About the Abortion Debate

Even though the abortion argument is misplaced in the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice (and thus reflects ignorance of the Constitution and the role of a judge), since we will nonetheless be having the abortion discussion, here are my thoughts.

First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest.  Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.

One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights”  or "women's rights" or “choice.”  Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.

Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction.  That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins.  So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.

This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose."   Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb.  To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low.  Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act?  Really?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant.  When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant.  If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.

Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her.  Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there.  And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.

There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters.  This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture:  if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it.  It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.  And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out,  like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women.  Real respect for women would not treat them like children.  It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.

Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.

If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity.  It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture.  It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children.  Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value.  If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born?  If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome?  If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human.  Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse.  Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?

I believe that the above  points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally.  There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted.  How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned.  But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.

Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction.  It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred.  It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being.  To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women.  To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful.  The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.

Brief Thoughts

 Here are a few short notes as I read today's news:

1.      As people cheer the climber on the Statue of Liberty and as she cheers herself, do any of them consider the families that had come to NY on the 4^th of July to make a once in a lifetime visit to Lady Liberty and who, due to the selfishness of these folks, were prohibited from doing so?

2.      Scott Pruitt’s resignation letter includes his gratitude for the job and his joy in serving his country.  It also states the primary reason for his resignation: “the unrelenting attacks on me personally, [and] my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.” Causing someone to resign because of unrelenting personal attacks is just another way that the Left silences any opposition.  Their intolerance is anything but democratic!

3.      In this country we used to tolerate opposing views.  If we disliked the policies of those currently in power, we voted for change at the next possible election.  Now it seems that people think that if they didn’t get their way in an election, their recourse is not to wait and work for different candidates, but rather to scream, assault, and attack those they do not like until their voices are silenced and they are driven from office.  In so doing they are ignoring the voices of their neighbors with whom they disagree (if not also silencing them) and are placing their own selfish wants above those of their country and its form of government.

4.      People who are opposing the Supreme Court nomination before the nominee is even named are showing us that they don’t really care about objectively looking at qualifications and picking a good jurist.  Rather, they just want to obstruct and oppose the President.

5.      People who want to know how a justice will rule in regard to a prior case do not understand how the courts work or what the role of a justice is: to interpret and apply the law to a specific case that is currently before the court; in so doing the law develops and progress and sometimes old law is altered or overturned.  But justices do not enact laws, nor do good justices go to the court seeking to do so.

6.      People who claim that precedent is set in stone and can never be overturned do not understand what precedent is.  Nor do they seem to realize that, for example, Brown v. Board of Education overruled the “separate but equal” segregation requirements for Blacks and Whites set forth in the precedent case of Plessy v. Ferguson.   People who are against ever seeing the law progress in this way do not understand the role of precedent or of the Court within our three branches of government.

7.      Why do so many of our politicians simply spew forth their party line instead of thinking for themselves?  Why do they put their loyalty to party and their own power above the country?  Why do representatives often just represent one identifiable group within their district rather than considering the voices of all their constituents?

8.      For that matter, why do so few people think beyond the surface or for themselves?

9.      Our country, while not perfect, is a great country.  Why were so many apologizing for it and tearing it down on the 4^th of July of all days?  These people who think that our form of government is so terrible, that our country is so terrible – would they really rather live somewhere else?  I am really curious where that would be and why that would be and, especially for those many wealthy who continually trash America but have the funds to move elsewhere, why don’t they do so?

Words, Phrases, Clarity, and Understanding

I frequently notice that attempts at discussion are often marred by confusion of key terms used by the participants.  Understanding of and precision in terms used are essential for good dialog. When a person is using a term that actually means something else, or that another participant in the dialog simply thinks means something else, the ability to truly understand one another tends to evaporate and the discussion often devolves into argument or worse.  And, indeed, when participants are involved in a discussion of hotly contested issues, one may actually have a strong argument for a particular position, but that argument will not be convincing if it is based on or supported by misused words.

