Mediaboss Marketing

It looks as though Joe Biden will become the 46th president of the United States come January, but regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, he or she will have to work with Congress to come up with solutions to address the immigration issues facing our nation. What is needed is a unifying voice: Barbara Jordan's.

I have of late cited Jordan the late civil-rights icon who during the mid-90s was chairwoman of President Clinton's Commission on Immigration Reform extensively. Why?

She was a liberal, a Democratic member of Congress and "the first African American congresswoman to come from the Deep South" (Texas, to be exact). But she was, first and foremost, an American, with strong faith in our institutions and people, and a clear vision of what immigration meant to this country.

The best proof is her heart-felt opinion piece, published in the New York Times on September 11, 1995, captioned "The Americanization Ideal".

It is a stirring paean to American values, but not saccharine. It is clear-eyed to the bigotry in our history, lauds the contributions of immigrants, expects adherence by them to certain fundamental principles, admits that immigration will change both the alien and our society, and does not shy away from the fact that immigration was then (as it is now) a divisive issue. But Jordan comes down to a core point that bridges that divide: "A well-regulated system of legal immigration is in our national interest."

That line is deceptively both unifying and critical. Unifying, in that only the extreme fringes of the body politic (open-borders advocates on the one side; opponents of any immigration on the other) would disagree. Critical, because it forces those in the middle to compromise. Immigration must be "well-regulated" (that is, enforced), but there will be immigrants, possibly more or fewer than the individual (or party) wants.

She died without seeing her work carried to fruition one of the great tragedies of our nation's history, up there with the death of Lincoln before Reconstruction because it left these issues unsettled. The Commission completed its work, but without its champion, its findings were all-but shelved.

Since then, the immigration debate has devolved into rancor (for want of a better word). Any enforcement is "xenophobia" (or worse), and those who promote the enforcement of the law are "racists". Members of Congress demand non-enforcement of the laws Congress actually passed, without seriously offering new ones.

Here is my favorite example of all of the foregoing, from a congressional hearing at which I was invited to testify. I will leave out the member's name (in the off chance I get invited again), and simply call him "Rep. J":

Rep. J: Okay. And your supervisor or your immediate boss at CIS is Mark Krikorian. Correct?

Mr. Arthur: That is correct. He is the executive director.

Rep. J: And he is your boss, correct?

Mr. Arthur: Yes, he is the man who pays me.

Rep. J: And he has stated that, "We have to have security against both the dishwasher and the terrorist because you can't distinguish between the two with regards to immigration control.'' Is that not a racist, homophobic well, not homophobic, but xenophobic statement?

Mr. Arthur. I believe that Mr. Krikorian's statement actually reflects the immigration laws of the United States.

Lest you think I cut it off there because some zinger followed that showed my response was in error, here was Rep. J's next question: "Let me ask you a question, sir. Are you a racist?" Can you actually picture the staid, erudite Rep. Barbara Jordan asking those questions?

The immigration issues facing our nation are real. Consider border security. As my colleague, Todd Bensman has noted, in its first annual "Threat Assessment", DHS reports it is expecting a massive increase in illegal migration next year. If true, that will lead to a new humanitarian and national security disaster at the border, which could easily dwarf the one that swamped DHS resources in FY 2019.

"Kids in cages" could easily become "kids packed into cages", human trafficking, sex trafficking, or worse toddlers left by smugglers to die at the border. Read the Final Emergency Interim Report, of the bipartisan CBP Families and Children Care Panel, dated April 16, 2019, and the horrors detailed therein (CNN briefly reported on it, and then the media promptly buried it). This is not the America Jordan knew but it is the one Jordan's successors allowed it to become.

Jordan explained: "Far more can and should be done to meet the twin goals of border management: deterring illegal crossings while facilitating legal ones. But we have to recognize both goals." What legislative proposals are there to deter border crossings? None of which I am aware.

And since then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano created DACA through a memorandum on June 15, 2012, Congress has been kicking the can down the road on what to do with the 640,000-plus recipients of DACA benefits.

In January 2018, the White House released its "Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security". In it, the president promised to "[p]rovide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals", in exchange for immigration reforms. It went nowhere.

Biden vows to reinstate DACA, and work with Congress on a larger amnesty for over 11 million aliens illegally present in the United States.

What would Jordan say? Here is what she did say: "If people unauthorized to enter believe that they can remain indefinitely once having reached the interior of the nation, they may be more likely to come." Mass amnesties simply encourage more people to enter illegally, in the hopes that they, too, can stay forever.

