Even the marginally informed cannot claim to be unaware of the situation at the Mexican border where immigrants are being detained from entry to the United States. Despite the media’s effort to sell this as a the second coming of Adolph Hitler America has always had laws to manage our boarders.  Most of us have not cared enough to understand, much less influence the nuances of US immigration policy, which betrays the rage featured in every media forum.  But a logical proposal – even an emotional one – to resolve the situation is as scarce as rocking horse droppings.  A reflex reaction to distressed children is common and understandable.  Some have found a brand new way to exploit this.

Here’s scenario to create context:  Suppose a stranger showed up at door holding a gun to a child’s head. He demands you let them in and give him what he wants or he will shoot the kid.    Of course you would comply but would also call authorities at your first opportunity to have the man arrested for his cruel endangerment of a child.  Police catch the man and arrest him.  Without any relatives or guardians to take custody the child is placed with child protective services.   At his arraignment the man explains he was never really going to hurt the child, he was just using him for leverage.  Still pretty despicable, right?  Exploiting children to get what you can’t get for yourself?

So why are we so quick to overlook behavour of a parent who deliberately brings children to an environment in which they will be separated?  Would you do this to your kids?  It’s a logical question easily obscured by hysterics and a claim of moral high ground.  We can agree that the practice of forcibly separating children from parents is seriously flawed, but so is the practice hijacking an emotional situation as a vehicle to vent hatred towards a president you didn’t vote for.

A legal ruling a couple decades ago that alien minors seeking entry to the US – even accompanied minors – cannot be detained for more than 20 days.  No doubt the 9^th circuit, humanitarians to the core, ruled this as a response to the perceived barbarity of detaining children.  Picture children crying in cages and you can imagine their sympathy.  But shortsightedness in this legislation and subsequent ruling left us with the situation we have now in which the only way to reunite illegal immigrant children with their detained parents is to release both, meaning anyone who brings a kid to the border with them gets a free pass.   Kinda like getting into a theme park free if you bring some canned goods.   The law isn’t new but previous administrations sidestepped the problem by not enforcing it.  In fact most of the venom spewed towards Trump is because he has instructed his administration to enforce the law (that bastard!)   Would we prefer a president-king who took it upon himself to ignore the laws and make up his own?  Oh, wait… seems like we had someone like that recently.    Apparently this practice makes the president a virtuous patriot if you voted for him and an evil dictator if you didn’t.   Pretty subjective criteria.

This hole in the system must be fixed.  Pardon the remedial civics lesson but the president doesn’t write laws.  Congress rarely seems to write laws either, but they are supposed to.  Democrats and Republicans have become so mired in the swamp of campaigning and finger pointing that they have lost focus of their responsibility to refine and pass laws that benefit our country.   But little of the outrage for the border crisis is directed at Congress.  In fact, most of the anger is absent any tangible proposals to correct the problem, which begs the question whether finding a solution is really the goal.  In the infamous words of Rahm Emanuel, “You can’t let a good crisis go to waste”.

Here’s a list of thoughts to consider before lecturing the rest of us on the morality of an immigration program:

1. The United States (and EVERY country in the world) has an existential duty to define and protect territorial borders for the same reasons you have doors and fences at your home. Not everybody gets in, even if the ‘vast majority of them are good, honest, hardworking people’.  Before arguing that immigration policies are racist, tell us how many immigrants with no screening or background checks you are willing to have come live with you.
2. Getting into the US is not first come first served. True, we are all decedents of immigrants.  They got here by meeting the requirements of US immigration policy.  You and I (speaking broadly here) did not. If your argument is that we should level the playing field among those born inside our borders and those trying to enter (a proposal that may have some merit) then tell us the criteria we should use to qulify Americans.  And include the explanation you would give to those who don’t make the cut.
3. If you don’t want to be separated from your kids, don’t put yourself in a situation to be separated from your kids. This is common sense to any responsible parent.  President Trump gave fair warning months in advance that crossing the border, kids in tow, will not give you a free pass.  Immigration advocates have been in place to communicate this policy to families before crossing the border.  Missing from the CNN and MSNBC videos of weeping children is fair questioning of parents to explain why they put their kids in this environment.  Apparently they were counting on a feckless administration to overlook their behavior.
4. If the law needs to be changed, do your part to change it. Think about the problem, listen to proposals, contact your representatives and senators, do something constructive.  Read a few pages from a civics book if you need to.  Or watch that Schoolhouse Rock video about a Bill on Capitol Hill.
5. Don’t talk about asylum until you understand what it means. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees non-refoulement order recognizes asylum as protection in cases of persecution relating to race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.  Wanting a better life for yourself and your family is a virtuous and understandable objective, but it does not qualify for asylum.  And if you are legitimately seeking asylum you stop fleeing in the first country that offers shelter from the prosecution you claim.  It’s not a hall pass to get wherever you want to go.  To march hundreds of miles across one country to get to another more desirable belies a claim that you’re fleeing persecution.  Here’s where the non-sequiturs start piling up, along with legal hair splitting to create loopholes so keep this in mind:  Common sense doesn’t require a law degree.

 

Three thoughts in closing:

Celebrities, politicians and media personalities have spent decades perfecting the art of virtue signaling.  Sanctimony and demagoguery are extremely powerful sentiments to leverage, especially when speeches cost your nothing and no results are demanded. Hold people accountable for their vitriol.

Second, the past several decades have produced civil rights heroes whose leadership and self-sacrifice have paved the way for others to rise above oppression.  It’s convenient today to mimic the tone and anger that mobilized crowds to action but without the measurable purpose or change that previous champions fought for.  This is not about sitting in the back of the bus, whites only restaurants or women’s suffrage.  Just because you say something with a trembling voice or shed a tear on camera (Rachel Maddow) doesn’t mean your arguments are off limits from criticsm.

Third, democracy needs debate, sometimes impassioned debate, to work through complexities of difficult issues.  Reasonable people can disagree on taxes, foreign policy, universal health care and the role of government in society.  And reasonable people refine arguments to enforce their views or reveal the flaws in alternative proposals.  This is how public policy should be defined.  Consensus is nearly impossible in a nation of 300M+ so some of us will live under laws and policies we disagree with until we can effect change using our constitutional mechanisms.  This form of constructive public debate is unrecognizable on the current immigration topic.  Those arguing for strong borders can state their case about defending and maintaining national interests.  Opposing arguments (and I use the term loosely) appear to focus only on hating Trump.  Disappointing.

This is a topic that deserves reasoned debate, not abject spleen venting. You don’t have to agree.

But be civil.