So, in the interests of clarity, here is a chart, listing some pairs of words we often hear, but whose definitions seem to have become confused.  (Most of the definitions are taken from Merriam Webster or similar dictionaries)  Please do not use the following words or phrases interchangeably; the terms are not equivalent with one another

Law A very complex topic, but basically, the definition is: A system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.	Policy Contrary to popular belief, policy is not law.  It, too, is a complex topic, but its basic definition is: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.
Melting Pot This term is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society.  It is defined as: a place, or the people of a place, where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.	Multicultural This is a society where diverse cultures co-exist and manifest diverse customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.
Capitalism (Also referred to as “free enterprise.”)  The classic definition is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.	Consumerism This is not a governmental form.  It is: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; it also refers to preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.
Immigration This is simply the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.   It does not necessarily mean the immigrant will integrate.	Integration Simply an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.  It is not immigration, though immigration might lead to integration.
Legal Something is legal if it is based on, concerned with or permitted by law. Not liking something does not make it illegal.	Illegal Something is illegal if it is contrary to, forbidden by, or in violation of law.  Wishing an illegal act were legal does not  make it so.
Personal Belief That which someone personally holds to be true and which governs personal behavior.  One can hold personal beliefs that are different from required professional actions and still carry out those required actions.	Professional Action Action one takes in accordance with the requirements of one's profession or career.  Most can competently carry out required actions regardless of one's personal beliefs or preferences as to required professional actions.
Dialog A conversation between two or more people, often to resolve a problem.	Collusion Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Confusion of the above terms, assuming that one equals the other, leads to confusion in discussion and lack of clarity about one’s own or another’s position.  We should all try to be more careful and precise when discussing issues that are of importance.

It would also be useful to clarify definitions of specific governmental forms:

Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Dictatorship: an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Social Democracy:  a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Republic:  a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democratic Republic:  a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Lastly, there are some additional terms that merit clarification.  These are terms that are often used in the name calling that is so prevalent today. Even if the views of someone are repugnant to another, it does not necessary mean that the person holding those views is any of the following.  Using charged words to label an opponent does nothing to further a productive discussion.  The definition of each term is followed by my comments (in italics) about the use of the term in current dialog.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

          Being against immigration as currently practiced, or against illegal immigration, or for enforcing immigration law does not necessarily mean that one is racist or anti-immigrant.  Disliking the acts of someone who happens to belong to a particular race, or simply being of another race, does not make one racist.

Fascism
A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.  A Fascist is one who follows this belief.

            Because Fascism is often based on racial identity, before throwing this term around one ought to consider who it is that plays identity politics, who it is that shouts down or otherwise silences opponents.  But, even that does not rise to the definition of Fascism which was exemplified by Hitler.

Nazi/Nazism

A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy.  Nazism is the ideology associated with that party.  Beliefs include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

            This term is often used as an epithet against those holding positions with which one disagrees. Mere disagreement, even when strongly advocated, does not make one a Nazi.

Holocaust

Technically this word simply means “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”  However, as usually used it refers to the totality of actions by Hitler against the Jews, including extermination of over 6 million.

            Temporary separation of families pursuant to valid immigration law is not a holocaust.  To call it such cheapens what happened to the Jews; by so loosely using this term for anything one finds unpleasant or even abhorrent, reduces the acts of Hitler to being something similarly merely unpleasant, and not the horrendous evil that we should never forget.

Real conversation requires understanding and precision in the language one uses.  The above is a start at defining some essential terms. Hopefully this may help those who are tempted to use these words to use them more carefully. If we all would be sure we understand the meanings of words that we are using in our conversations, then perhaps those conversations would be more productive acts of understanding ultimately leading to resolutions to the divisiveness that is destroying us.

Flags and Identity

Flags, for ages, have been carried into battle on behalf of the country for whom the flag bearer is fighting.  When victory occurs, the flag of the victorious country is often planted by those who fought for that country and its victory.  People generally wave flags on behalf of a country of which they are proud.   “National symbols-in particular, national anthems and flags-provide perhaps the strongest, clearest statement of national identity. In essence, they serve as modem totems . . . signs that bear a special relationship to the nations they represent, distinguishing them from one another and reaffirming their identity boundaries. Since the inception of nations, national leaders have embraced and adopted national flags and anthems, using them to create bonds, motivate patriotic action, honor the efforts of citizens, and legitimate formal authority.” (Symbols and the World System: National Anthems and Flags by Karen E. Cerulo).

Let’s look at some depictions of this use of a flag to honor one’s country and its victory.

