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.

Border Reality

Recently someone asked me why I haven’t written on immigration lately.  There are 2 main reasons for this. One, it is in many ways too complicated a topic for a short blog, and, second, it seems that this is an area where most all minds are made up already, though often not based on rational evaluation but rather on political point of view.  Nonetheless, let me try to add a few thoughts to the conversation.

Essentially, there are three approaches a country can take to its borders:  open borders, controlled borders and closed borders.  Standing for or against one or another of these forms does not necessarily mean one is racist or holds any other positions that various sides of the debate like to attribute to their opponents.  We might be more successful in resolving the immigration issues if we would focus on immigration itself, rather than on name-calling of those with whom we disagree.  That is, immigration should not be used to settle political scores.

A border is simply an outer edge that delineates where something ends.  In this case we are talking about the defining edge or boundary of a country.

An open border is one that allows free movement of people across with little or no restrictions.  Essentially there is no border control.  This may be by design, or due to lack of resources.  The borders between the states of the United States are open borders.

A controlled border is one that allows movement across but places some restrictions on that movement.  It may require a visa or a limited period of entry without a visa.  A controlled border will have some method of recording people’s movements across the border and for checking compliance with the restrictions and limitations on crossing.  Controlled borders will usually have some sort of barrier, either natural (e.g. a river) or man made (e.g. a wall) and will usually have designated crossing points for legal crossings of the border.  Most international borders, including the United States, are controlled borders.

A closed border prevents movement of people across the border with few if any exceptions.  Examples include the Berlin Wall and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

Our immigration debate seems to primarily involve the following positions:  arguments for open borders; arguments to keep a controlled border with essentially the same restrictions and criteria for entry as we now have (keep the current immigration laws) and have a controlled border but rework the restrictions and criteria (rewrite the immigration laws).

Most of the open border arguments are humanitarian or idealist in nature.  They argue that migrants coming from developing to developed countries can, by earning higher wages, not only improve their own standard of living, but in the process reduce world poverty.  Additionally, is the argument that it is inherently unfair for people to be treated differently or live differently simply based on which side of a border they were born.

The arguments against open borders are more pragmatic and realistic.  Open borders can create a drain on available resources in the country to with the people are migrating.  And, it can deprive home countries of the people necessary to improve those countries (both laborers and educated professionals), especially when they are developing nations. 

The arguments for open borders can be quite compelling.  But, in my opinion, they are not very realistic, especially when taken to their logical extreme. 

America is a great country.  It has natural resources and it has a form of government beginning with its Constitution that is the envy of people around the world.  It makes sense that anyone would like to come and live here.  But, realistically, this country cannot support the whole world.  Nor should it. 

America has always been very generous with its legal immigration as well as its humanitarian aid to developing nations.  Legal immigrants have brought much to our country and we have given them much.  But one key to past legal immigration is that those who came appreciated not only the resources available here, but also the government and way of life in America.  While keeping their ancestral identity and culture they also have been willing to become Americans, to support the basic values upon which this country was built and which allows it to be both enticing and welcoming.  These legal immigrants truly gave up their home country for ours and became full participants in our society.

There are many today who also seek legal immigration into America as a way to become Americans, who will both take what America offers and give what they can in return.  But there are others who seem to seek this country for what it has to offer them, but who would rather not become Americans; they would simply move their country into our land and reap its benefits.  In many cases these are those who begin their entry by disrespecting our laws and entering illegally. 

It is these illegal border crossers to whom many controlled border advocates object and whom many open border advocates welcome.  But one must ask: if you allow everyone in, what will happen to this country?  There were at least 6000 migrants in the most recent group that arrived at our border.  We likely could in some way absorb that number, but what about the next 6000 and the next?  If most of the world sees America as better, then why shouldn’t everyone come here?  And then what?  Abundant as our resources are, we do not have enough for the entire world.

Those who would allow open borders play on our emotions with pictures of mothers and starving children, try to shame us based on our humanitarian values into opening our borders to all.  Of course we want to help.  Those against opening our borders to everyone show us pictures of gang members who are rapists and murderers.  In reality, those attempting to enter our country include both and more. 

