A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION (PARTS I & II)

 PART I: THE BROAD CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

“We need comprehensive immigration reform. Dr. King wouldn't be pleased at all to know that there are millions of people living in the shadow, living in fear in places like Georgia and Alabama.”

                                                                        JOHN LEWIS

 In the middle of a southern border immigration crisis and other diversions like the release of the Mueller Report, passing legislation to fix immigration in America is not on the radar of the United States Congress. Many politicians seem to believe that this is not the time to address immigration reform because of the extreme partisan bickering. Moreover, to fix immigration might interfere with the political calculations being made by both major political parties leading up to the 2020 election.

Republicans have labeled Democrats as supporters of open borders.  Democrats claim that Republicans and the President are ignoring immigration law and creating a humanitarian crisis at the border for political advantage.  This commentary will argue that despite the political rhetoric there is no better time than now to initiate a bipartisan fix of our immigration system.  Moreover, there is a middle road that would require some compromise, but would address concerns raised by both Democrats, Republicans and to avoid a veto, the President.

Part I of this commentary will present the components of immigration that require congressional attention. The American immigration system has been broken for decades with multiple year backlogs waiting for processing and millions of undocumented workers.  Now there is a new immediate crisis, well beyond the long standing chronic problems, caused by large numbers of Central Americans seeking refugee and/or asylum status into the United States.

To understand the extent of the issues raised by immigration and to weigh possible solutions, one must first consider the three distinct streams of immigrants seeking to enter the country: economic, family and humanitarian.  After our elected officials determine a revised realistic number for admitting new immigrants, judgements must be made on how to divide that number into these three groups.

First and most important is the economic calculation in a reformed immigration system. Few disagree that there is a need for new immigrants in agriculture, the food industry, health-care, the hospitality industry and construction, on the low-skilled end of our economy, or for professionals in the medical and scientific fields, in high skilled areas. The sensible way forward is to involve prospective employers in identifying the need.  Then the government would conduct studies with local unions and business leaders to determine that the number and type of new immigrant were not putting pressure on local services or hurting domestic workers.

Most experts agree that the economic stream of immigrants should be the largest component of a reformed system.  Anyone with a job and a clean background, who fits into a category of needed workers, should be given an uncomplicated path to work and a well-defined path to citizenship.

 Both New Zealand and Australia have adopted innovative systems of worker immigration that can serve as templates for the United States.  The systems that are effective are designed to change the numbers of immigrants without bureaucratic delay as economic conditions warrant.

The second group of immigrants to consider is the family stream.  Because the benefits of immigrants moving to join family members are less tangible than those who move to fill needed work positions, a different set of criteria is necessary.  The immediate dilemma for Congress to consider is to define what is a family: the nuclear family?; does it include parents?; adult children and siblings?

It is difficult to argue that intact families are good for society.  Moreover, a network of family members is invaluable as a support group, providing skills necessary to assimilate and to provide intra family employment. Over time, family members contribute to the economy.

Lastly, is the humanitarian stream.  In the past, refugees and asylum seekers were a small percentage of American immigrants.  This was due to geography, as most of the world’s refuges live in camps near their respective third world countries. An exception was the resettlement of thousands of Vietnamese following the Vietnam War.

The recent tide of immigrants from Central America seeking to enter the country has changed this reality.  Deteriorating living conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have compelled many families with small children to risk the dangerous journey north, to our border.  In 2018, 162,000 Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border seeking legal admission.  This year the number has increased dramatically with 92,000 presenting themselves to the border in March of this year.

The two legal pathways available for humanitarian immigrants, refugee status and asylum are inadequate under existing law.  There is a cap for refugee admissions from each region of the world.  For Latin America the cap number is a paltry 1,500.  Under existing law, to apply for asylum, a migrant must only set foot anywhere on U.S. soil, either by legal or illegal entry.  This has encouraged many Central Americans to cross the border illegally and skip the long lines at ports of entry.  They then turn themselves in to border authorities and claim asylum.

 The present crisis at the border is simply the result of outdated and unworkable United States law and regulations.  The recent words of acting Homeland Security Chief, Kevin McAleenan, summarize the refugee/asylum problem: “Without action from Congress, criminals will continue to profit from human misery along our border. It is clear that all of our resources are being stretched thin. The system is full and we are beyond capacity.  We don’t have the room to hold them, we don’t have the authority to remove them, and they are not likely to be able to remain in the country at the end of the immigration proceedings.”

The last issue that must be considered and resolved by Congress is illegal immigration. The illegal population in our country peaked by 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population. Billions have been spent to enforce the existing dysfunctional law with little improvement. Similar to prohibition in the 1920s, the war against illegal immigrants spawned an underground economy and criminalized what was otherwise peaceful behavior by those seeking a better life.

