Look Forward

 Whether or not you say that he won, Joe Biden will be our next president.  One can continue to look back at what happened, or one can look forward to what needs to be done.

               The Election is Over.

We had an election.  Irregularities and fraud were alleged.  Legal processes for those allegations were followed.  The states certified their results.  The electors voted.  Joe Biden won that election.  The votes of electors and the slates of electors can be challenged on Jan. 6, but those challenges will most certainly fail.  The vote of the electors will be certified, and Joe Biden will be inaugurated as our 46^th President.  That is how it works in America.

I am in my 70s and every election that I can remember, whether for president or dog catcher or anything in between, has included allegations of cheating and irregularities.  Sometimes recounts do change a result.  That did not happen in this election. 

Certainly, with mass mail-in ballots, use of electronics with its possibilities for hacking or other tampering, one can perhaps reasonably assume that some fraud occurred.  There is documented evidence of some irregularities and even some cheating.  There are certainly suspicious vote drops and failures to follow some state election procedures that should make one at least question what went on.  But fraud has not been proven.  And even if it were, that does not mean that the fraud would necessarily change the ultimate outcome of the election.

In America, we are supposed to accept the results of elections, of due legal processes, even when we do not like those results.  In recent years more and more seem to find doing that to be difficult if not impossible.  How many Democrats never accepted that Trump was a legitimate president?  Before that, how many Republicans refused to accept that Obama was their president?  How many Democrats refused to accept that Bush, not Gore, was the legitimate winner of that election?

Refusal to accept suggests not only a selfishness, but also a lack of understanding of how America works.  It sounds like schoolyard kids.  I don’t accept you.  Well then, I won’t accept you.  He started it.  No, he started it.  If he did it then I will do it.  And on and on.  But it goes nowhere.

Time to grow up.  Time to review our Constitution and begin to understand how our Democratic Republic works.

I realize that some may say, “but state election procedures themselves were not followed, so this is different.”  No, it is not.  Those procedures could have been, and many were challenged before the election even took place.   The challenges either resulted in some changes or failed.  Others were challenged after the fact; those challenges also failed. Either way, there was due legal process before, during, and after the election. 

Just because one thinks that legal challenges were wrongly decided does not change the decision or make it procedurally or legally wrong.  Anyone who follows and understands our legal processes knows that sometimes the outcome of those processes is not what one might have wished it to be.  Sometimes they are not or do not seem to be fair.  But, in this country, in our Democratic Republic, we follow the legal processes and accept their results.  That is how we avoid the rule of the mob, the rule of dictatorship, and how we keep our freedoms.

You do not have to congratulate Joe Biden, you do not have to like Joe Biden, you do not have to say that he won, but pursuant to our Constitution and our rule of law you do have to accept that he will be our President on Jan. 20 of 2021.

               For the Future

So, rather than whine because one did not get what one wanted, rather than continue the schoolyard name calling, it might be far more productive to work to make elections more secure in the future. 

Here is one suggestion. People unhappy with the questionable integrity of this election (that should be all Americans!) can mobilize within their states to petition their state lawmakers to make changes in their election laws.  I would suggest the following:

1.       Requirement that voting occur only in one of two ways:  in person during the designated voting period or by a requested absentee ballot.

a.      In person voting must require that the voter show a photo ID of a type approved by the state’s voting authority.

b.      Absentee ballot must be requested, and a valid reason must be given for the request.  Such reasons might include but not be limited to:  being out of the state during the election period; being an invalid or impaired in a way that prohibits one from physically going to the polls; having no reasonable means of transportation to the polls; etc.

c.      Submitted absentee ballots shall use signature matching or similar verification before the vote is counted.

2.      Required steps for security of the voting and counting procedures.

a.      Requirement that appropriate steps be taken to guard against cyber-interference with the election, including but not limited to checking and protecting voting machines and tallying machines.

b.      Requirement that even when machines tabulate votes that paper ballots be preserved.

c.      Requirement that one observer from every major party represented on the ballot must be present in each polling place during voting and present during any handling, including verification and counting of ballots and votes. 

With relatively simple steps such as these, perhaps we could instill a greater faith in our election process.  None of the above are difficult to implement and would go a long way towards election integrity, and in dispelling allegations of cheating, irregularities, and fraud, whether real or imagined.

In the meantime, we all need to remember that this is America and we are Americans.  We don’t always get what we want.  Neither do we necessarily get what we need.  But, because this is a government of/for/by the people, we are always able to look forward and do more than simply wring our hands over what has already happened.  Even if we feel what happened was wrong, we have the right and the power to stand up and turn whatever hate we may have for what has passed to hope and action for the future.  That is America. 

 

DACA, Dreamers, and Reality

When laws are broken, people often get hurt.  Often those people are innocent victims.  That does not mean that laws should not be enforced.

With that thought in mind let’s turn to DACA and the Dreamers. 

We have immigration laws in this country that provide very generous immigration policies.  We also have people who enter the country illegally in an effort, for whatever reason, to circumvent those laws.  They are illegal aliens.  Sometimes they bring their children with them – they too are illegally in this country.  One can invoke great feelings of sympathy by describing a very young child who was simply carted here illegally by parents who chose to break the law (for whatever reason, noble or not) and most everyone would say they abhor the idea of that child being thrown out of the country.  But, if I ask whether you want to ignore our laws and our Constitution, you might have a different response; indeed, I would hope that the idea of only following the Constitution, our laws, and our system of government when it feels good would be abhorrent to everyone.