1-A drawing of the raising of the Islamic flag at the conquest of Constantinople, 1453 CE:

2- U.S. flag raised atop Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, soon after the mountaintop was captured at on February 23, 1945:

3- The hoisting of the Red Flag over the Reichstag May 2, 1945 has come to represent the ‘total victory’ of Soviet Russia over Nazi Germany in the Second World War:

4-Flag planted on the moon to show U.S. pride in landing there before all others:

5- “Victory Monument”, erected at Puthumattalan, Sri Lanka, in memory of its War Heroes:

These are but a few examples of the use of a flag to honor the country which one serves.  There are even computer and board games which involve planting a flag to gain territory or otherwise gain points for the persona or country a player represents.

Now let’s look at one more photo:

These are Honduran flags raised at the U.S. border by alleged asylum seekers.  To me this photo is not unlike those others in which the flag holder raises it proudly on behalf of his country against an enemy. 

So, here is what I don’t understand.  If these individuals are fleeing Honduras, why do they proudly and assertively hold that country’s flag as part of a border protest as they seek asylum in the country whose border they appear to be assaulting?  Why do they proudly wave the flag of a country they are running from?  If these individuals found their home country distasteful enough to partake in the long caravan toward the U.S., and if they were so desirous of entering the U.S. that they did not take time to seek asylum in closer countries, then why do they seemingly assault our borders on behalf of their homeland's flag when they arrive?

Recently, I read an article pointing out that we need to separate the words “immigration” and “identification” in our national debate.  This photo suggests the wisdom of that.  I believe that most in this country are not opposed to legal immigration.  I also believe that many understand the need for a national identity for a country to survive.  Many of those who seem to be against immigration are actually against creating separate mini-countries within this one.  This photo, of individuals assaulting our border wall while proudly waving the flag of another country, suggests that the fear of our country’s identity being dissolved into factions of competing cultural identities is not without a basis. 

This country consistently opens its arms to those who wish to come here because they appreciate what this country is – its culture, its way of life, its laws, its government, and what it stands for.  Our culture includes diversity and respect for customs, religions, and traditions of others, but it also includes a cohesive national identity.  We are a melting pot; but, we are not a multicultural society.  When someone claims to want to become a part of this country but does so while assertively waving the flag of another, one simply wonders what it is that they really are seeking.

Walls and immigration laws allow us to ensure that those who want to enter do so because they want to join our country and participate in all its benefits as well as its responsibilities.  They allow us assurance that once within this country, those here will be proud to wave the American flag.  The current call for open borders would allow the planting of many flags within this country and in so doing would dissolve the concept of country itself.  In essence, an open border would represent our planting of a white flag, the flag of surrender, to a divisive doctrine of multiculturalism and identity politics that will ultimately destroy us.

The Judicial Branch

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

The above first sentences of each of the first three articles of our Constitution lay out the separation of powers in our government.  This separation provides important safeguards for our freedom: each branch serves as a check on the others, ensuring that no one branch overshadows, usurps, or diminishes the power of the others, and in so doing ensures that the people themselves do not lose their power and their liberty.

Judicial power itself is defined by Black’s Online Legal Dictionary as, “Authority, both constitutional and legal, given to the courts and its judges (1) to preside over and render judgment on court-worthy cases; (2) to enforce or void statutes and laws when scope or constitutionality are questioned (3) to interpret statutes and laws when disputes arise.”

Judges do not make the law and to ask or expect them to do so reveals a very basic misunderstanding of our Constitution.

The court’s job is not to legislate but is to address the existing law and how it applies to specific facts before it.  Judges explain what the law is; they interpret it and uphold it, even when they personally do not like it.  Only when a specific law or action is challenged will the judicial branch become involved and its role will be to evaluate the constitutionality or legality of that law or action in light of existing law and the Constitution.  Even when emotions run high about issues involved in the case, a court ideally does not let emotion rule the day.

Our elected legislators, representing our will, make the laws.  When we are unhappy with a law our recourse is to ask our legislators to change that law or, if we are dissatisfied with our legislator’s representation then our recourse is to vote for a different representative at the next election. 

Similarly, if we are unhappy with the actions of our executive branch when acting within its legal and constitutional authority, then our recourse is, again, to go to our legislature and lobby for a change in that legal authority and/or to vote for someone else in the next election.      

What is not given its own branch of government is personal subjective emotion.  Personal feelings are certainly a guiding force for one’s own behavior.  Many people with common emotions can use those emotions as a basis for advocating changes in law or policy.  Judges, like all humans, have personal predispositions and biases.  But, we cannot let personal feelings negate the rule of law.