Prior to the most recent crisis involving Central American refugees, the overriding immigration issue in America was resolving the fate of young immigrants who had arrived illegally as children, now known as “DREAMers”.  The back and forth political discussion over DREAMer deportation versus a path to citizenship has created a mountain of animosity and no solution.

Part II of this commentary will expand on my original premise that now is the time to fix all aspects of immigration.  I will propose a path forward that could find support in all corners of our political universe.

A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION

 PART II: WHY NOW IS THE TIME FOR CONGRESS TO GET DOWN TO

BUSINESS

“Our Nation depends on immigrants’ labor, and I hope we can create an immigration system as dependable as they are.”
Luis Gutierrez

In part I of this commentary the essential elements of the immigration problem were reviewed.  In part II, the recent past history of attempts to reform immigration will be summarized, followed by a proposal for comprehensive overhaul of our immigration system.

President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986. This legislation provided for: legalization of undocumented immigrants who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and resided here continuously; required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status; and made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants.  Employers found a loophole in the law by using subcontractors to supply them with workers.  There are now in excess of 12 million new undocumented immigrants living in the United States since the passage of the 1986 legislation.

The next significant step occurred when the “Gang of Eight” in the United States Senate wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.  The 9/11 attacks on our country radically changed many of the calculations on immigration and there was now an increased emphasis on security.

 The policies proposed by the Gang of Eight included: a restricted path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the United States, including “DREAMers”; substantial business immigration reforms focused on reducing backlogs and fast-tracking permanent residence for professionals in the STEM fields; an expanded and improved employment verification system;  and more realistic work visa options for low-skilled workers, including an agricultural worker program.

In June of 2013, the immigration bill passed the Senate with a strong majority- 68-32.  Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats.  Unfortunately, the anti-immigration Freedom Caucus was too strong in the House of Representatives and no House action was taken on the bill. While not perfect, this bill would have gone a long way to address those policy issues discussed in part I of this commentary.

Since Donald Trump has been in office the outlook for immigration reform appears to have dimmed and conditions at the border have deteriorated.  Trump’s immigration agenda, most notably building a wall, is untenable in Congress.  Not even shutting down the federal government for more than a month gave Trump his funding.  He was forced to declare a national emergency, where most observers feel none exists, to obtain the financial ability to proceed with the wall.

While the wall remains Trump’s central goal, other proposed policies and threats have continued to emanate from the White House.  First, there was the announcement of “zero tolerance” and the separation of migrant children from their parents, before losing them in foster care. This was followed by ultimatums to close the border to all legal commerce; announced policy to withdraw financial aid to those Central American governments that are the genesis of the migration; and an executive action to deploy thousands of U.S. troops to southern Texas.

With all of this partisan disagreement and a national election on the horizon, why do I believe that now is the time for Congress to place immigration reform front and center?  There are three reasons.  First, the President is correct on one important point.  There is a true humanitarian crisis at the border that requires immediate attention. The breaking point has been reached, which should encourage rational debate and compromise.

Second, while the immediate crisis is Central American migration, comprehensive reform would guarantee that the concerns of all political actors would be addressed. The demands of conservatives who want a wall and enhanced security, progressives who want expanded legal immigration along with more humane treatment of illegals, employers who want work programs that meet their needs, individuals with temporary immigration status (TIPS) that have not been renewed and DREAMers who want a path to citizenship can all be accommodated.  Legislation that gives something to all interest groups provides political cover and is good government.

Third, immigration as a topic, encapsulates many of the value conflicts we have in our society. These include hot button topics like security, law breaking, inequality, equal opportunity, nationalism and what it means to be an American. I believe only a global omnibus legislative effort will win over all participants.

So, what is to be done? Below are proposals for each of the areas I pointed out in Part I that must be considered and reformed under new legislation.

The Number of Legal Immigrants Admitted to the Country Each Year.  The one thing that stands out when reviewing immigration systems that work from those like ours, that do not, is flexibility.  Countries that have enacted quota systems that can quickly change along with economic conditions are far more successful.  I would propose an appointed non-partisan immigration commission made up of diverse interest groups to set quotas each year, within wide parameters set by Congress.

The Economic Stream.   In return for more security measures, Republicans should be willing to give agribusiness a revised guest worker program because it favors employers and denies workers a permanent legal status. The conservative worry about taking jobs from able-bodied Americans is not an issue in our full employment economy.  The progressive worry about agri-workers being taken advantage of by under paying employers can be resolved through Labor Department regulations.

The new legislation should improve the “E-Verify” program to allow needed foreign labor access to American employment as needed and wanted. The Trump administration has actually looked favorably on a merit based system for professional immigrants, emulating the Canadian model.  Prospective immigrants are prioritized based on merit and evaluated by a point system.  In Canada, high scoring immigrants are admitted with little delay, giving our neighbor to the north the most educated foreign born population on earth.

