Run! Aliens! a.k.a. Entitlement...Part 3: Immigration

Immigration…finally!

I’ve been teasing you with a post about immigration for a while now. Well, the time has come. There have been a few developments in the immigration debate lately.

The President has issued an executive order to remove deportation proceedings from student aliens.

Romney has been incredibly silent on an issue he knows can only hurt him.

And…the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the Arizona “We don’t like Mexicans” law. (Yes, that’s what I call it. You’ll live)

Let’s start with a continuation of the entitlement issue. If you’ve read my previous posts on entitlement, you know how I feel about people feeling that they have rights that others don’t. This applies, in part, to immigration as well. I hear a lot of people use the fact that an alien is unregistered as an excuse for them having no rights. Let me respond to this with a huge, resounding, “YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.” It would appear that those of you who say this have never actually read the Constitution. Let me enlighten you…section one of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

There is not a lot of ambiguity there. The founding fathers wrote this amendment and used the term “citizen” in it five times. They specifically chose not to use the term citizen in this sentence for a reason. They knew that everyone needed protection of the law in the United States. They did not make any exceptions for immigration status, country of origin, or color of skin.

So what are your other arguments? The economic burden? I won’t argue that point with you because I don’t disagree. I do believe that there is an economic burden with unregistered aliens. It’s the same problem I have with anyone working off the books and not paying taxes. There’s just nothing we can do about it at this time. Of course, that healthcare reform so many of you are complaining about will help when they are all required to carry insurance. This will ease the burden on our healthcare system and reduce the cost of healthcare for the rest of us. But that’s another blog entirely.

So the other argument is crime. Let’s look at the actual impact of immigration on crime (which is really an impossible statistic to measure.) To do this, we need to look at the overall crime rate. The FBI reports on the cities with the highest crime rate relative to the national rate to create a list of the most dangerous cities. They have only released the preliminary report for 2011 so we will use the data from 2010 and earlier. Based on an analysis Onboard Informatics did of the last seven years of data the most dangerous cities are:

1. St. Louis (34)
2. Atlanta (7)
3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) (31)
3. Orlando (tie) (5)
5. Detroit (16)
6. Memphis (22)
7. Miami (5)
8. Baltimore (19)
9. Kansas City, Missouri (34)
10. Minneapolis (tie) (18)
10. Cleveland (tie) (26)

Look over that list again. See the numbers in parentheses? Those are the rankings for the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the states. Do you see a glaring and obvious problem with the crime argument yet? Only three of the top 11 dangerous cities are even in the top 10 states for illegal immigrant population. Arizona’s not even on the list! I’m not a statistician, but I have done some statistics study in my educational career, but I don’t even need to use my meager skills to say, with confidence, that there is not a relationship with the overall rate of crime and the number of illegal immigrants in a state. Before you ask – these statistics took into consideration incidents of property crime, such burglary and motor vehicle theft, as well as violent crime, like murder and robbery. So pretty much all areas of criminal activity were with the exception of financial crimes, but that would only make Wall Street number one and Washington D.C. number two on the list.

The fact that people are so upset over this issue is just another facet of the entitlement diamond that so many American’s (meaning U.S. citizens) have been wearing lately. We live in a country with the 12th highest per capita GDP in the world. Our poverty level is higher than the per capita GDP of over 120 nations. Do we really expect that people will not want to come to our country to try to form a life for their family? What would you do if you lived in Mexico, only miles from a land where the per capita GDP was three times your country’s? When you had to feed your family or watch them starve, I’m betting you would run across that border…rules be damned. Am I saying that illegal immigration is okay? No. I don’t agree with it…I don’t like it. However, if we want to live in a country as well off as the United States, then we had damn well better get used to it.

That being said, I do think something should be done about it. I’m actually a proponent of building a huge wall at the Mexican border. I think it would help reduce the illegal immigration into the United States, and put a lot of people to work for a while at a time when people are begging for jobs. You like that idea, don’t you? Here’s the rub…it has to be paid for. It is an expensive concept. The money will have to come from somewhere. In our society, somewhere means taxpayers. So if you want the problem solved, you will have to pony up the dough. I also believe that, since the border states are the ones that will be benefiting from the wall, they should be shouldering the vast majority of the cost. Don’t ask for the government to fix a problem for you if you aren’t willing to pay for the fix. But put this proposal in front of the people of Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California and see how quickly their sense of entitlement starts them screaming about raised taxes.

