Countering the Sanctuary City Gambit

As a direct result of HRC’s loss and President Trump’s election, a fair number of cities controlled by Democratic politicians have climbed on the “sanctuary city” train.  They’ve come online to resist the deportation of non-citizens who’ve entered the country without permission, and have offered their protection in the sense kingdoms of old would offer sanctuary to monks, and other travelers who sought their protection.  The difference this time is purely political rather than humanitarian motives of the Lords and Ladies of these cities.

This week, like almost every other week, President Trump created a firestorm on Twitter®, when he suggested he would acquiesce to the Dem’s position and instead of deporting illegals caught in border crossings he would ship them to the cities that had offered them sanctuary. 

Oh, the humanity!  Oh, the outrage! Oh, the immorality!

It is always amusing when politicians and Hollywood actors claim the proposed Presidential actions are immoral.  The same people who have voted to deny human rights to viable human fetuses, who’ve demonstrated their own personal greed, and encourage rape (of the right people), think they have the moral high ground and can define the common morality?  Give me a break.

If you don’t really want these migrating humans in your back yard, then why did you make the offer?  Oh, that’s right, it was really just something you did to make you appear to be more virtuous and appeal to the illegal voters you seek to gain. 

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, noted the suggestion by the President wasn’t really something he could actually pull off because of the logistics of moving all those people, but his tweet was really a brilliant way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and perhaps move the discussion of immigration off the current topics of border walls and cages.

Borders versus the Boarders

These days we regularly hear about the porous nature of our southern border.  Far more so than in history and the reasons are fairly simple to understand, but before we talk about them we should consider some of that history.  I know, I know, no one likes to consider what was as we talk about what is, but bear with me on this.

When we became a nation, we had the British colony of Canada to the north, one really big ocean (and the Gulf of Mexico) and a whole lot of land to the west filled with the natives we had not yet met or displaced.  True – there were a bunch of French guys running around trading with the natives and France and Spain kept swapping the land back and forth, but it was mostly empty so it wasn’t that big a deal for a nation trying to figure out what being a nation meant.

Then we began to expand, and Tommy J heard Napoleon wanted some cash to invade England and was looking to sell off the land he’d just gotten back from Spain.  Tommy J saw this as a win-win, so for the bargain basement price of around 5.5 cents a square mile we got land that formed most of what are now 13 states.  Of course, no one asked the natives how they felt about this, but that is another story.  At the end of the day we still had the pesky British to the north, an ocean to the east and south, only now the land to the west was claimed by Spain.

At the time the only people migrating anywhere was us.  By us I mean the U.S.  We were welcoming people arriving by boat from Europe, still had people arriving from Africa (although not voluntarily), and had large families seeking new lands for their homesteads so we began to push west.  At the time the only people concerned with immigration were the British and Spanish as they tried to keep us from invading their holdings in North America.  Interestingly we fought additional wars with both of them over this whole manifest destiny and U.S. rights thing.  First the British in 1812, and then Mexico in 1846.  (Of course, Texas had its own war with Mexico, but that too is another story.)  After the Mexico thing, we got to thinking about actually defining our borders, so we and everyone else (except the native Americans) finally settled on them by 1850.  (I know there were interim agreements along the way, but it wasn’t until after the Mexican-American war that we actually sat down with the English to sort out the northern border all the way to the Pacific.)

Since we had all this land, not so many people, and the government didn’t give too much thought about drugs and whiskey (other than for tax purposes), the whole idea of border security was pretty much confined to the folks along the border.  Once we got that whole thing with the 49^th parallel sorted out we didn’t worry too much about the British (Canadians), and except for the Rio Grande occasionally shifting its path the Mexico thing was pretty stable as well.  Then we had a civil war and the issues of border security raised its ugly head as we in the North tried to make sure the South didn’t get any outside help.  “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” came from one of those efforts as Davy Farragut attempted to close down the port of Mobile, Alabama.

