(First, CAPS for emphasis)
For the sake of full disclosure, Don and I went to high school together. We didn’t really know each other except through mutual friends and think that was after high school.
Well, Don, the problem with your position is that it has absolutely nothing to do with children not being represented by attorney in a complex legal situation. Your comment, in fact, goes on a tangent so far away from what is being discussed that I was tempted to simply ignore it.
HOWEVER, because I believe that the United States SHOULD be a Shining City on a Hill, and you present positions that are diametrically opposed to even the basics concepts of what should American Charity, Christian Charity, or even Muslim Charity, I felt it need to be addressed, and in detail.
To start with, the problem with that position is both singular and multi-fold.
Singularly, every single part of it is wrong.
I don’t even mean emotionally, I mean historically, factually, logically in regard to policy, etc. etc. etc.
Let me address these in turn.
“We are not the caretakers of other nations…”
Actually… We are the caretakers of the world.
Shocking, I know.
We’ve put ourselves in that position since at least the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 when President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere closed to future colonization and coupled the threat of military intervention against any European power that attempted to expand into the Americas (never mind that there was literally no way Monroe could have responded militarily to any significant foreign power.)
This was a unilateral declaration that the U.S was the military protectorate of the entire Western Hemisphere. Since that august declaration, we have only expanded our area of responsibility.
Following the Monroe Doctrine, other presidents reinforced the idea of the United States as the caretakers, or if you prefer, the police power, of the world.
- Roosevelt Corollary – established a military and commercial hegemony over Latin America. (“I took Panama, let Congress debate it!”) – Roosevelt LITERALLY, not figuratively declared the United States Latin America’s (and by extension the World’s) Police Power. THIS was Roosevelt’s “Big Stick”
- Truman Doctrine – AKA “Containment” – The policy of sending resources to any place that was resisting communism.
- Eisenhower Doctrine – a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
- Kennedy Doctrine – Further reinforced the United States as the police of the world.
- Johnson Doctrine – Domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere that could result in a communist take over would be addressed by the United States.
- Nixon Doctrine – While this doctrine, aka “Vietnamization” tried to put the defense of Vietnam back on the Vietnamese, it also stated; “…in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments.” So we were STILL going to be the cops.
- Carter Doctrine – Put the Persian Gulf under the U.S. purview of protection.
- Reagan Corollary – Extended the Carter Doctrine to directly to Saudi Arabia and not just the Persian Gulf.
- The Reagan Doctrine – Further reinforced US protectionism over Latin America.
- Clinton Doctrine – Declared that if genocide is occurring anywhere in the world, the United States would move to stop it.
- Bush Doctrine – (this was Dubya, not his dad) – makes no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them.
- Obama Doctrine – is confusing like much of his foreign policy – but essentially it further emphasizes that the U.S. will use its police powers to protect the “common security and common prosperity” of the world.
- And finally, the Trump Doctrine – No such thing exists as of yet. It will probably involve golf, or hookers….. (sorry, too easy).
SO, as you can see, it is long-standing U.S. policy to be the caretakers of the world.
Next you say; “We cannot sustain the constant influx of people especially at this rate.”
Do you KNOW what that rate is???
The data can be complex. In 1850, 10% of the US Population was immigrants. By 1890, that number had peaked at a little under 15% (This was in part due to the more than two million Italians who immigrated in the period, another two million would arrive before 1920). Today, well, as of 2014 anyway, that number is 13.3%. So, not really much of an influx is it? It’s actually more of an outflow.
But that’s not really related to the FLOW of immigrants (of any sort), is it? Well, those numbers have been dropping for 46 years now. 1.6 MILLION in 2000 to about 310,000 in 2017. Though, apparently, those numbers are going up now after a short decrease…interesting. That’s an example of the balancing act that border enforcement v. coyote are always playing. That is just the name of the game and it always has been. People who can’t accept that, well, I’m not sure they’re playing with a full deck.
Of course, there are always dips and lulls and spikes…but on average, by the end of the Obama Administration, undocumented crossings were reduced by more than a factor of five.
Trump does like to say things like, “These smugglers know these rules and regulations better than the people that drew them. As a result, there’s been a 325 percent increase in minors, and a 435 percent increase in the smuggling or attempted smuggling of families and minors into our country.”
Well, yeah, that’s probably true, BUT, and this is a big but…. Those numbers are based on ……… what? Without the base numbers, 325% or 10,000,000% means NOTHING. There are times when percentages sound really scary but they’re really not. You must to know their context.
For instance, 310,000 undocumented border crossing = 0.1% of the entire population of the United States. OR, about .2% of the working population. See what I did there? The next time someone quotes you a scary big percentage (For instance, there are 200% more snakes in my house today than last August – that could mean anything – what if I’m a herpetologist and keep dozens? Or, if, in my case, I’ve adopted 2 corn snakes – Same percentage, different meaning)
Additionally, if an influx of .2% of the population is a threat to economic stability…. Well…. I have to ask…. What the heck are we doing?
I find that influx arguments, when broken down to their basics, are inherently racist. There were 20,000 illegal crossings from Canada in 2017 – no one talks about them. Additionally, a certain sect of politicians today love to talk about the “undefended border” or “the world’s longest undefended border”, which is a bit of a misnomer, as the border has not been “Defended” since 1871.
