"Immigration"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Immigration”

June 20, 2018

“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…

the one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin,

of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all,

would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

                                                                                                Theodore Roosevelt

                                                                                                Speech at Knights of Columbus

                                                                                                October 12, 1915

No human with an ounce of compassion wants to see children separated from their parents. The bond, especially between a mother who bore and gave birth to a child, is unbreakable. Yet, plying heart strings will not resolve the problem we have with illegals (or smugglers claiming to be parents) who seek asylum, or have chosen to by-pass the legal immigration process and have crossed without papers into our country, by way of an unsecured border.

As everyone knows, border guards have only four choices when families are caught at the border, attempting to cross illegally, without proper authorization: Violators can be sent back into Mexico, which was one step the Obama Administration took. The entire family can be released into our country, pending a hearing to which they would voluntarily have to return, another choice the Obama Administration made. (Statistics suggest that 80% of those who disappear into the nether reaches of the country do not show up for scheduled hearings.)Three, the entire family (including the children)can be incarcerated, pending a hearing. And four, the parents can be incarcerated, pending a hearing, while the children are housed separately from their parents. The first choice commits the family to extreme hardship, as Mexico has no interest in taking them in. They must return, unescorted, to their country of origin. The second encourages the illegal entry into our country of not only asylum seekers but potential terrorists and those who choose not to play by the rules. The third would be cruelest to the children. The fourth, the option chosen by the Trump Administration[1](and distasteful to all, including Mr. Trump), highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform – something both Parties in Congress, the author of our laws, has studiously avoided. Mr. Trump has been blamed, but the real culprit is Congress. Especially cynical are the misanthropists in the media and Washington who let crocodile tears detract from their failed policies    

For decades, Congress has ignored gnawing problems like immigration, along with race and third-rail issues like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. In part, that reluctance represents an unwillingness to put their name to a bill, a b ill which long term would be in the nation’s interest, but which might in the short term prove detrimental to re-election prospects. It is “kicking the pail down the road.” More cynically, some politicians prefer to keep a bill that might resolve issues like immigration and race from reaching the floor, because they have concluded that unresolved issues provide electioneering fodder. 

Resolving the illegal immigration problem should not be that difficult. There are certain principles on which reasonable people should agree. Most everyone agrees that legal immigration should be encouraged, and illegal immigration should be discouraged. We may differ in terms of how many legal immigrants we prefer. As well, nobody wants completely open borders, the allowing into the country anyone who would like to come. We all agree there should be a process. There are issues, such as the welfare of Dreamers and the presence of undocumented residents, that need to be resolved. But compromise should be possible

Despite hyperbolic claims from partisans, we all dislike the separating of families. But the first step must be to stop the flow of illegals. There are those who would prefer for Mr. Trump to issue an Executive Order ceasing the practice of separating families, but what choice should he make? Should he release all families, thereby increasing the number of illegals? Should he send them back into Mexico, to an uncertain fate? Should he imprison the children with their parents or guardians? Or should Congress take up the issue and pass a comprehensive bill, a bill that may not satisfy every desire, but which could address border security along with the humanity needs of those who already here? And is not the passage of legislation the purview Congress? It is the executive’s job to carry out laws and the courts to pass on their Constitutionality.

Stopping the flow can only be done with secure borders, whether real or simulated. Since the U.S.-Mexican border is 1954 miles long, a wall or a fence covering its entire distance is impractical, but illegal border crossings tend to be concentrated and are generally known to ICE employees. Technology is such that unfenced portions of the border could be policed with cameras, Drones and other aircraft. That, in my opinion, should be done at once. A tidal flood of illegals would be reduced to a trickle.

As for the Dreamers, the issue is more complex. My preference would be to be tough in defending borders, rendering them less porous, but to be more lenient with those that are already here, despite that being unfair to those waiting in line. I can understand the reluctance to grant amnesty to those who entered the country illegally, no matter their age. But the alternative seems too draconian, and, in doing nothing, the problems simply worsens.