After the war, we all pretty well agreed on the idea that while borders were important, ours were pretty safe since it didn’t look like either the Canadians or Mexicans were all the anxious to invade us.  We put some big guns up along the coast just in case the pesky Europeans got some idea we were easy, but we controlled the European and Asian immigration through the major seaports of the east and west coasts.  This seemed to work pretty well for the next hundred years or so and then air travel came around and we had to add a bunch of immigration control to the major airports.  But the borders with Canada and Mexico remained pretty much as it had been with entry points every so often and agents mostly looking for contraband going in both directions. 

As an aside, Prohibition had pointed out the porous nature of our borders, but when we repealed the amendment we went back to everything was okay.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans pretty much agreed “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” or “we have better things to do.”

Then we declared a war on drugs and all the unlearned lessons of Prohibition and smuggling came back into play.  Along the way, slavery made a reappearance primarily in the sex trade, but also in some other areas like housekeeping for the rich people in the big cities.  With each new revelation, Congress did what it does and threw money at the problem, trying to figure out how to keep up with the entrepreneurs who were making millions in moving people and drugs from South America to meet the demands in North America.

One day fairly recently, the Democrats and their party looked around and noticed their historical base was disappearing as they moved further and further left in their socio-economic positions.  This meant they had to either change those positions or find a new base.  They’ve chosen to find a new base – people who’ve come to this country without following the legal process.  Republican’s call these people illegal aliens.  Democrats call them unregistered voters.  This fall it will be interesting to see what the majority of voters call them.

President Trump came into the 2016 election playing to the economic concerns of the average middle-class voter, promising to improve the economy, restore pride in the country, and build a wall to stem the migration of people from South and Central America.  So far, he’s done a pretty reasonable job of improving the economy, the pride question is still up for debate since ½ the country seems to be deranged in their hatred of him as a human being let alone as President, and the wall remains on his to-do list.

For what it’s worth -- I think building a wall will do next to nothing to stop the migration of people from the South.  The only way that happens is if the economic picture for Central America and Mexico improves so there are fewer reasons for the people to leave.  That, unfortunately, is a problem we can’t fix, and it doesn’t seem the authorities in the affected countries are all that eager to change the status quo.

So, for the foreseeable future, we will get millions of new boarders here in the land of opportunity.  If the democratic party gets its way they will all vote.  The question is will they vote democratic, or will they see other options as providing a better chance of improving their economic prospects?

I Thought We Were Better Than That.

“As a nation, I thought we were better than that!”  This is an expression we most frequently hear today as a condemnation of President Trump or one of his policies intended to undo something done through executive order or regulation by the former President.  It is a most curious condemnation coming from those who supported the past administration, and its attempt to impart a new social order.

As I’ve previously said, I was not a fan of President Obama’s leadership, or his decision to forego the traditional approach of having the Congress create legislation -- choosing instead to implement his policies through regulatory change and executive order.  Simply put it struck me as "style before substance."  What we see today is the outrage of those who were too short-sighted to see the folly of government run by grand proclamation, having those proclamations burned in the town square.

But I am just a single voice in a nation of 350-million.  Using the numbers of the last election, I was just one of about 130-million[1] who cared enough to cast their vote for the next leader.  For me the choice was so onerous I cast a non-vote (rejecting both main parties).  This meant I had to be willing to accept the outcome between a narcissistic neophyte who beat 16 professionals in open primary, and a career politician with so much suspect criminality and political abuse in her history that it took a rigged primary to get her to the general election.

Now let’s talk about what we are or are not better than.

As Americans growing up in a post-world war world we have been fed a steady diet of what the rock group Queen so eloquently said.  “We are the Champions of the World.”  This, of course, builds a hubris that we know what is best for the rest of the world.  It is this mindset that so many social justice warriors and President Obama see as an evil quality that must be destroyed.  Although I can never know for sure, I believe it was the basis for many of the former President’s decisions on what to support and what to condemn.  It is also the belief President Trump is attempting to rekindle after the past 8-years of vilification.  Perhaps it is really at the core of the growing polarization in our politics as those on the left seek a grander world vision, and those on the right seek a more stable and prosperous nation-state.