The Family Stream. Our dysfunctional system is more liberal with the definition of family based immigration than many countries while being stingy in the number of visas granted for each category.  Many family member applicants qualify and wait 20 years for a visa to open. I propose eliminating siblings and married adult children from the family stream and dramatically increasing the visa numbers for spouses and minor children.  The first part would satisfy the President and conservatives, the later would unite more primary families, a positive for social engineering.  Notably, the number of visas for immigrant family members from throughout North and South Americas should be substantially increased.

The Humanitarian Stream. Prior to 2013, one out of every 100 migrants sought asylum. Now, that number has skyrocketed to one out of every 10. It is time for the Trump administration to stop trying to drive applicants away at the border (it has only increased the number of illegal crossings) and for Democrats to stop blaming the President for a manufactured crisis.

 Any new legislation should appoint more immigration Judges to quickly hear and decide cases. This would reduce bogus claims and not permit asylum seekers to disappear into the underground economy while waiting years for a court date.  Funds should be allocated to update the antiquated paper based immigration court system. Mexico should be pressed to control its southern border.  Rather than cut financial aid to the involved Central American countries, increase it to help stem the physical violence and improve economic conditions.

Illegal Immigrants. Lastly, what is to be done with illegal immigrants already in the country?  This issue has been a major obstacle in prior efforts to reform immigration policy.  Satisfying the needs of DREAMers has become a major political issue for Democrats.  Providing enhanced security to prevent future illegals from crossing the border is a primary campaign issue for President Trump and his base. 

The formulae to break this logjam is not difficult.  The obvious compromise has been close to becoming a done deal on several occasions. Trump should be given a portion of his wall funding and DREAMers should be awarded a rational path to citizenship.

It is time to put politics aside and to make 2019’s immigration crisis a focus to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.  This will not be easy, but it is what responsible elected officials do in times of crisis.

THE DECLINE IN LEARNING HISTORY

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”  Marcus Garvey

In 2018 a professor at Northeastern University, Benjamin Schmidt, published a research report on the study of history at American institutions of higher learning.  He concluded that for the past decade, history has been declining as a focus of study more rapidly than any other college major. (The History BA Since The Great Recession, Benjamin M. Schmidt/ Nov 26, 2018) This was the case even as more students attended college.  History accounted for between one and two per cent of bachelor degrees, a drop of about a third since 2011.

The casual observer would probably not find this fact surprising.  After all, many of the humanities have suffered in recent years as employability became the watchword following the 2008 financial crisis and recession.  A secure career path in nursing, engineering, computer science, biology and other STEM disciplines continues to drive the future of higher education.

To the business and scientific world, a female mathematician is worth 10 of her contemporaries trained in the classics, art appreciation or history.  The STEM community is also the major contributor of large grants to higher education, ensuring they get what they need from Universities and young graduates.

Does it matter if history professors are not offered tenure, if history departments cease to exist or if the history discipline is placed in new departments that combine history with other humanity topics? In my view it does.   

Once higher education is permitted to downgrade or dump the humanities in general and history in particular, we will lose a valuable resource.  I will present some sage advice gathered from the community of historians and offer my own experience in how history has enriched my life.

First, a nation with little knowledge of history is permitting its leaders to formulate and dissipate a false narrative.  I am the first to admit that fake news has always existed since the invention of the printing press. But only an educated polity who has been exposed to unvarnished historical events can expose a false narrative. 

Moreover, those trained in uncovering historical truths know how to seek out reliable source materials.  They know the importance of reviewing the findings of respected researchers as opposed to ideological commentators. The latter often care nothing for truth or credibility and will manipulate the facts to make a point or achieve a result.

Second, consider the following quote from Alan Mikhail, the chair of the history department at Yale: “A study of the past shows us that the only way to understand the present is to embrace the messiness of politics, culture, and economics.  There are never easy answers to pressing questions about the world and public life.” (see The New Yorker, The Decline of Historical Thinking, 2/2/19)

History is never black or white.  When studying Napoleon Bonaparte, a military history, a political history, a cultural history, a life history and comparative history will each yield its own story.  When combined together a fuller understanding is possible.  As new source materials are unearthed, the facts change yet again and a deeper level of truth is obtained.

Revisionist histories are now quite common.  As new historians come to reconsider long accepted facts, different interpretations are placed on those facts.  In recent years we have been given new revisionist histories of the American Revolution, the Civil War and the place of western culture in developing post Hellenistic civilization.

Third, history helps us understand change and how the society we live in came to be. The past causes the present, and so the future. Any time we try to know why something happened—whether a shift in political party dominance in the American Congress, a major change in the use of alcohol or opioids, or a war in the Ukraine or the Middle East—we have to look for factors that took shape earlier. Sometimes recent history will suffice to explain a major development, but often we need to look further back to identify the causes of unforeseen events.