We expect our judiciary to set aside personal prejudices and render disinterested and unbiased opinions.  We expect the judiciary to stay above the political and often emotional turbulence of the day and instead render decisions that will logically and rationally as well as legally stand up to the test of time, even when popular or political emotions change.  We expect our judiciary to focus on the legal questions presented by a case and to decide those cases fairly. Indeed, these expectations are necessary in our system of government.

We see this concept explained by Justice Roberts in the opinion upholding the president’s travel ban.  Justice Roberts wrote: “Plaintiffs argue that this president’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.” He further noted that assertions that the president’s order was a bad idea, rather than supporting a finding of its unconstitutionality, were more simply statements of disapproval of the order or of the president.  “But”, he wrote, “we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters.”

The point is, that just because we don’t like something does not mean that it is, nor does it make it unconstitutional.  We in this country are governed by laws, not by a judge’s or anyone else’s personal beliefs or values.  We rely on the Court to recognize this principle and to remind us of it.  It prohibits us from substituting our own personal preferences as definitive of permissible Constitutional activity. 

It is the objective reasoning of the Judiciary that, along with the other two branches, protect our freedom as it exists under our democratic form of government.  Replacing that system of government with rule by popular or personal emotions is more dangerous than any of the rhetoric from the president or from other politicians on either side of the aisle.  Allowing personal feelings to eclipse our Constitution or to silence fact, reason, or opposing views can lead to only two results: anarchy or some form of dictatorship.

This concept is especially on my mind now as the discussion begins on the replacement for the retiring Justice Kennedy.  At this point in our history, when understanding of our Constitution and the role of law seems to be waning, and when the power of personal feelings as a method of decision making and control are seemingly at an all-time high, it is more than ever important that we select a jurist who understands his or her role as a Supreme Court Justice and also one who is willing to put his or her own emotions and biases aside when making judicial decisions.

I am concerned that too many elected politicians as well as their constituents will be looking for someone whose personal views agree with their own rather than someone who will be able to put those views aside and objectively review specific cases within the existing laws and Constitution.  I am concerned that some will be looking for someone who is willing to go beyond the assigned role of the judiciary in an effort to implement personal or political agendas.

The judicial branch serves a crucial purpose as do the other two branches of government.  Let us all take the time to both understand and support those purposes and demand that our fellow citizens do the same.

Silencing and Name-calling as Agents of Change

Favoring enforcement of the law, even when it calls for prosecution of illegal immigrants, does not make one racist.  In the past week I have been called that along with “anti-American,” “not human,” “a heartless devil,” “evil,” “un-caring,” “a Jew” (used in the pejorative – “even though I assume you are a Jew, you should still have some compassion”), “ignorant,” “selfish,” and “privileged.” I have been told my “exhausting and conformist” views (of following the law and our democratic process for its change) leave “zero room for change to help as many people as possible.”

No matter.  I stick to believing that in a country of laws, all laws must be enforced.  In this country we have a process for changing laws we do not like.  That process does not include name calling and other personal attacks.  It does, however, allow infinite room for change and has the ability to help enormous numbers, especially when the laws are equally and fully applied.

Yet, along with a prevalent misunderstanding or ignorance of our laws and Constitution, there is an even more dangerous attitude that is so prevalent that it is becoming a societal norm within this country.  That attitude is that it is OK to silence those with whom one disagrees; and, the preferred method of doing so is name calling and other personal attacks.  People who simply want to have a rational dialog or share information with others of varying views on an issue are shamed, silenced, and made to feel guilty about opposing views.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (upon whose local board of directors I once sat) seems moving toward that norm.  That (previously) staunch defender of the First Amendment which includes the right of free speech, has now stated that "Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed.”  The ACLU will no longer defend all speech, but will weigh it against other social justice issues.  Certainly, social justice issues are important, but so is the right of everyone in in this country to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech, even when that speech is unfavorable to many.

The danger of this, of allowing free speech only when one’s views are acceptable, is that it gives enormous power to those deciding exactly what is acceptable as well as whom can be silenced.  Such a model is one of dictatorship where, eventually, the people have no voice at all.  The founders of our democratic republic, in contrast, stated that free people need a free marketplace of ideas.

Governments that place all power in one individual can be kind and benevolent, but they can also be cruel and inhumane.  In current and recent history alone, we can see examples of countries where the people have no voice and their only recourse is to violently rise up against their leaders until the protestors are either fully silenced, even to the point of death, or until some form of coup is successful.

