Tag Archives: immigration

Now it’s ‘legal immigrants’ who pose a potential threat

BBvjiAw

Donald J. Trump is doubling, tripling, maybe even quadrupling down on his anti-immigrant theme as he runs for president of the United States.

Holy cow, man!

He told a rally in Portland, Maine this week that “legal immigrants” pose a potential threat to national security.

The Republican presidential nominee wasn’t satisfied just in calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country. He expanded it to include those who come from countries where terrorists are lurking (which is just about everywhere on Earth). Now he says even those who are here legally can pose a threat and, by golly, he wants to stop them before they kill somebody.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-now-says-even-legal-immigrants-are-a-security-threat/ar-BBvjdqc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

OK. Where does he stop?

He might consider going after, oh, every single American. That’s more than 300 million of us. Sure, the immigrant population has grown significantly in this country; it’s up to about 13 million immigrants now compared to 5 million in 1970, according to the Washington Post article attached to this post.

Do they pose the so-called existential threat to our national security? Are they more likely to commit terrorist acts than, say, your run-of-the-mill home-grown, corn-fed, good ol’ red-blooded American-born terrorists, such as, say, Timothy McVeigh? Do you remember Eric Rudolph? Hey, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who killed all those folks at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009? His name is Nidal Hasan, but he’s an American-born fellow, too.

Trump went bonkers about a year ago when his presidential campaign started. Now, though, he’s talking about folks like my own grandparents. They’re all gone now.

But you know, come to think of it, two of them — my mother’s parents — came here from Turkey, where most people are practicing Muslims. If they were alive today, they might be on Donald Trump’s watch list.

‘I, alone’ will cure the nation’s ills

trump

Two words stood out for me after I heard Donald J. Trump accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

They comprise six letters, all told.

“I, alone” will repair the things that are afflicting the nation.

There. He said it. He’s is The Man. He will do it all by himself.

Trump will make Americans safe from international terrorists; he will restore “law and order” to our communities; he will toss out the Affordable Care Act and create a new health insurance system; he will renegotiate “great” trade deals; he will bring jobs back to the country; he will build a wall that keeps illegal immigrants out.

Well, government happens to be a partnership. At least that’s how the framers built it. They created a legislative branch to write the laws, an executive branch to administer them and a judicial branch to ensure that they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

As has been said many times: A president proposes, but Congress disposes.

Trump, though, sees it differently. He’s going to grab the government by the throat and throttle it long enough to accomplish all that he intends to do.

However, he’s got a tiny concern with which he needs to deal. It’s the 535 men and women — many of whom have egos as large as Trump’s — who comprise the two legislative houses perched atop Capitol Hill.

Trump got the convention crowd fired up. He gave a pretty good speech. He was disciplined and “on message.” I give him props for that.

One, however, heard only a smidgen of humility and that occurred in the very first line of his speech when he accepted the party’s nomination for president.

He’ll hit the trail now. He’ll take his message — whatever it is — to the battleground states. Trump will seek to persuade voters that, by golly, since he’s built that business of his all by himself that “I, alone” will be able to repair the damage done to the country.

Which brings me, briefly, to this final point.

The country he and his surrogates described during the past four days does not resemble in any way the country I’ve seen emerge from the fiscal meltdown it suffered eight years ago.

The nation’s military isn’t “decimated.” The economy is recovering; yes, it could be a stronger, more vibrant recovery, but then again, it’s never reached perfect economic pitch. Crime has gone down, not up — and there’s plenty of data to back that up.

I get that political conventions are intended to put the other party in the worst possible negative light. Republicans did a great job of it this week, even though they distorted the truth beyond all recognition.

Their nominee completed the distortion by declaring that “I, alone” am able to do all these things to “make American great again.”

Now … bring on the Democrats.

Who are the true-blue patriots?

independence-day

Have you ever pondered whether the most patriotic Americans are those who are born here or those who chose to live here?

I have wondered it on occasion. I’m doing so right here and now.

You must understand where I’m coming from.

I am the grandson of immigrants. All four of my grandparents chose to move right after the turn of the 20th century from southeastern Europe to the United States of America to search for a better life.

All of them found that better life.

My dad’s parents were John and Katina Kanelis. My mom’s parents were George and Diamandoula Filipu. You know about my Yiayia and my Papou John. I’ve written about them both.