And, that is the first problem with the current DACA situation.  When Congress, the body responsible for enacting laws about immigration, failed to reach a solution to address the Dreamers, the then president Obama, tired of waiting, and asserting feelings of compassion, violated the separation of powers and created DACA by executive fiat.  Not only is that itself wrong, it also sets a bad precedent:  do we really want a president to be able to circumvent our separation of powers when he or she feels strongly about something?  The possibilities of that are truly frightening and suggest a totalitarianism rather than a democracy.

So, let’s accept that Trump was correct in rescinding that order and in placing the answer to the dreamers and the immigration questions they pose in the rightful hands of Congress.  It would seem that all law-abiding citizens should be able to agree on that.  But, sadly, they cannot.  Many of the populace would rather have emotion rule the day.

And, so, we have attorneys general of several states filing suit to retain this program that was created in violation of our Constitution.  These are the folks who should be leading the way in upholding our laws, not arguing to enforce programs that are emotionally pleasing to us regardless of whether their creation violated the basic premises of our Constitution and our democracy.

The disagreement should not be about whether the 2012 DACA order should have been rescinded.  Rather, the disagreement should be focused on how Congress should deal with the fact that there are individuals illegally in this country who were brought here as minors.  On the part of most I suspect there is an urge toward compassion, which is good.  But along with that must come an examination of the consequences, both good and bad, of that compassion.  In weighing those factors, one must first have a basic grasp of the actual facts about DACA and the Dreamers, because proponents of various views will put forth only their interpretations of those facts.

First, let’s consider who the Dreamers are.  They had to be under 31 in 2012 and had to have come to America when they were 15 or younger.  Most of the DACA “children” are in their mid-20s today.  They had to have lived in this country since 2007 (10 years as of today, 5 years when DACA was signed in 2012).  Many have jobs.  They are eligible for Social Security, Medicare, and Earned Income Credit on their taxes, but are not eligible for many other welfare benefits.  Many of the Dreamers hold jobs, and there is an argument being put forward that it would be detrimental to lose them from our work force. 

I will begin with considering that jobs argument.  Are there no eligible American citizens that can fill those jobs? Last time I looked there were still many unemployed Americans looking for work.  I read an article this morning that included a statement by an employer that he had 3 construction jobs filled by dreamers and was concerned he would not find replacements.  Huh?  There are not 3 young people here legally who would be willing to take those jobs?  Is it that he won’t find replacements, or that he won’t find replacements who are as subservient as the DACA employees or perhaps who will demand higher wages or benefits?  Do the people who are asserting that only Dreamers can do the jobs really have that low an opinion of our own young adults?  That, alone, deserves a far deeper discussion, beyond what is being addressed here.

But, I am ready to assume that most – nearly all – the Dreamers are good people who are stuck in a horrible situation through no fault of their own.  (I remind people that life is not fair and we cannot fix everything for everyone).  But, if all it meant was giving citizenship to these young adults who were willing to apply and to go through the formal process, I might be for that.  But again, we must look at reality and reality tells us that things would not end there.

So, here are some of the problem consequences with granting any kind of legal status to the Dreamers.  First, if we revoke the rescission of Obama’s DACA order and allow that order to remain in place, we are setting a dangerous precedent that allows a future president to override Congress, our laws, and our Constitution. 

Second, if Congress reinstates DACA in a legal manner, we are essentially sending the message that if you come here illegally eventually America’s compassion will get the better of itself and its laws and you will be granted some means of becoming a legal resident of the country.  This is even if the DACA program itself is limited only to those currently within the country.  One only has to consider the rise in illegal immigration following the grant of amnesty during President Reagan’s term in office.  What is to prevent illegal immigration of new families coming with the belief that if they wait long enough they will be given some sort of legal status.  Not only does this fly in the face of any legal immigration policy, it is also a slap in the face to those families that choose to pursue a legal path to immigration and citizenship.

We also have family unification programs that allow those immigrants here legally to bring in their families.  So the Dreamers would likely have an opportunity to be joined by family members who otherwise would have had to follow a normal immigration procedure.  So, along with granting legal status to 800,000 young adults under DACA we could also be granting legal status to a significantly larger number as they reunify their families.

I can’t imagine being brought to a country by my parents only to be told I am illegally there and hence must deport.  It is a horrible situation.  On the other hand, I also cannot imagine being over 18, knowing I am illegally present, and not considering alternatives beyond hoping that I eventually be given some sort of legal status. 

This is not an easy problem and we should not provide easy solutions; nor should our solutions be based solely on emotion.  Life is hard.  Laws exist.  When people break the laws, even with the best motive, people are hurt.  Parents who brought their children illegally to America may have believed they were helping their children.  They were not.  They were breaking the laws and their children are now the victims of their illegal behavior. 

These children are now mostly young adults.  Like all young adults, they need to find their path forward, and for many of the Dreamers, just as for many other young adults, that path may not be an easy one.  But that fact alone does not mean that we should grant them legal status.   Congress must seriously consider the many possible consequences of their actions on behalf of the Dreamers, focusing not only on their compassion for these young adults, but also on their compassion for the legal citizens and immigrants of this country and for this country’s laws.