The focus should not be on who exactly is climbing the wall, or storming our border, or even seeking legal entry, but rather on should we or should we not open the border, and if it is not open, then what should be the criteria for legal entry.  In the meantime, we should enforce existing laws equally and against anyone who violates them, regardless of their emotional appeal to us or lack thereof.

We are a country, we are not the keepers of the entire world.  We are indeed fortunate to live in this blessed land.  But we have also given blood and treasure to build and keep this country.  Compassion for those less fortunate does not require us to open our borders to all or to give away that which our people have worked hard to build.  There are many ways to express compassion.

Our immigration laws need to determine the criteria for legal entry.  These criteria should include an understanding of why the applicant wishes to enter and how they will in some way contribute to our country.  Perhaps they have a skill we need; perhaps they will learn here and take what they learn back to their country, sharing our compassion in that way to make a better world. 

Of course we must take in those who seek asylum (though there may also be limits on that number).  But a refugee is not simply someone who thinks it is better here than in their home country.  A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.   If they simply don’t like the economy or policies of their country, it seems a better plan for them to work to change those problems and make their own country a more livable and better place.  We can perhaps give advice or training or monetary assistance.  But we cannot simply open our doors to everyone who sees America as better than where they are now.    

Opening our borders to everyone requires that we be willing to give up our country, for a country without borders is no country at all.   We see many of the illegal immigrants that enter our land still holding the flag of their home country while defacing the flag of the new country they would call home.  They choose not to learn our language or our customs or our values.  It is those things, held in common, that are the basis of a country and not simply a geographic area filled with competing tribes.

A controlled border allows us to have laws that insure that those who seek to enter have a true desire to become a productive and supportive participant in America.  Those laws also allow us to exclude those who attempt to enter illegally or with purposes that are not in the best interests of this country.  With such restrictions we can enjoy the gifts and talents that immigrants bring with them while ensuring that those of us (immigrants and current residents) who choose to be here will continue to have the country that we have chosen.

Of course, we’d all like to believe that if there were open borders everywhere, we would all just get along fine and the world and everything in it would be wonderful.  But the world is inhabited by imperfect humans and it is highly unlikely that would happen.  We can open our borders, but we must be prepared for a loss of our way of life:  a loss of resources, a loss of shared values, a loss of our cultural identity as a nation. 

In the real world, open borders are a bad idea.  Controlling borders means creating clearly defined and protected borders, not allowing illegal immigration (and not rewarding it after the fact), and having clearly defined requirements and procedures for legal immigration and appropriate penalties for violations of those rules.  It is time that people get over the emotional and unrealistic arguments and stop using immigration as a political weapon and simply focus on making America’s controlled borders the best they can be.

Stop Letting Them Use Your Emotions to Control You!

The issue of the day is immigration.  We see photos of a crying little girl.  We are told babies are being torn from their mothers’ breasts.  We are told children are being placed in “concentration camps.” Of course, these are selective assertions, some of which are blatantly false.   All of this is used to motivate anti-Trump sentiment while making people so emotional that they can’t, don’t want to, or refuse to objectively look at all the facts and, more importantly, to THINK for themselves. 

Regarding emotional facts and their use as propaganda, Psychology Today states:

Propaganda traffics mostly in emotions, and not just negative ones. Propagandists appeal to our fears but also to our courage, our hatred and our love. The fact that propaganda is at heart an emotional manipulation also does not mean that our emotions and "emotionality" are bad. It means that our emotional system can be manipulated to destructive ends.

The antidote to the process of propaganda is the process of finding factual truth. The best way we have for doing that is through scientific inquiry, which referees competing claims systematically based on evidence. The propagandist process subordinates the facts to an agenda, even at the price of distorting or ignoring the facts altogether.