Those who condemn the President for his stance on immigration ask us to be empathetic to the plight of those who are here in the United States through decisions made by their parents or family.  The hardline right has rejected that argument and would have us deport the 800,00(ish) residents back to their countries of origin.  The President, in his State of the Union address, offered a proposal to allow them to stay, if we can fix the problems with border security and immigration laws.  On first glance it appears the hardline left is prepared to reject that compromise and wage an all or nothing political fight that would essentially eliminate all the laws on immigration and border security.  In the 1990’s President Clinton condemned the problem of illegal immigration, in 2009 President Obama told us there was a real problem with illegal workers affecting jobs for citizens.  During his terms, President Obama’s administration deported over 2-million illegals a year.  So, what exactly were we better at then - that we are not now? Is it the fact the debate is now in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of the White House with a willing press providing top cover?

Those who condemn the President will frequently point out we are a “nation of immigrants” we have a statue with the words “Give me your tired, your poor…”[2] and so on.  They seem to forget we are also a nation of laws.  If we choose to ignore one law, why shouldn’t we ignore all laws? 

Twitter is an interesting medium for social exchange.  I find little of real value on the medium, but like panning for gold every so often a nugget appears.  I don’t recall who sent this out but I found it humorous and on point.

Me – We need to fix the immigration problem

Liberal – We are a nation of immigrants, the Native Americans didn’t stop the original settlers

Me – How did that work out for them?

For all who think we are better than that… Please, please – tell me what we are really better than?  Should we abandon the idea of national sovereignty when no one else in the world seems willing to?

---

[1] On-line reporting varies widely on how many people actually turned out to vote.  Estimates range from 119-million to 135-million.

[2] Emma Lazarus

The New Colossus

The New Colossus

by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

We see reference to this poem in the news lately, so let’s talk about it.  According to the US Park Service[i] Emma Lazarus wrote, and donated her poem for an auction raising funds for the base of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France to commemorate our alliance during the American Revolution.  It was converted into a bronze plaque and affixed to the base in 1903. 

The statue became the welcoming symbol for the European migrations of the late 19^th Century and is now intimately associated with the center on Ellis Island where people were screened and quarantined for diseases like tuberculosis.  Ellis Island is also the place where so many Europeans received new names because the customs agents couldn’t pronounce or spell their real names, and many could not write for themselves.

In the main stream and liberal media, much has been made of President Trump’s proposed policy changes regarding immigration.  They throw up this poem as if it were proof he is violating some sacred policy and national mandate.  I find it amusing -- their commitment to pure emotion and rhetoric, rather than a debate on the facts. 

Fact 1:  A poem, no matter how inspiring or idealistic does not equal our Government’s Foreign or Immigration policy.  It didn’t in 1883 when Lazarus wrote it.  It didn’t in 1903 when it was affixed to the base of the statue.  It certainly didn’t in the 1930’s when the government refused immigration of European (primarily German and Austrian) Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution.

Fact 2: The US policies on Immigration have changed frequently based on national need, perceived threats to the society, and political will.  When we became a nation we “welcomed” the arrival of significant numbers of immigrants from Africa.  The vast majority against their will.  The legal slave trade was active until 1808.  On March 2, 1807, President Jefferson signed into law the “Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves.”  Although there were many who opposed changing this policy and enforcement was weak allowing slaves to continue to be imported until the civil war, it marked a significant shift in acceptance of what we view today as an inhuman policy.

Fact 3:  US Immigration policy affects the US (and its 50 states), as well as the nations from which the immigrants flow.

Fact 4:  Not all 7+ billion humans can live within the confines of the United States.

With those annoying facts in mind let’s talk about immigration policy and perhaps some lesser understood ramifications.

In 1921, for the first time, the Congress sought to limit immigration of the European states, arguing that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe could not be easily assimilated into the American culture. “The fear was that these newer immigrants would always be ‘hyphenates,’ or citizens who would call themselves, or be called by others, by such hyphenated names as ‘Polish-Americans,’ ‘Greek-Americans,’ and ‘Italian-Americans.’”[ii]  In 1924, additional steps were taken with passage of the Johnson-Reed Act formally establishing the racially and ethnically based quota system that became permanent in 1929.  The premise of this system remained in effect until 1965 when the Congress passed the Nationality and Immigration Act of 1965 removing the racially and ethnically based quota system.