Now on to the political realm…

We’ll start with Obama’s easing of the deportation rules for students who entered the U.S. illegally as children. First, it’s not the child’s fault that their parents entered the U.S. illegally and brought them. They are children. What should they have done, gone to the immigration office and told them that their parents brought them here illegally? Let’s not be stupid. So, when these children grow up and become successful students they are suddenly faced with deportation. Never mind the fact that they are positively contributing to a society that they have become a part of over most of their lives. Many of them were so young when they came that they don’t even remember anything else. Why would we want to send educated people, who are contributing to our society, away? Because of something their parents did? Do you have to answer for the crimes of your parents? So I say, good for Obama. I’m glad he stood and made a statement to a Congress that has actually come out and said that their goal was to do everything in their power to stop the Obama administration from doing anything over the last two years. I hope to see more executive orders over the end of his term (whether that is months or years) to show Congress that their refusal to work together will not be tolerated.

Mitt Romney’s response to the immigration issue….silence. He barely utters a word about immigration. Why? Because he knows that anything he says will hurt him. He is in a party built primarily by, and for, upper class white men. If he supports any immigration leniency, he is going against his party. If he comes out against any leniency, he is going to be blasted by moderates, independents, and minorities. He is doing the only thing a man in a monotone party can do…shutting up. I just wish he would employ this tactic on all of the other issues.

Finally, to the Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. I have three things to say…well done, shame on you, and well done. First, well done on striking down most of the garbage in those laws. Article VI of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, places the laws and treaties of the federal government over the state laws. In this case, the federal government has been the established source of laws, policies, and procedures regarding immigration and deportation. A state cannot interfere with the execution of the federal government’s authority in this area. Basically, Arizona can’t just get pissed about how immigration is being handled and decide to take care of it themselves. As the Opinion of the Court describes, it takes a lot of training for a federal immigration agent to be able to determine who is eligible to be detained for deportation proceedings. (Yes, I did read the Opinion of the Court – I don’t rely on political analysts to tell me about these decisions). Some people are detained while some are simply issued a notice to appear. A state cannot override this protocol by making a law that they can detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. This leads to the next problem.

Racial profiling. It is a fact. It can be a problem. Most of us don’t know what that feels like. That’s because the majority of us have never been profiled based on the color of our skin. Unfortunately, many people have. The one part of this law that was not stricken down was the piece that allows officers to verify citizenship for anyone they have a suspicion is here illegally, providing that they have already stopped them for another reason. This law should really read, “Officers can detain any Hispanic so that they can verify their citizenship.” Let’s be honest…officers will look for any reason to stop someone and question them. There is always a reason to stop someone – speeding, a rolling stop, a burned out tail light, jaywalking, suspicious activity, etc. They can now ask people to prove their citizenship. Let’s say that you are a Hispanic person who was born in the U.S. You are a citizen, but you are walking (because you don’t like driving), and you are stopped for jaywalking. While you are issued a warning or a ticket, the officer looks at you and asks you to prove your citizenship. You don’t have your ID because you don’t need it and you don’t have immigration papers because you are a natural born citizen. What happens next? They can’t legally detain you. Fortunately, the Supreme Court issued guidelines along with their ruling that officers can’t detain people for longer than it would reasonably take to handle the original reason for being stopped.

But, why did the officer ask you to prove that you are a citizen? You weren’t committing any action that would lead him to believe that you were in the country illegally. So he just based it on the color of your skin and your appearance. You know, we used to do something similar to people. We looked at them and told them that they didn’t have the same freedoms as the rest of us because they were black. They were harassed and segregated from the rest of us. It took a long long time for us to get over our stupidity concerning civil rights. Oh, wait. We haven’t. We are now just disguising it as immigration policy. The great thing about the ruling is that the Supreme Court specifically said that the only reason they didn’t strike down this part of the legislation was that it had not yet been enforced. They said they couldn’t determine that this is what would happen, but that it would be left open to legal challenges if it did happen. That is a bright, shining star in the future of living without this kind of discrimination and profiling. They left the door open for us to get there; we just have to walk through.

With all of that said, it is very easy to fall into the trap of hate. Our economy is struggling so we want to find someone that is causing the problems. We still have crime so we want someone to be responsible. Who can we blame? It’s no longer okay to blame the Irish, the Italians, or African-Americans. So who is next on the list? How about the fastest growing racial demographic in the country: Hispanics. A number of them are even here illegally so let’s use that as a mask for our anger and fear. Then we can just say that we are being patriotic. We can even make it a political argument because someone hasn’t solved all of the problems that have existed for decades within four years. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d much rather accept people as they are, welcome them to our nation, and increase diversity so that my children can live in a more intelligent, diverse, and prosperous country at my age. Like the man said, “I have a dream…”

Entitlement...Part 2: Homophobia

Okay, I know part 2 was supposed to be about immigration, but I couldn't resist...