Keep in mind, immigration is not isolated from trade. Mexico looks upon the U.S. as a source of dollars repatriated from illegal residents in the U.S. back to families in Mexico. As well, Mexico sees an expanding Mexican demographic in the U.S. as one that helps, as Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote, to “recalibrate U.S. policy favorable to Mexico.” The Left has the abhorrent habit of comparing policies they don’t like to Nazi killing machines. Such comparisons were made about George W. Bush regarding Abu Ghraib prison and waterboarding. To suggest that today’s U.S. detention centers compare to 1940s Nazi concentration camps is despicable and trivializes the six million who died in such camps. The energy expended by the Left in such hateful inanities would better serve their cause – not to mention that of the American people – if it were aimed at achieving consensus on immigration reform. What is frustrating to most Americans is that this is a solvable problem. All it requires is for Congress to place the nation ahead of Party. Is that too much to ask of this great democratic republic?

The United States has long been the most compassionate of nations. Why do so many emigrants choose the U.S.? Why don’t we see them clamoring to go to Russia or China? Do you think most would prefer France to the United States? Emma Lazarus’ words resonate: “Give us your tired, your poor…”Such grace has served us well. Ms. Lazarus’ words were cast on a bronze plaque in 1903, during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and reflected his empathy. But we must, as well, heed the warning President Roosevelt uttered a dozen years later, quoted in the rubric which heads this essay – a warning against the current preference for compartmentalizing people by race, religion and nationality for political purposes – identity politics – especially immigrants and minorities. The country needs and wants immigrants. They contribute to the vitality of our nation. They add to its diversity. Yet, we should want them to become Americans, to speak our language, to obey our laws, to adopt our culture (with the nuances they add), and to learn and appreciate the history of this increasingly ethnically-mixed nation – “this last best hope for mankind” – from its founding in the early 17^thCentury to the country it has become in the 21^st.

---

[1]As this was being written, Mr. Trump signed an Executive Order ending the policy of separation. 

"Term Limits Revisited"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Term Limits Revisited”

July 23, 2017

“Will Rogers once said, it is not the original investment in a Congressman that counts; it is the upkeep.”

                                                                                                President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Daniel Webster spent a total of 27 years in the Senate and the House and served as Secretary of State for three Presidents. So, he knew whereof he spoke when he once warned: “Now is the time when men work quietly in the fields and women weep softly in the kitchen; the legislature is in session.” Today, his words sound dated and, perhaps, sexist, but his meaning resonates. Congress can be dangerous to our health. Webster understood power – its benefits, its temptations, its iniquity.  To the good, it is a means to improve society; to the impressionable, it is an aphrodisiac; to opportunists, a venue for harm.

It is true that our representatives no longer represent us as they once did. Demographics prove the point. In 1800, there were 32 Senators and 106 House members, representing a population of 5.3 million people, or one for every 38,400 people. By 1900, the population of the U.S. was just over 76 million. We were represented by 90 Senators and 357 members of Congress, or one representative per 170,000 residents. Today, with a population of 321 million, 100 Senators and 435 House members, each member represents, on average, over 600,000 residents. Our representatives are less representative. However, the adaption of social media and changes in communication and travel should mean they are not isolated, that they should be able to better understand and be more responsive to the needs of the people. Somehow, that doesn’t seem true. They live, it appears, as secluded as the gods once did on Mt. Olympus.

The arguments used to support term limits tend to congregate around the idea that our representatives are out of touch; that party affiliation is more important than the wants and needs of constituents; that cronyism has become endemic and costs of campaigns, along with the time required to raise funds, take their toll. Term limits would encourage more active participation, and representatives would be freer to use judgement rather than heeding the demands of lobbyists. Term limits would promote fresh ideas and empower more quickly new arrivals to the Senate or the House. There are times when Congress absolves itself of laws it imposes on constituents. Ruth Bader Ginsburg made that point: “One might plausibly contend that Congress violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers when it exonerates itself from the imposition of laws it obligates people outside the legislature to obey.”