As of the end of FY 2019, according to the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) branch, there were 595,430 immigration fugitives that is "alien[s] who ha[ve] failed to leave the United States based upon a final order of removal, deportation or exclusion, or who ha[ve] failed to report to ICE after receiving notice to do so."

Trump has not been given the resources to remove even a fraction of that number, and Biden has promised to halt removals for his first 100 days in office, and then not to remove any alien who has not committed an (unspecified) felony in the United States (not including DUI). Removal proceedings are pointless if the respondents ordered removed at the end don't leave.

Jordan was clear on this point: "The top priorities for detention and removal, of course, are criminal aliens. But for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

Speaking of removal proceedings, the immigration court backlog stood at 1,262,765 through September before the nation's 520 immigration judges (IJs). That is more than 2,428 cases per IJ. It is no wonder that the average removal case takes 811 days to complete. (That's the average;I recently analyzed a case that has been pending for 16 years, and is far from over.)

Again, that just encourages people to enter illegally, knowing that even if they get caught, removal proceedings can continue for an extended period of time, time they can spend in the United States. Biden vows to double the number of IJs, and I hope he does. I will gladly head back to the Hill to testify in favor of that (and take whatever abuse comes my way) or work on the legislation to do so (if any member of any committee will have me).

But seriously, what good will more IJs do if there are not more ICE agents to remove the aliens who have received due process, are ordered deported, and fail to leave (as almost 600,000 have)? Immigration court will become kabuki theater nothing more than (in the words of Britannica) "vehicles for actors to demonstrate their enormous range of skills in visual and vocal performance" (an apt metaphor for Congress of late, as well).

In their 1968 hit, "Mrs. Robinson", Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel wrote: "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, A nation turns its lonely eyes to you." (Apparently DiMaggio was none too pleased.) In the coming immigration debate many Democrats, Republicans, and the voters themselves may find themselves making the same plea to a woman who grew up poor in Houston, but who knew America better than many who followed her.

Here is the original post:
The Unifying Voice We Need in the Immigration Debate - Immigration Blog

Do you agree or disagree with these letters to the editor? Join in the conversation by submitting your own letter to the editor.

Click hereto do so, or email your submission toletters@themonitor.com.

Foreign aid is essential

In the wake of COVID-19, Americans are concerned about this major disruption in our economy. Increasing jobs in our nation is the solution to overturning our current economic recession. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, increasing the financial burdens of hardworking civilians. However, we must invest into alleviating the effects of the pandemic globally. Contrary to popular belief, foreign aid is actually very good for business.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce insisted Congress to support full funding for the U.S. International Affairs Budget because it is beneficial for the businesses overall. This will provide the resources necessary in order to developing countries to have the skills and learn the strategies to gain long-term employment and sustain a reasonable amount of income. If the budget were to decrease, it would reflect on our economy and wound it worse than it already is. Therefore, foreign aid is essential for U.S. economy and employment and it is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,

Kayla Garcia

Mission

Caged children

After doing some quick research I have come up with a response to anyone who has told me that the Obama administration also separated children from their families at the border. The fact is that neither the Obama administration nor any other before his separated children from their families at the border at the scale that the Trump administration has.

The figures say it all. Child separations at the border were below 1% of all detentions in 2016 and they have jumped to close to 4%.

And there has never been a sweeping policy to prosecute everyone, man woman and child, crossing the border illegally until the Trump administration began its reign of terror.

Its true that the Obama administration built the cages used to keep children, but its also true that the Trump administration has set the record for separated children being kept in those cages.

Whether you believe them or not, whether you agree with them or not, facts matter. And if you can bear the fact that thousands of children are being separated from their families, are sent across the river unaccompanied by an adult and are being kept in cages, simply because you believe a misguided point that a prior president did it also, not only is it sad for this country but for the entire world that we as a human race are allowing such atrocities to occur, given how advanced and evolved weve become.

Some things never change, I guess.

Phil Garcia

McAllen

Defining pro-life

In response to Mr. Hank Shivers question about what is pro-life (Oct. 28), Id like to offer him a very simple definition. It certainly isnt making life as wonderful as possible. Pro-life simply means that we dont believe in killing unborn children. We fervently believe that unborn are human life with a constitutional right to continue their development inside their mother until they are born.

The pro-abortion side desperately tries to confuse the public and soothe their consciences by referring to ending the life of an innocent baby as reproductive rights, a womans right to choose or terminating a pregnancy. They refer to the unborn baby as a fetus or product of conception. Its too difficult for them to call it a baby.

His concerns about babies being born with incurable diseases offers a solution that kills the baby. Thats not very compassionate if you ask me. We can let God decide when to take the baby home.