Indeed, my Yiayia was among the greatest Americans I’ve ever encountered. She died 38 years ago on the Fourth of July, 1978. Given her unabashed love for the United States of America, it seemed only fitting that she would depart this world on our nation’s birthday.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/07/remembering-a-great-american/

I remember all of them during this Independence Day weekend mostly because of who they were and the families they brought into this world. I also remember them because of the current political climate in the United States, which to my mind and heart has turned toxic as it relates to immigrants.

I know what you’re thinking: Hey, man, we’re talking about illegal immigrants, the folks who break U.S. law by coming here without the proper paperwork. And we’re talking about the scoundrels who come here to commit crimes.

True enough. This debate, though, usually has this curious way of morphing into a broader area to include all immigrants. There are those who call themselves “American patriots” who keep insisting that we’ve got enough immigrants in this country. They bristle at the idea that “foreigners” are pouring into the country and are upsetting what they believe is the “unique American culture.”

Actually, what historically has made our culture unique has been our open door. It’s been the principle of welcoming others to our shores.

These days we hear talk about building walls along our southern border. Or about banning people from overseas simply because they worship a certain faith.

What would my grandparents think about that? They would be appalled.

My memories of most of my grandparents are quite vivid; my maternal grandfather died when I was about a month old. All of them became great Americans. They loved their country with as much zeal and passion as anyone who ever was born here … of that I am quite certain.

I know my story isn’t unique. Other immigrants have come here to make their dreams come true. Their descendants are as proud of them as I am of my immigrant grandparents.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/he-was-a-great-man/

My grandparents didn’t achieve greatness in the way we too often measure it. They came here and followed the rules and the laws of their adopted home country.

They were true-blue American patriots.

I will honor them this weekend — and always.

Tie goes to the GOP with SCOTUS decision

immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s non-decision on President Obama’s executive order regarding illegal immigrants just demonstrates the need to get that ninth seat on the court filled.

OK, the president lost this one. The court came down 4 to 4 to uphold a lower court ruling that had set aside the president’s executive order that granted temporary amnesty to around 5 million undocumented immigrants.

His order would have spared millions of families from the fear of deportation, particularly those families with children who were born in the United States and, thus, were American citizens.

Now, their future is a quite a bit more uncertain.

Everyone knows that the court would have ruled 5-4 had Justice Antonin Scalia had been present to decide. He wasn’t. He’s now deceased. The president has nominated a moderate jurist to replace him. Senate Republicans won’t give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote because they want the next president to make the selection.

So, the tie vote means the Republicans win this round.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “I think the Constitution was upheld and this idea that there is a separation of powers — that no one person gets to make up law — was upheld,” Paxton said. “That’s a great thing for America.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720#ixzz4CS8xrwhm

But is it? Is it a great thing for those families that have come here to carve out a new life and for their children who were born here and who have considered themselves Americans for their entire life?

We can’t change the court’s non-decision now that it has acted — although I remain a bit dubious about how a tie vote actually settles anything. It reminds me a little bit of how court cases are decided on “technicalities.”

Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both say the permanent answer must rest with Congress. Clinton vowed to seek congressional action if she’s elected president this fall.

Do I — as a layman — like how the court “decided” this case? Not in the least.

But you play the hand you’re dealt.

It does show quite brightly, though, why it’s important to fill that ninth seat on the Supreme Court — and why Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote of the Senate.

Can Donald Trump really ‘change’ his ways?

trump

I’m trying to understand an admonition that’s coming from leading Republican officeholders, strategists and assorted loyalist as it pertains to the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

They want him to “change.” They dislike the name-calling, the insults, the innuendo, the reckless riffs that pour forth whenever he takes the podium as he campaigns for the presidency.

If he changes, they say, they might be able to endorse him. They might actually campaign for him. They’ll support the candidate more than in name only.

I keep wondering: How does a man who’s nearly 70 years of age do that?

What’s more, how do Americans who’ve heard the astonishing things that he’s said ignore them if — and this remains a y-u-u-u-u-g-e stretch — Trump actually becomes a more presentable candidate for president?