American discrimination of Asian immigrants, and attempts to limit their arrival, can be traced back to 1882 with the “Chinese Exclusion Act.”  Aside from the cultural bias, there was concern over the impacts of huge numbers of immigrants on the local labor pools and loss of American jobs to foreign laborers.

It is interesting the claims of those who support immigration control are not significantly different today, then they were in the past.  On the other side, those who are critical of immigration control are also not significantly different than they were in our history. 

The divide seems come from the understanding of personal impact to a life style.  If you don’t feel your way of life is threatened then you are all for open borders.  If, on the other hand, you see your job and life style at risk, then you do.  We see this clearly in today’s divide where the urban and liberal elite believe they are insulated from direct loss of a life style, and welcome those who they believe to be victims of poverty or injustice in their own countries.   It seems they don’t believe their livelihoods are at risk from this group.  On the opposite side are those who see their incomes, neighborhoods, and lives directly displaced by this expanding group of refugees.

Now, about that third fact.  As refugees flee the savagery of war, or the devastation of draught and famine, what is the residual effect on the lands and nations they leave behind?  Who remains behind to rebuild or recover the nation?  Regardless of the administration, Republican or Democrat, we seem to “cherry pick” those refugees or immigrants we think will support our agenda.  Under the Obama administration, we opened the gates wide for those coming from Central and South America, as well as those from the middle east.  There seemed to be little concern with assimilation, only the potential for them to gratefully support the DNC agenda.  The current administration is attempting to close those gates and limit immigration to those who will best support the wants of our big businesses.

What we never see discussed though is the issue of secondary effects on both us (the US) and them (the nation of origin) of every immigration policy we implement.  We rarely, if ever, consider the negative impacts to the countries they come from.  We are taking the best and brightest, those who could make a difference if they would help themselves and their native countries to prosper.  There is much talk about the consolidation of wealth and the distance between the well off and the poor.  How much do we exasperate this problem in the third world, with our immigration policies when we take only the best and brightest or encourage the flight of the poorest so those countries can forget about them?

The issue of immigration remains, as it always has been, a political football.  Carried by one side, or the other, to achieve a political objective rather than attempt to determine what is best.  For determining what is best for all parties is impossible.

---

[i] US National Park Service, Liberty Island, History and Culture, The Immigrants Statue

[ii] Immigration to the United States, Immigration Act of 1921.

Is it Fair?

We are a nation of immigrants.  We came both willingly and unwillingly to this land to create something that had not existed before.  We displaced the peoples who came as immigrants before us, taking their lands and their lives to build a nation based on the principle that men and women had certain inalienable rights given by God that no government should take away. (The irony of this statement is intentional.)

Today we are engaged in a great civil war where sometimes violent protesters condemn any effort to restrict the flow of new immigrants into the country.  They use all the tools available to tell a story of the great unfairness this is to the class of people we call immigrant.

But who are these new immigrants and what do they offer in exchange for their acceptance?

Is it fair to the citizens and legal aliens already living in the nation to open up the flood gates to all who would seek life in the United States?  Will it make life for those who are already living day to day or hand to mouth better by bringing in the great unwashed masses yearning to breathe free?  That has always been the question.  In the past the great agrarian South pressed the government for the importation of cheap labor from Africa to work as slaves, then the industrialists pressed the government for the importation of cheap labor like the Irish, the Poles, or the Italians to man the sweat shops and factories along the east coast.  Then the Chinese to build the western railroads.  More recently came the  Jews to escape the persecution of the Fascists in Germany, Italy and Spain, but we balked at that and millions died.

So, at the end of the day how do we determine what is fair and who we need to be fair to?  Is it fair an immigrant who has nothing can come to this country and displace an American who has little?  That seems to be the question.  On the one side, we have a group that seems unwilling to answer this question with conviction, on the other we have a group unwilling to understand the risk of not allowing refugees to seek asylum.

But those who are protesting for unlimited immigration rights, is it fair to those who will lose their jobs and perhaps their lives because you think it is unfair to the immigrant?