Thankfully, in this country we the people have a voice that we can exercise productively and peacefully to bring about change.  I realize that some anti-Trump propaganda would have us believe that he is some form of dictator, but that is just not the case.  He may or may not want to be king (I personally doubt it), but he currently does not have that power and our system of government does not allow it.  Only when we fail to follow that system does it make the idea of kingship more possible.

Demanding that we follow our laws and follow our Constitutional process for changing unacceptable, outdated, or otherwise offensive laws does not mean that one is racist, evil, or the Devil.  More importantly, name-calling is not an effective agent of change, and the possible consequences of using it as such are more in line with 1984 than a government that cares about its people.   

A desire to follow the process to change a law does not necessarily reflect lack of compassion for those affected by the law.  Rather, it reflects a true belief in America and all that it stands for, including a government of, for, and by the people, a country where diverse views and opinions are welcome and can be discussed rationally, a country where we listen to and have tolerance for the opinions and views of others, even when those views are not ours.

Today's Thoughts and Observations on the Border Protests

1.   Crocodile Tears?

Where were all the tears, where was all the outrage when President Obama separated families at the border?  When he did that, anyone who criticized him was called racist.  So when did all these people suddenly find compassion for these children?  Or is it not compassion at all but really hatred – hatred of Donald Trump?

This is what I see.  I see masses of people who can’t think for themselves.  They are being used as they allow emotional manipulation to direct their behavior.  They don’t bother to know what the actual facts are about a situation – they just allow their emotions to be riled up by (often fake) photos and other emotional triggers, and then, as encouraged, scream, cry, and attack the Trump administration.

I really do not understand why people are so willing to allow themselves to be used.  Was their love of the previous president and/or their hatred of the current president so strong that they lost their ability to think and to see what is actually going on?  Do they not understand the emotional propaganda that is being used to keep them riled up and working as pawns for someone else’s very political agenda?

2.  Do You Know What You Want?

What is it the protestors want?  They said it was to keep families together, but they would not work to actually change the law, the enforcement of which requires separation.  Instead, they attacked the President for doing his job and enforcing the law.  (As Democratic Senator Schumer stated, the Democrats will reject any legislation to fix the border crisis. They want to “keep the focus on Trump.”) 

When President Trump saw that these people would not even attempt to work on legislation, he signed an executive order that at least temporarily keeps families together.  One would think that would satisfy the screamers.  But no.  Now they are angry that he signed the order.  Hmmm – is it the children they care about or is it really about hating Trump? What is it these people want?  Now it seems that many have moved on to demanding entirely open borders.  Do they even understand what that means or the consequences, both short and long term,  to our country?  I sincerely doubt that.

3.  Government 101

I also don’t understand how so many people in this country can have so little understanding of our government and how it works.  Anyone, with even a simple Google search, can find the basic role of each branch of government:  The legislative branch (Congress) writes and passes legislation (laws). The executive branch (the executive departments and the President and cabinet at the federal level) makes sure that laws are enforced and allocates necessary funding. The judicial branch (the court system) evaluates the laws passed by the legislative branch and determines whether they comply with the Constitution.  This is all laid out in the Constitution which I hope (but often doubt) that every citizen has read at least once.

In every election in which there is more than one candidate someone will lose, and the supporters of that person will not be happy.  But our job as citizens is to accept that the people have spoken and support the winner of the election in carrying out his or her duties.  If we are not happy with the winner, our course of action is not to assault him or her daily, but it is to support a different candidate in the next election.  While under our current government we do have the right to free speech, simply screaming and launching ad hominem attacks is not productive.  That is not how we unseat our elected officials.  In this country we vote.

4.  How Best to Change the Immigration (Or Any Other) Law

Even with just this basic information about the government, one wonders why those who are unhappy with our current immigration laws, are protesting against the executive branch which is simply doing its job of enforcing those laws (the same laws that were in effect when Obama was president and under which he prosecuted nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, resulting in the separation of many families).  Either the people seem to think that the president has the powers of a dictator (he doesn’t) or they are simply using a situation as an excuse to attack the president.   

The immigration laws can be amended and rewritten in the legislature and that is why those who are unhappy with the law should be contacting their legislative representatives. Several bills have or will be introduced regarding immigration.  The Republicans in Congress have several times proposed bills that would overrule the 1997 order and allow children to be kept with their parents. The Democrats have opposed these bills.  Some bills call for complete immigration overhaul; others provide smaller fixes.  Some want open borders. 