Additionally, the actual percentage of “criminal” undocumented immigrants – that is, those who are in some way criminal beyond violating the MISDEMEANOR crime of illegally crossing the border – is microscopic. Fear of MS-13 is asinine. You, individually are, again, LITERALLY, more like to die in a toothbrush accident. You are more likely to die falling out of bed. You are more likely to be killed by your own pet. Than be involved in any way with an alien gang member (assuming you lead a relatively normal lifestyle and aren’t Breaking Bad – if you are cooking meth for a cartel, that equation changes and enjoy your spinning flaming death.)
Undocumented immigration is a dog whistle. It is a stalking horse designed to create an “use v. them” scheme that under actual scrutiny, breaks down.
NOW, does that mean that “abolishing ICE” is the way to go? Of course not. The liberals who keep pushing that idea are in for a schock. It is an extremely bad position to take. But that doesn’t mean that ICE does not need to have some serious revamping It does. Additionally, at some point, ICE agents need to grow a spine and tell their superiors that they simply aren’t doing some of the things that they have done. LYING to people and taking their children away is EVIL.
Of course, we ourselves have set up a system that not only encourages cheating, but requires it. When it takes YEARS to get a Visa, and you have….hours to escape? What do people expect.
Additionally, we have a concept in our law, that stems from English Common Law called “Necessity.” As an example, if your life is in danger, and the law in some way prevents you from saving your life, you can ignore that law. The analogy often used is, You’re being chased down a street by a bull and come upon a fence that has a “no trespassing” sign on it. The law says that to save your own life, you are now immune from the trespassing laws (that is very simplistic.)
Additionally, asylum seekers represent about 1/5th that number. If we can’t help 60,000 people in immediate threat of death… then we need to STFU about being the defender of freedom.
We have lost focus on our own people starving and homeless and in danger here on our own land to the point of recklessness!
Well, first, the idea that we must focus on a single problem a dog whistle.
But you are right that homelessness is a serious issues, as is food crisis. BUT, the problem isn’t that the resources aren’t there to solve it.
Second WE haven’t lost focus.
The Obama Administration by funding Housing First project reduced homelessness by 40% across the country, and in 3 states and 8 cities (including Houston) ENDED Veterans homelessness (to be clear, that doesn’t mean there are no veterans homeless on the streets, it means there are places for them and either they have slipped through the cracks, or they have chosen the path they are on.)
Whereas, THIS administration has cut programs addressing those very issues you claim to care about.
So, tell me, Don, have you called or written your representatives about this? I mean, you imply you care, and clearly the Trump Administration is going to hurt those very homeless people you’re concerned about…… I’m betting you haven’t, am I wrong? (And FYI, I have Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Ted Poe’s offices on Speed Dial – do you?)
SO, it is a solvable problem. But the problem is NOT resources. It is will. This country does not have the political WILL to solve this problem because it is trapped in 18th Century Calvinist attitudes about who is successful and who is a failure.
BUT I present to you the Joint Strike Fighter – a $600bn project that has produced a very expensive target for enemy airplanes (The JSF lost all six of its encounters with an F-16 – a 40 year old aircraft).
Additionally, homelessness, poverty, and hunger are NOT what I’m talking about in this article, and while links can be made to the needs of some immigrants, the solutions to these problems have NOTHING to do with immigration and as such is a straw man fallacy.
No, what I’m talking about is the way this country treats CHILDREN in ways that if it were happening anywhere else, we’d lose our collective minds. We’d be right to as well, because anyone who thinks that any child, any person for that matter, who is not an Immigration Attorney (not just an attorney, an immigration attorney specifically) can navigate this system, is a fool.
I spent ten years of my life working as a criminal law paralegal, and I won’t walk into a courtroom without an attorney for anything bigger than a traffic ticket. And I’ve helped prosecute capital murder cases.
Eventually our coffers will run dry and our population so high that it can’t be supported by our infrastructure.
AH, this… our coffers are running dry. Oh, the poor, poor coffers.
The simple answer to this is, no, they won’t. Ever. But it hasn’t stopped politicians since the dawn of time from tearing at their hair over it, including American politicians.
This idea that the coffers are running dry comes from a continued hew and cry from the very same people who decided that spending $600bn on a fighter plane that couldn’t fight was a good idea, that spending billions on a class of ship that, this year, the Navy is keeping in port because they are not seaworthy (The Littoral Combat Ships are a danger to the sailors that serve on them, and I say that as a Destroyerman who knows a bit about serving on a smallboy), or $3bn per ship on the Zumwalt Class destroyer that has seen nothing but problems (We can buy 3 or 4 Arleigh Burkes for the same price). As long as we are WASTING money on programs that don’t work, and no wasting a LITTLE money either, wasting mind-boggling amounts – for political capital, then the argument that we don’t have the resources is a dog that won’t hunt.
The idea that our coffers will run dry comes from the Mercantilist idea that there are only so many resources. Well, Mercantilism died with the Industrial Revolution – or at least it should have. We will NEVER run out of resources. When resources get low, we make more. When one resource runs out, we find something to replace it.
SO, we’ve addressed your issues. Shown how they really aren’t issues at all, and yes, this is simplistic – a full explanation would take hundreds of pages, and hundreds of thousands of words.
BUT, YOU haven’t commented at all on the issue I was speaking of in the article.
To remind you, that topic is, CHILDREN, that the United States has taken into custody, in court without an attorney.
How is that just? How is sending a child back to a place where “US officials have recognized that many of the people leaving Central America are fleeing serious threats to their lives,” in any way JUST?
The only answer for any liberty loving person, any person that has any belief in the concepts upon which this nation was founded, is that it is not. It NEVER is.