His references to Republican officials statements about letting the elderly die to save the economy, putting children in cages (that Obama built) and taking insurance from Americans are just not serious arguments.

We have ended the lives of 61 million children in the county. How can we possibly call ourselves one nation under God? How can we possibly ask God to bless America when we sacrifice our children at the altar of finances or careers?

Killing unborn children is outright evil and it has to stop. Neither women nor doctors should have the right to kill the innocent unborn. for the sake of our country, may it happen soon.

Juan Vega

McAllen

Groups data not promoted

The Monitors Oct. 29 front-page headline story expands on the concern for the approximate $2.9 billion cost estimates of the border wall. The article further states that this represents one-quarter of all the money awarded to the project in each of the last three years.

This border wall cost is being implemented for the border safety and sovereignty-protection of the United States of America.

Contrastingly, the Federation for American Immigration Reform stated:

A FAIR study in 2017 found illegal immigrants are a net consumer of taxpayer benefits worth more than $100 billion a year, not including the cost of enforcing the border.

This is never headlined in the media for Americans to inform themselves, that in fact we are a very caring, humanitarian country whose citizens have denied themselves at great cost, for numerous decades, to help these immigrants whose native governments have failed and abandoned them. No mention is ever made by activists and leftists of these immigrants native countries dereliction of duty to them.

Being fair to both sides, truthful and transparent are part of being a true humanitarian also. The truth, good or bad, has to always be evident to all the people if we want to live in a democracy.

Imelda Coronado

Mission

Proud Boys defended

The group the Proud Boys keeps appearing in stories on TV and the newspapers. A recent story about Iran hacking peoples emails and making threats if you didnt vote for President Trump. The group didnt send those.

When I first heard them mentioned in the first presidential debate I was curious about the group, so I went to their web site. Their chairman is named Enrique Tarrio. He is a Cuban-American who is black. They allow members of any race, religion and sexual preference. Most members are Republicans, but apparently a few Democrats are members. They really tend to be more libertarian than anything else.

An example of their libertarianism is that they are against the war on drugs. Not a typical Republican tenet. They believe that the West is best (Western civilization). They are against racism and political correctness. They are for entrepreneurship, First and Second Amendment, minimal government and maximum freedom.

According to Proud Boys member Fred Swink, If someone expresses racist views, they are expelled; the same is true with intolerance for sexuality or religious affiliation.

They do support Trump. I feel that Trump is more a libertarian than Republican.

If you really have curiosity about this group go to their website. Some of the articles and T-shirts in the store are quite crude. There is a clip of an interview of Enrique Tarrio by CNN that I found interesting. There are some things I didnt care for but I could find no racism.

Surry Gillum

Mission

Trump a threat to our security

The primary focus of government is the development of citizens through public education and health care; both should be provided at public expense. The very nature of human society involves an inherent relatedness, commonality and mutual dependence, with the elimination of the partitioning of human society into interest groups based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion, which are destructive to community/individual interests.

Donald Trumps denegation of anyone who disagrees with him and his characterization of information about him in the press as fake news are symptomatic of an intentional effort to undermine the underpinning of our democracy: free speech and a free press. He is a threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms and national security.

Also, in supporting Donald Trump, the GOP has ignored the welfare of our country so as to maintain its power and privileged positions in government. They have effectively destroyed themselves as representatives in our constitutional democracy.

Francis Saitta

Tucson

Read more:
Letters to the Editor: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - Monitor

A cigar-chomping LeMay, more than anyone, destroyed imperial Japanese industry and created an effective Cold War deterrent. He ended up caricatured as a nut in the film Dr. Strangelove.

So too, perhaps, Donald Trump. Quietly, many Americans knew that unchecked illegal immigration was undermining the melting pot and eroding the idea of legal immigration.

Some feared it was a matter of when, rather than if, communist China would rule the world. Many people were tired of endless wars in the Middle East, even as America kept getting sucked into them.

Republicans knew that an originalist court was necessary to save the Constitution, but Republican presidents nonetheless often nominated future liberal justices.

Conservatives hammered away at the principle that late-term abortion was wrong but feared that taking on Planned Parenthood was suicidal.

Republicans rightly suspected that they were being typecast as a party of aristocratic golfers but were scared of the changes needed to appeal to the working classes, both black and white. They found the old Reagan Democrats, Ross Perot voters, blue dogs and tea partiers occasionally useful but felt that addressing their grievances would be worse than losing.

So in 2016 the peasants sought outside deliverance and so it cameorange skin, dyed hair, Queens accent and all.