I realize that the legislative process takes time (sorry, no instant gratification!), but it is the way in which the people govern. We elect our representatives and they speak for us in Congress. There are amendments and changes to bills. As in any negotiation, those representing various positions try to get as much as they can while giving up as little as possible. If the parties are willing to listen to and work with one another, they will come up with a bill that essentially represents the will of the people. That is called compromise! It is how we end up with government of/by/for the people. It is how our government works. And, those who are truly interested in fixing the problems they see with our current immigration laws should be reviewing the proposed changes and contacting their congresspeople to express their views. 

5.  Some Notes on the Law Itself

Many protestors also seem to be unfamiliar with the law itself.  In most instances, what people are complaining about is the treatment of people who enter the country illegally.  We have a legal process of immigration, we have legal ports of entry, and those who follow the immigration laws will not have violated the law and therefore will not be prosecuted.  That is, it seems that he protesters are attacking a problem that goes away if the families attempting to cross illegally would instead choose to follow the law. 

Those who enter our country illegally have broken the law and can be prosecuted under the law just as anyone who breaks any law can be prosecuted. The illegal immigrants are detained under the law. When an adult is detained in an adult facility, children cannot be kept there (just as children are not sent to prison with their parents who may be jailed for other violations of law). A 1997 court order requires the government to place immigrant children with a close family member or friend, and until that is accomplished to keep immigrant children in “the least restrictive means possible.” Hence, the children are kept in juvenile facilities. President Trump’s order now keeps families together, but that order can be challenged as violative of the 1997 court order. 

When one enters legally, there is no prosecutorial detention. (Note:  those seeking asylum at a legal port of entry will still be detained while the asylum claim is investigated and verified.   That is, just because one wants to enter, even when following legal processes, not every request will be granted.  To allow any one in without question would be to create open borders).  Those seeking entry are yet not citizens or legal residents. 

There is a distinction between legal and illegal which many either do not understand or have chosen to forget.  This makes many of their complaints unclear and ineffective.

6.  Inaccurate Words and Analogies

Screaming protests are especially not effective when they are based on either misinformation or lack of information.  For example, in the current immigration debate I keep hearing the words law and policy used interchangeably.  President Trump's policy is to fully enforce the law. He cannot change the law. The law is written by the legislative body. While President Obama’s policy was not one of zero tolerance, nonetheless, children were separated from families at the border under Obama whose administration was following the same law as the Trump administration. 

Particularly troubling is the comparison of this border crisis with the holocaust.  Not only does this show an appalling lack of understanding of both the law and the holocaust, it is simply an inaccurate comparison.  The facts reveal that the border situation is nothing at all like the holocaust in which Jewish and other residents of Germany where sent to concentration camps based on their religion or other identifiable characteristics and were in many instances then killed.  To call our border situation equivalent is to cheapen Nazism and genocide by making them simply synonyms for a bad or allegedly inhumane situation.  Anyone who thinks that is all that the holocaust was is completely ignorant on that piece of history.

7.  Don’t You See You’re Being Conned?

I don’t understand how the protestors do not feel that they are being duped.  By now we know that many of the most emotional photos are not of children currently separated from families.  Even the little crying girl, used to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and appearing on the current cover of Time magazine as part of an attempted shaming of the President, was never separated from her mother according to her father and others.

What I don’t understand is why people allow themselves to be used by politicians who I suspect care little if at all for the children or the immigrants, but are instead simply using the protesters’ very laudable compassion to further their own political agenda, to attack Trump, and to enhance their own power.  How many of these people doing the bidding of the progressive leadership even know the details of the agenda they are supporting?

8.  My Request

I really don’t think that the many protestors are ignorant or stupid.  What I do think is that they are being conned.  I have great respect for those who have compassion for a crying child.  But I think that compassion is being exploited by some who have little concern for those children.  But, for those truly concerned with the immigration problem and fixing it, the focus needs to be on the legislature.  I simply wish that everyone would take a minute to understand why they are screaming.  Is it for the children? Is it for immigration reform?  Is it simply a primal scream of hatred of the president?  Or, are the screams simply being provoked by ones who are using a very noble and genuine compassion for a less noble agenda supporting only their own power? My request is that everyone stop for a moment and consider all of this.