It's been a while, but I can't stay silent with the incredible spotlight being shined recently on the problem of homophobia in our country. My previous post discussed how people's sense of entitlement leads them to feel that they should control the relationships of others. This post is about the general sense of homophobia in our country.

I have had many a heated discussion about President Obama's support of gay marriage recently. Some have praised him for his support, some have condemned him as a liar who is just out for votes, and many have said they are happy he came out in support, but they recognize the timing. I'm not so naive as to believe that this is an actual call for support that doesn't have something to do with the upcoming election; however, I can't stand at the doorstep of a momentous occasion, where the tide of discrimination may be starting to change, and refuse to recognize the historic actions of President Obama.

Tonight, I was attempting to catch up on my recorded shows that were filling up my DVR. My wife turned on Harry's Law. This show has been fantastic in its courage to confront some of the compelling and divisive issues facing our justice system today. Tonight, I was confronted with an episode in which a gay man was denied the opportunity to donate blood to his brother simply because he was gay. It is based on the reality that exists in our country today. In 1983, the decision was made to ban any man who has ever had sex with another man the right to donate blood. Thirty years later, that law still exists. A law based upon the fear of homosexuality and an epidemic that was attacking the gay community at the time. Now, we understand AIDS, and have the ability to screen for the disease within 12 days of contracting the virus. Donated blood is screened for the disease. Regardless, the question still exists on the blood donation questionnaire as to whether or not a man has had sex with another man. I saw the actor on Harry's Law confront the judge with the following words which I found powerful, "We can’t get married in most states…we don’t have the same adoption rights…we die for this country in our wars, but had to endure ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Where does it end?! We get beat up and harassed. Where does it all stop? And where are you?! Where’s the court that’s supposed to stand up for the disenfranchised? Where are you?!...My brother is dying...and all I want to do is give him my blood to save him. And now, as he is bleeding out, now the law, which has been so silent when we needed you, now the law rears up to tell me that I can't save him?! What country is this?!" This passionate plea hit me very hard. I'm going to approach this from two angles.

The first angle is one of my favorite, and most powerful perspectives. The legal question involves a couple of aspects of the Constitution. The first aspect is the violation of the First Amendment by passing a law that respects the establishment of beliefs of particular religions. There are some religions that accept same-sex marriage. These include the United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism, Quakers, the Metropolitan Community Church, and the Unitarian Universalists. Forcing these churches to deny a right that they specifically grant their believers is a clear violation of the First Amendment by supporting the religions who believe otherwise.

The second problem I have is the violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This is the text of that law:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This law guarantees equal protection of the law to any person within the jurisdiction of the state. This includes the legal protection of marriage laws, adoption laws, and harassment laws - apparently, unless you are gay. I don't remember reading that in the text of the Constitution, but it seems that many people feel it is implied. Or is that just their personal prejudice rearing its ugly head?

Now that I have attacked the legal problems with the homophobic trend in the U.S., (I think sufficiently enough to dispel any lingering doubt about the legal aspect of the homophobic laws) I will continue by attacking the religious aspect of homophobia. I will start with a concession. I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible and attend church. I do understand that the Bible specifies that homosexuality is a sin. I won't even begin to argue that point. What I haven't done is cling to that one, small fact as the entire basis of my belief system. Instead, I prefer to cling to the words of the man who is the basis of Christianity. To do this I will give you two passages from the Bible:

“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, ‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.’” Mark 12:28-31

This passage is a specific command by Jesus that, of the commandments given by God, one of the two most important is that we love our neighbor as ourselves. Would you deny yourself the opportunity for love? To see the one you love on their death bed? To spend the rest of your life with the person you love simply to make someone else feel better? To watch your loved one die because someone didn't think your blood was clean enough to save them? I doubt it. So if you wouldn't deny yourself that love, how can you call yourself a Christian if you deny your homosexual neighbor that love, in violation of the greatest commandments set forth by Jesus Christ? Will you have to answer to God for your refusal to love your neighbor as you love yourself?

The primary defense I get to the previous argument is that it is love that drives people to push this homophobic agenda. I respond to that defense with another command from the Bible:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2

This is pretty obvious. It is not our place to judge our fellow man. That is God's job. In fact, I find it the epitome of arrogance to assume that we can stand in the shadow of God and pass judgment on our fellow men and women regardless of the fact that God specifically instructs us otherwise. Are you so pure that you can cast the first stone? Are you comfortable with the judgment that you are passing on your fellow man? Are you comfortable that you can pass the same scrutiny in your life when you stand before God and he looks at your transgressions? Are you comfortable with the fact that you will be judged based on the fact that you attempted to step into the shoes of your God and condemn someone for the love they had for another? If you answered yes to all of the questions above, then maybe you have a basis for your prejudice. However, I don't think there is a person out there who could honestly pass that test.