It’s like the judge in a trial who tells a jury to “disregard what you’ve just heard” from a criminal defendant or from a prosecuting attorney. Sure thing, Your Honor. We’ll just blot that out of our memory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump, but with reservations. He dislikes intensely the candidate’s racist views on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his assertion that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from presiding over a lawsuit brought against Trump over his defunct “university.”

Ryan has called Trump’s assertions “racist” in nature, but he’s going to support him.

A lot of Americans — millions of them, in fact — aren’t going to forget those comments. They won’t forget the insults Trump has hurled at women, or his mocking of a reporter’s physical disability, or his assertion that Sen. John McCain is a war hero “because he got captured” by the North Vietnamese.

They won’t forget his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, or his claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes.

And then we have the lies, such as when he said he witnessed “thousands upon thousands of Muslims” cheering when the Twin Towers tumbled down on 9/11.

So, he’s supposed to “change” the way he campaigns to make himself more suitable to voters.

How does that happen?

Texas could be in play — for once

Texas-calendar

Is this the strangest election year you’ve seen since, oh, The Flood?

Consider, then, what just might be coming down the road in Texas, this place where Republicans rule from horizon to horizon and where Democrats seem to have been placed on a witness protection list.

Hillary Rodham Clinton just might — with the help of her probable Republican Party presidential campaign opponent — be able to make this state competitive in the upcoming election.

You can stop laughing now.

Hear me out.

GOP nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump appears to be doing everything he can to anger Latino voters. It all started with that hideous campaign launch in which he declared his intention to build a “beautiful wall” along our border with Mexico to keep out the rapists, murderers and drug dealers who, he said, were being sent here by the Mexican government.

Then just the other day he singled out an Indiana-born federal judge who Trump said “hates” him. The judge has a Latino name. Trump called him “a Mexican.” Uhh, no. He’s not. The judge is as American as Trump.

How does this play in Texas? The state’s largest minority group is Latino, who also are the fastest-growing demographic group in the state.

Just suppose the Latino population turns out in massive numbers after hearing the constant barrage of statements that the Republican nominee has made about them. Suppose that Clinton’s campaign team taps into that anger with a concerted effort targeted at reminding that voter bloc of what lies ahead for the country if Trump gets elected president.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/clinton-plans-play/

Granted, history hasn’t been good for Democrats in Texas. The state’s Latino population so far hasn’t turned out to vote in numbers commensurate with its enormous potential impact.

Erica Grieder, writing for Texas Monthly’s Burka Blog, notes: It seems that empirical evidence on campaigning in Texas deserves an asterisk too, because Clinton has now declared her intention to do something no Democrat has attempted recently: compete in a general election in Texas with the goal of winning. Barack Obama didn’t allocate serious time or resources to try to win the state’s electoral votes in 2008 or 2012.

My earlier prediction — such as it was — that Clinton might score an Electoral College sweep this fall is looking less and less possible, given recent polling data showing a tightening race across the nation.

However, consider this: If Clinton does make Texas a competitive state and closes to within spitting distance of Trump, then she’s likely to win those states that now are deemed too close to call.

Therefore, if Texas does flip from R to D, then I suggest we just might see a blowout in the making on Election Day.

And yes, I can hear you laughing now.

Unqualified … and unfit to become POTUS

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

I am so very reluctant to put words in other people’s mouths, but I cannot resist the urge here.

The probable Democratic Party presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said the other day that presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is “unqualified” to become president of the United States.

I beg to differ. He’s not only unqualified. He is unfit for the job.

Technically, Trump is qualified. He is a U.S. citizen; he’s well past the minimum age. He doesn’t have a felony conviction (I am presuming).

It’s the fitness that matters more to me.

The dictionary provides an inadequate definition of the term “unfit.” Its primary definition is “inappropriate.” Yeah, do you think?

A man with no public service record who refuses to release his tax returns wants to trust us to do the right thing. A reality TV celebrity who once operated beauty pageants wants to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation. Someone who has lied repeatedly ever since becoming a candidate for the Republican Party nomination wants to become the moral leader of this nation.

Trump has no philosophical grounding. His world view depends on the last person to whom he has spoken. He changes his views at every opportunity.