After an election, approval for Congress typically rises. People assume that the new Congress will enact laws championed by the victors during the campaign. But, inevitably they disappoint. The 2016 election was no exception. Congressional approval rose to 39% in January, but has subsequently slipped to 20%, according to Gallup, about where it was before the election. Bickering and rancor returned. Egos prevent accommodation. Whichever party is in control follows the advice of former Louisiana Governor Huey Long: “I used to get things done by saying please. Now I dynamite them out of my path.”

With a love for cameras and an eye on C-Span, members of Congress spend hours investigating opponents. They lean toward cronyism and have become ineffectual in terms of critical legislation. As well, it is a lucrative place to work. A study for the years 2004-2012, done three years ago by Ballotpedia, looked at the net worth (and changes in net worth) of elected officials in Washington and compared it to the average American. For the first time in history, most members of Congress were millionaires, while 50% of Americans could not afford to spend $5,000 in an emergency. During those eight years which included the “great recession,” the median American saw his net worth decline by 8%, while members of Congress saw their net worth increase by 13 percent. The “swamp” became more putrefied.

Yet, despite these arguments I have changed my opinion regarding term limits. I don’t see them as an answer to our problems. First, it is unlikely Congress would ever limit themselves. It is a will–o’–the–wisp that advocates for term limits are chasing. While the arrogance and hypocrisy of Nany Pelosi are reasons for term limits, the vigor and common sense of Paul Ryan are reasons to let the system stay. And there have been giants in the past – people like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Arthur Vandenberg and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. John Quincy Adams spent twenty-two years in the House and Senate when not serving as President, envoy to the UK, or minister to Russia and Prussia. Would the nation have been better served if these men had been forced out because of term limits?

There are additional arguments for letting the system remain: Most important, in a democracy people should be free to vote for whom they please. Also, experience has value, and the good would get tossed out with the bad. Familiarity among members should help bi-partisanship, though that has not been the case over the past several years. Critically, strong leaders in Congress can thwart a President who assumes too much power. Some believe cronyism would be reduced by limits. J. Scott Applewhite, a reporter for the Associated Press, wrote a column about states that had adopted term limits, in which he suggested otherwise: “The legislators elected after term limits were imposed often lack knowledge of the details of many complex policies and turn to lobbyists for information.” The evidence is mixed as to whether term limits have been positive for the balance sheets of states. Using the 2017 Mercatus Center ranking of states, the bottom five states – Maryland, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Illinois and New Jersey – do not have term limits. But, neither do three of the top five states – North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. The other two states among the top five – Florida and South Dakota – do use term limits.[1]

The problems we face are broader and deeper than simply term limits. They are a consequence of a culture of relativism that has arisen out of fear of offending those whose values are different. It has emerged from the bog of political correctness that does not recognize good and evil, right from wrong. We have become a society that dismisses the concept of a “melting pot” by encouraging pluralism. We foster dependency, endangering personal responsibility and we claim multiculturalism is superior to a universal moral sense.

We live in a “me-first,” “selfie” world that places fame and fortune above tolerance and respect. We have institutionalized care for the aged and disabled, forgoing personal compassion, while freeing the individual to focus on him or herself. Style subsumes substance. We promise entitlements without regard to their cost. Many universities have eliminated (or lessened in importance) liberal arts and the classics, relaters of morals and tellers of universal truths, courses which afford students a better sense of self and provide the perspective of history. Unhealthy partisanship has replaced healthy skepticism, as biases dominate universities and the media.

Term limits for the Presidency are good, as executive power has increased since Franklin Roosevelt entered office eight-five years ago. But, as for Congress – it is for us, the voters, to responsibly elect decent people, those of character, not blowhards or those who exaggerate or lie about their heritage and history. There is much in our country that needs fixing, but term limits for Congress will not solve the problems.

---

[1] Party affiliation appears more important than term limits as to the financial well-being of a state. The legislatures in all five of the states in the soundest financial position are controlled by Republicans, while the legislatures in four of the five states with the worst financial conditions are controlled by Democrats.