The legal standings of this homophobic behavior are frail. The religious standings for it are even more flimsy. It has been dis-proven not only with the Constitution, but with the Word of God itself. I could go on forever, but I'll leave you with a quick plea. Two days ago, I buried a cousin of mine who died defending the cause of freedom as a Marine. This man gave his life so that I could sit here and write this opinion. I feel it would be a poor memorial for him to discriminate against people whose Constitutional rights he died to defend. As far as religion is concerned...even if you believe it is a sin, the laws of man do not change the fact that homosexuality is a sin. If you give up your hatred and anger towards homosexuals, you will be following the commandments of Jesus Christ. You are in no danger of hell as long as you do not commit the sin of homosexuality. However, if you deny your neighbor the love you have for yourself and sit in judgment of him, you are, by the word of Jesus Christ, violating the very commandment of the Lord. So...look deep inside yourself and decide what you truly believe.

Your thoughts?

Entitelment...Part 1: Gay Marriage

I read a blog post recently from a therapist (no, not mine) about her experience at Starbucks. What she said in this blog summed up the sad condition that has infected our society recently: a sense of entitlement. We hear a lot about social issues today: the economy, politics, gay marriage, immigration, etc. On January 12 of this year the President of the United States made a comment at a memorial about the state of our discourse as a nation:

[Now is] a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized...a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,

Why has our country become so polarized? Well, let's break this down...entitlement is defined as "the belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges." Let's take, for example, a hot topic in many areas right now: gay marriage. What is the entitlement that many people feel about this issue. On one side you have a group of people saying they have the right to the same protections and privileges afforded heterosexual couples through marriage. According to one of the most well known phrases from our Declaration of Independence they may be correct:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now look at the opposing side. There is a group of people who believe that marriage is a religious institution that should be protected. According to these people they are entitled to protect their religious beliefs. First, no one would be forcing any religious person or institution to perform these marriages. The issue of gay marriage is an issue of legal protections and privileges that should be recognized by the government, not the church. In an effort to protect their religions they have passed laws outlawing homosexual marriage, and some states have even passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, wait, what about the article of the Constitution of the United States that forbid the government to make laws that respect the establishment of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Doesn't this mean that allowing this to happen is violating the first amendment? Some will say that it is the states that are adding these into their constitutions so it isn't a violation, but shouldn't we be upholding the ideals of the Constitution even at the state level? I know that the states seem to have no problem using the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But for some reason these states want to ignore the first amendment. Some people will tell you that we live in a democratic nation and that the majority should be able to decide. Let's look at that argument for a second. First, we are not truly a democracy. The United States is a constitution-based federal republic. Second, the United States follows a policy of majority rule/minority rights. According to a website maintained by the U.S. Department of State:

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual...
Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society...

I would have to say that trying to dictate to a group of people that they are not allowed to marry according to their beliefs would be considered "tyranny of the majority". Of course, I know that I have never been polled about this issue...so who is to say that this is the majority anyway?

So what does this all add up to? The people attempting to restrict, or eliminate, the rights of homosexuals feel that their personal and religious beliefs are paramount to the rights of homosexuals. The blog that started this was written by Teri Claassen, a therapist from Indiana. Her blog post was about entitlement (not centered on gay marriage). One sentence really stuck out for me. She said that some people "feel so entitled to place what they think is right on everyone else as the standard and expectation." What made their beliefs the standard?

Are we willing to ignore the fundamental protections granted in our Constitution by allowing these people to disregard an entire group of Americans? If we allow them to restrict marriage in this way where will it lead? If a marriage between a man and woman is a sacred institution recognized by the government, wouldn't violation of this be a punishable offense? So adultery would be a punishable crime. Furthermore, breaking this sacred institution should also be a crime, so divorce would also be against the law. Finally, if it is about children (which is an entirely different issue that has somehow been connected with gay marriage) then it would also be against the law to have children out of wedlock. Are you willing to accept these laws? How many people do you know that would be criminals under these statutes?

How do you feel?


Stay tuned for Part 2: Immigration...


Here is a list of websites used for this blog, please check them out:

Teri Claassen’s Blog at Imagine Hope Counseling Group


Majority Rule, Minority Rights at America.gov


CIA World Factbook


The U.S. Constitution – The Bill of Rights


Yahoo! News Coverage of President Obama’s Speech


The Declaration of Independence