Someone with zero grasp of governing wants to become the chief executive of the United States of America. He wants to “build a wall” to keep illegal immigrants out. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Trump wants to take the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to kill family members of terrorists. He says it’s OK if Japan and South Korea develop nuclear arsenals. He wants to talk directly to North Korean dictator/nutcase Kim Jong Un.

Trump has mocked an individual with a serious physical handicap. He has said amazingly crass things to — and about — women. He says the Mexican government is deliberately sending “rapists, drug dealers and murderers” into the United States.

No, the issue here isn’t his qualifications. It’s his fitness for the job.

Donald Trump fails the fitness test at every level imaginable.

 

Pope’s statement careless, wise all at once

B-5

Pope Francis was correct to suggest that nations shouldn’t build walls, but should instead erect bridges.

That’s as far as his wisdom extends.

The pontiff demonstrated a remarkably tin political ear when he suggested that “anyone who builds walls” isn’t a Christian, which a clear shot at Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump.

The pope should have known that Trump would respond as he has done. He should have anticipated the firestorm he would create when he weighed in on the American presidential campaign.

He didn’t do that. Yes, the pope tried to take back some of what he said initially. It was too late to tamp down Trump’s anger — not to mention the anger of those who are supporting his presidential candidacy.

The Washington Post does take note of the fundamental message the pope sought to deliver, which is that we should treat each other with more humanity. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of demonization.

Of course the pope’s comments drew a sharp response from those who have noted the Vatican — where the pope lives — also is surrounded by walls. Hmmm. Well, I would simply add that the comparison isn’t entirely an accurate one, given the security concerns that the pontiff, whoever he is, has faced for centuries from those who would seek to do harm to him and the Catholic Church.

Whatever his noble intentions, the pope — if you’ll pardon the indelicate language — has managed to step in it.

 

Weirdness overtakes reason on campaign trail

sophiepope

It’s been like this for some time now.

Probably since the day in June 2015 when Donald J. Trump — the one-time reality TV celebrity and real estate mogul — entered the Republican Party presidential primary campaign.

Events of the past 24 hours, though, have brought about a level of weirdness that I don’t think many of us ever saw coming.

It involves Trump and — of all people — his Holiness, Pope Francis I, the head of the Catholic Church.

The pontiff is touring Mexico and he said that anyone who wants to build a wall to bar immigrants is “not Christian.” He said Scripture doesn’t condone such a thing. I should note that Pope Francis made his remarks in Spanish and they have been interpreted into English; I trust the translation is accurate.

Trump fired back, calling the pope’s criticism of an American politician’s faith “disgraceful.”

Trump kept up his criticism of the pope. To my knowledge, the pope hasn’t yet answered the GOP frontrunner’s criticism of him.

I am just not certain now where this campaign goes from here. Nor do I have a clue as to how it could get even stranger.

But you know what? Given that I never thought it would devolve to this level — with the pope and a leading American politician at odds over a proposal to build a wall — I am preparing myself for the weirdness level to keep escalating.

 

Religion collides with politics

B-5

Didn’t someone once suggest that you shouldn’t ever discuss religion and politics?

Here we are, then. Talking about both things in the same sentence.

Pope Francis I decided to weigh in with remarks about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s proposal to build a wall across our southern border to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

Anyone who’d propose such a thing, the pontiff, said isn’t a Christian.

Trump fired back. Trump called the pope’s view “disgraceful” and said, by golly, he’s a devout Christian.

Others on the right are criticizing the pope for engaging in this political discussion in the first place. Who is this guy? they wonder. What qualifies him to comment on the American political system?

Let’s take a breath.

Maybe the pope made his statement in Spanish, or Italian, or Latin and it got mistranslated.

Surely, too, he isn’t the first public figure — American or otherwise — to drag religion into a campaign for a secular political office. U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy faced intense suspicion over his Catholic faith in the 1960 campaign and he ended up dispelling much of it with a speech in Houston in which he said he’d follow the Constitution and would not — contrary to allegations — be a puppet for the Vatican.

And there have been others as well.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the pope — a renowned international public figure — to weigh in on a U.S. public policy discussion. He’s entitled to his view.

It’s that it has ignited a firestorm that makes me uncomfortable when I hear politicians feeling forced to defend their religious beliefs while seeking an office to which they will take an oath to protect and defend a wholly secular document.

That would be the Constitution of the United States.