(The Con of Propaganda by Noam Shpancer Ph.D., https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201702/the-con-propaganda )

The current propaganda attack about immigration plays to your compassion.  That human compassion that so many are feeling about the children at the border is a noble emotion.  But, sadly, it is being used to manipulate and exploit that emotion in a very un-noble and political agenda.

In the current emotional propaganda on immigration and children, you are not shown the actual housing for the children or the many services that are provided for them there.  You are not given the facts and statistics of the immigration laws, the numbers of those attempting to cross our borders illegally without any attempt to follow our very generous legal immigration laws and procedures, you are not told the numbers of criminals attempting to cross our borders, the child trafficking that occurs across the border, the number of “catch and release” families that have been allowed into the U. S. and then never followed through with appropriate paper work to become legal and indeed disappeared without returning for court hearings.  You are not told that there has been an enormous increase in the numbers of adults trying to cross with children that they fraudulently claim as family members.  And, you are certainly not reminded that those who are separated from their children are those who have broken our laws and committed an illegal act.   These are all facts that are relevant to this issue, as is the simple fact that we are a country of laws, not men (see earlier blog post On Law and Freedom, http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/06/on-law-and-freedom.html ). 

I encourage everyone who is being swayed by the propaganda offensive  to listen to today’s briefing by the Secretary of Homeland Security which gives a much fuller picture of the problems at the southern border as well as actual facts about separations of children from parents:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?447252-1/homeland-security-secretary-nielsen-calls-congress-fix-immigration-policy&vod

We have laws and we cannot let emotion alone negate those laws.   We cannot let our sound and good emotions be manipulated for political gain.   If we become a country of emotion, not law, then we are certainly well on our way to anarchy.  Children on a playground let emotions rule their behavior.  Adults may be guided by their underlying emotions and values, but they create rules and then follow them while demanding that they be enforced.   At least, that is what adults in this country used to do.

Our government, as it should, is simply enforcing the law.  Congress makes the laws.  People who, upon examination of all relevant facts, would like to see the laws changed, should contact their Congress people.  I think that most everyone would agree that we need to resolve and update our immigration laws.  But we have a process for doing that, and it is not done by manipulating emotions and demanding that laws simply not be enforced.

Do not let emotional photos and misleading or incomplete facts keep you from using your mind.  Yes, consider the heart-wrenching facts and your emotional responses, but also consider other emotional facts that are more likely to cause feelings of fear or anger than compassion (such as the number of criminals illegally crossing and then lost in our country or the parents who separate themselves from their children and send them across the border alone or with criminals.) 

Objectively consider these things along with the existing law and what is the role of law in our society.  Those reciting the emotional anti-administration narrative also demand that the President and the executive branch “pause” enforcement of the law out of compassion.  Consider what a slippery slope this would create:  if whenever we have compassion that in some way conflicts with the enforcement of a law we just suspend the law, we eventually could have very few laws being enforced and those that are being enforced would be enforced subjectively and unevenly.  Moreover, by allowing this emotional control one sets the stage for even more manipulative propaganda.  And, propaganda is rarely used for the benefit of others, but rather for the benefit and power of the propagandist.

Perhaps you want to be a part of the fight for open borders or simply to unseat President Trump.  You have every right to make the decision to take that stand.  I only hope that it is indeed your decision to do so based upon all the relevant facts and not simply a result of emotional propaganda.

Ask yourself whether this is the direction you truly choose, or if your compassionate heart and legitimate emotion about children is instead being used by those whose agenda has little to do with children or immigration and more to do with amassing foot-soldiers in a far more calculated political agenda?  An agenda which is ultimately intended to create and maintain the power of those who are tampering with your kind heart.

On Law and Freedom

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

       – John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7.

This quote keeps coming to mind as I listen to the cacophony of voices objecting to the separation of minor children from parents at the border.  The rhetoric is for the most part directed at the President as the name calling cast his way becomes more and more horrific.    I understand that when people are shown a picture of a crying 2 year old allegedly about to be separated from her mother that there is something wrong with their hearts if they do not ache for the poor child.  But, that heartache does not mean that we should not enforce our country’s laws.