View post:
COMMENTARY: Will Trump ride off into the sunset? - starexponent.com

The immortal words of poet Emma Lazarus, Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses inscribed near the Statue of Liberty seem rather empty today in view of President Trumps anti-immigrant stance. We Americans have generally accepted immigrants, but with reservations.

Historically we have encouraged immigrants mostly when we needed them, and often grudgingly even then. British and Germans to farm the Midwestern frontier, Irish for low-skilled construction jobs, to clean the houses of the wealthy and to serve in the Union Army during the Civil War, Scots-Irish to settle the southeastern frontier, Scandinavians to farm the more northern and colder states, Italians and eastern Europeans to mine the coal and iron ore and work the steel mills of Pennsylvania, Jews for the garment industry, and Chinese to build the western railroads. I didnt mention Africans to work the southern plantations since they werent exactly immigrants in the true sense of the word.

Throughout our history we have tended to favor immigrants who look, talk and worship like the original American settlers: more British and German Protestants and less Irish, southern European and Latin American Catholics or Asians. During the mid-nineteenth century Irish immigration was even rumored to have been a conspiracy by the pope to Catholicize America. Sound far-fetched? Google up The American Know-Nothing Party and see for yourselves.

By the third generation immigrants have usually become less bound to the old countries and cultures and more Americanized. And by then they are usually accepted as real Americans. But this is rarely the case in Europe and is probably the cause of much of the current ethnic unrest there. But American feelings toward recent immigrants are not always welcoming either and Trump has been playing that for all it is worth politically.

Trump was right in saying most illegal drugs come into the U.S. through Mexico. But he failed to add that they do not enter by the same route as immigrants. Most drugs are ingeniously concealed in legal shipments aboard tractor-trailer rigs or hidden away in passenger automobiles. Just ask yourselves, would drug dealers entrust their valuable cargos to poor people fleeing hunger and poverty?

Trump claims high violent crime rates for the immigrants crossing our southern borders. But immigration records show that relatively few illegal border crossers have criminal records back home. And once they get here their crime rates are less than half those of native-born Caucasians. These statistics are based on FBI arrest and incarceration data for California and Texas, the states with the highest non-white immigrant populations.

Although it would be presumptive to suggest a causal relationship here, between 1990 and 2013 the U. S. foreign-born population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent, a 65 percent increase. At the same time the number of illegal immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. But during this same period FBI records indicate that the U.S. violent crime rate declined by 48 percent and property crime by 41 percent. Does this mean that to further lower our crime rate maybe we should adopt a policy of open borders as our president falsely accuses the Democrats of favoring? That would certainly fit in with some of his other convoluted thinking.

More here:
George B. Reed Jr.: A nation of immigrants? - Northwest Georgia News

Murtaugh also repeated that claim later in the interview with host John Berman.

You have to locate the parents and when they are located in these other countries in many cases, John, the parents do not want the children sent back to them in their home countries.

DHS spokesman Chase Jennings said that the agency has taken every step to facilitate reunification of these families where the parents wanted such reunification to occur.

The simple fact is this: after contact has been made with the parents to reunited them with their children, many parents have refused, Jennings said in a statement.

However the preference of the parents of the hundreds of children at issue is unknown, as they have not yet been successfully contacted by the court-appointed steering committee tasked with the effort.

Migrants from Central America surged to the U.S. border during Trump's administration, as they fled gang violence and other problems that persist in their home countries and put parents who have been sent back in the position of leaving their kids in the care of the U.S. government or having them returned to the dangerous situations they sought to leave.

President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden sparred over immigration during Thursday nights debate in Nashville, Tenn., including the plight of the 545 children who remain separated from their parents as a result of the Trump administration's efforts to deter illegal immigration.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participates in the final presidential debate against U.S. President Donald Trump at Belmont University on October 22, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Biden was visibly angry when the subject came up during the debate and said its criminal these children have been left in limbo.

Parents were ripped their kids were ripped from their arms and separated, and now they cannot find over 500 of sets of those parents and those kids are alone, Biden said. [With] nowhere to go. Nowhere to go.

Trump countered by criticizing the Obama administrations immigration policy, including the construction of detention facilities for undocumented immigrants, and repeatedly pressing Biden to answer Who made the cages?

Trump also defended his administrations treatment of child migrants, saying they are so well taken care of.

Biden distanced himself from the president he served under, saying Barack Obama made a mistake for how he handled deporations and family detentions during his tenure.

We made a mistake. It took too long to get it right, Biden said during the debate.

Follow this link:
Trump campaign spokesperson says parents of separated children don't want them back - POLITICO