  Generally, the President’s positions tend to look to country first while the opposition tends to be less concerned about America than about a new world globalism ethic (that in the end sounds much like the oft tried and failed socialism and often looks even more like nothing more than a grab for their own power). 

But, the opposition positions often conflict with those held by the same individuals before Trump’s election.  That leads (or should lead) one to conclude that it really isn’t about the issues at all, but about a hatred of Trump and the fact that he bested them in the election and that the entire country is not fawning at the feet of the Democrats and their positions.

I had hoped that 2019 would bring an end to this ridiculous childish behavior; that people would grow up and begin to honestly discuss important issues based on objective and rational thought.  But, sadly, it does not appear that this is the case.

2019 brings us a continuation of the revenge and jealousy that has been the calling card of the anti-Trump crowd for the past 2 years.  New Senator Romney preludes his new office with a tirade against the President in today's Washington Post, rehashing his angry and jealous comments made throughout the campaign.  Romney’s niece and chairwoman of the Republican party appropriately replied “POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24/7. For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive.”

Unproductive is a key word here.  How long do we have to suffer through the emotional angst of those who disagreed and disagree with the President and feel the need to act out because they didn’t or are not getting their way?  Revenge is the instinctual go-to when people believe they have been wronged.  But we need to rise above that instinct unless we prefer a never-ending conflict (and, never-ending is not an overstatement if one considers the many conflicts that have gone on for thousands of years based primarily on a cycle of revenge).

Until our politicians can rise above the personal and instinctual response of revenge and retaliation for not getting what they thought they should, we can expect to simply rehash the same personal attacks in the guise of whatever issue is the special of the day.  This is not productive; it is hurtful to our country.  The grown-ups (if there are any), need to acknowledge that they lost and move forward.  This does not mean abandoning their positions on issues, but it does mean abandoning the personal malice, hatred, jealousy they feel for the fact that they lost to someone they personally do not admire and that there are those who choose other people and policies over them and the policies they favor.

Once this is acknowledged, then and only then can we perhaps move forward with productive conversations between those with differing views on the political problems of the day.  Politicians need to remember that it is not about them, it is not personal; it is about our country and our world.  Grown-ups can understand this, can see beyond themselves, and can converse (which includes both speaking and listening!) with those of differing viewpoints, to reach compromises that are good for all of the people, even if not providing revenge for a personal hurt or jealousy.

2019 is still young.  Let us hope that we will see an end to revenge politics and a beginning of mature, reasonable, and rational conversations among those of differing views.  That can only be good for all of us.  Happy New Year.