Let’s take a breath for a moment and consider the facts.  John Adams also wrote  “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, Dec. 4, 1770).

So, what are some of the facts relevant to the separation of children from their parents?  First, we have immigration laws that prohibit illegal border crossings.    When adults illegally cross the border, they are placed in an adult detention center until it can be determined if they have a justifiable reason for entering the United States.  If not, they are returned to their side of the border.  If they have children with them those children are not placed in the adult detention center (would you really want that crying 2 year old or any other child placed in adult detention where a variety of criminals are also residing?).   Instead, those children are placed in a facility specifically designed for them.  No, it’s not home, but it has clean beds, activities, 3 square meals a day.  It is safe for a child until he or she can be reunited with his or her parents.   (We should also note that not all children placed in these centers crossed with their parents or other family members; some were unaccompanied minors and some were with adults unrelated to them who were crossing with the children for a variety of reasons, some very questionable at best).

It may seem cruel to separate these children from their parents, but this is simply a result of enforcing laws that are on the books.  No one complains when someone is placed in detention for breaking other laws and when so placed is separated from their child.  When someone breaks the law there are consequences and, when that someone has minor children then those children will likely suffer some of those consequences. 

And let’s also not forget that the parents of these children are knowingly committing an illegal act and choosing to bring their children into that illegal situation with all of its consequences.  These parents could choose to follow the legal immigration procedures and in so doing not subject their children to the possibility of separation from their parents.

Does this sound cold?  Perhaps so, but actually it is far fairer and more in line with our government and its freedoms than is an inconsistent enforcement of law.  For, when only some laws are enforced, then we become not a government of law, but of men.  And, when we let one or another decide which laws to enforce, or against whom those laws will be enforced, then we are turning over our power and our freedom.

This idea of the rule of law and its connection to freedom is not new.  John Locke wrote that freedom means being subject only to laws made by a legislative body that apply to everyone. (“The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it” Second Treatise of Government, 1690). Aristotle wrote that “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.” (Politics, Book 3) The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “rule of law” includes “the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject of publicly disclosed legal codes and procedures.”

John Adams first wrote the phrase “a government of laws and not men” in an essay published in the Boston Gazette in 1775.  In 1780 the Massachusetts Constitution used the phrase in the section outlining the separation of powers.   More recently, the term occurred in  the 1996 State of the Union Address  when President Clinton used the phrase in the context of immigration.  He spoke of his administrations “strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders,” and then stated, “We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.”

We have a legislative branch of government which writes the laws.  The legislators are the duly elected representatives of the people of this country.  Once those laws are enacted we should be able to expect that they will all be enforced and enforced equally.  It is the job of the executive branch of our government to enforce those laws.  It is not up to the executive branch to decide which laws it will and which it will not enforce.  It we allow our executive to do that, then we are turning over our power to one person or group to rule us, perhaps at their whim, but even if done with what we see as compassion it is far more in line with an autocratic rather than democratic form of government.   It is this rule by a select or elite few and their ability to unfairly and arbitrarily apply rules that our founders hoped to protect us from as they created our Constitution and its separation of powers.   

So, next time you see the crying 2 year old, or hear the anti-Trump verbiage about his not stopping the separation of families at the border, remember that all he and the executive branch are doing is enforcing the laws – all of them.   They are doing their jobs.   It is not his or the executive branch’s place in our democratic republic to pick and choose which laws to enforce.  And really, is that a power that you would hand to any president?  That is, would you really rather have a government of men than of law?  A government where the ones in power could select what laws apply and to whom?

If you do not like a particular law, then demand that your legislators rewrite it.  Do not ask that it be ignored.  If the laws are subjectively enforced, then we no longer have a government of laws, but of a selective few who hold power at any given moment.  Wouldn’t you rather have a government in which the people, through their designated representatives in Congress, make the laws and then trust that the executive branch will enforce ALL those laws and apply them equally.    For that is what freedom is.   And that is why I stand behind the full enforcement of all the laws, even when it separates a mother from her child.