Fourth, History also helps provide identity. This is unquestionably one of the reasons all modern nations encourage its teaching in some rudimentary form. Historical data include evidence about how families, groups, institutions and whole countries were formed and about how they have evolved while retaining cohesion.  This is generally referred to as “patriotic” nationalism, a positive force in nation building as opposed to “ethnic/nativist” nationalism, which seeks to turn one group against another.

Lastly, history is useful in providing an excellent foundation for many professions.  Its study helps create good businesspeople, scientists, journalists and political leaders. There are also the history professionals  who teach at various levels, work in museums and media centers, do historical research for businesses or public agencies, or participate in the growing number of historical consultancies.

A few words on how the study of history has enriched my own life.  There are enumerable times where knowledge of previous events has helped me to “connect the dots” and understand important political, religious and social concepts. I have learned that principles we take for granted often took centuries to take hold.

To disclose one of many examples, I never fully understood the development of the separation of church and state until the 1076 dispute between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV of Germany was revealed to me. The two medieval leaders argued over who should have the power to name church bishops: church figureheads or government officials. Gregory was so enraged by Henry's position that he excommunicated the emperor. Henry was forced to travel to Italy to the pope's winter castle at Canossa in the Italian Alps to beg forgiveness. Gregory kept Henry waiting outside in foul weather for three days before granting him an audience. All was forgiven and the church now had unbridled control over its own religious appointments.

Skipping forward 600 years, the same issue was unresolved in Puritan New England. It took Roger Williams to push back against theological control of Puritan society. He would go on to incorporate the religiously tolerant Providence of Rhode Island, with the help of concerned men of letters from Britain. This gave the separation of church and state a chance to flourish in the new world. The concept would become a cornerstone of the new Republic.

I cannot imagine my intellectual life without an historical frame of reference.  My wife has become a student of British history and her analysis of current events often traces back to an historical occurrence where the parallels are similar. We both enjoy historical fiction and nonfiction studies of places where we travel.  Our recent trips to Paris and Cuba were greatly enhanced by reading a few recommended histories before we embarked.

The computer sciences along with other empirical disciplines and technical schools are gaining in popularity.  There are good reasons for this change. But the nation needs graduates well trained in the humanities. Most of all, It needs future historians to keep us in touch with our past as we plan for the future.

THE OTHER AMERICAN DISCRIMINATION STORY

  

 Over the past several weeks my commentaries have addressed the history of American ethnic immigration and the politics of “no”.  I will now turn to a religious discrimination story and the mid-19^th century politics of: “no” Catholics and “no” Mormons.

This topic could not be timelier. On March 25, 2019 a Christian Pennsylvania 

Lawmaker, Republican Stephanie Borowicz from Clinton County, conducted the 

opening prayer in the Pennsylvania House. The prayer immediately preceded an induction ceremony involving the first Muslim Woman, Movita Johnson-Harrell, to be sworn into the Commonwealth Legislature.  The prayer made no attempt to be ecumenical and was rife with religious references that were decidedly anti Muslim.  Many of those in attendance believed the prayer was a political statement against the Muslim faith.

In considering religious discrimination, it is instructive to consider how Protestant Americans received Catholics and Mormons as their numbers grew throughout the 19^th century. For American nativists and populists in the pre- Civil War period, the surge of Catholic European immigrants and the new Mormon religion created deep anxiety.  This anti-Catholic/Mormon movement coalesced into a major political entity, The American Party, commonly known as the Know-Nothing movement.

The Know Nothings believed a “Romanist” conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in the United States. They sought to politically organize native-born Protestants (many of whom were second-generation immigrants themselves) in what they described as a defense of Protestant religious and political values. There were expressed fears by Know-Nothing leaders that Catholic priests and bishops would control a large bloc of voters and pass laws against the interests of Protestant America.

These claims should sound familiar to those who follow Donald Trump’s tweets and the policies of his Administration.  ‘Make America Great Again” is supported by a strong anti-Muslim component.  It views Muslim immigration with the same contempt as Catholic immigrants and the new Mormon religion faced 150 years ago. 

Rather than encourage Muslim assimilation into American culture Trump and many of his followers seek to simply keep them out of the country. With no evidence to support the claim, they believe that the tenants of Islam and Shira law are designed to defeat democracy and the rule of law. (Ironically, Trump’s words and actions often appear to do the same)  The major distinction between “then” and “now” is that while Catholicism went on to become the nation’s single largest religious group and there are now seven million Mormons the number of American citizens who are devout Muslims is relatively small.

A recent article in the New York Review of Books (The Popery Panic, David S. Reynolds, April 18, 2019) reviews the historical literature concerning the backlash against Catholic immigration.  By 1854, the American Party had over one million followers. Similar to today’s Tea Party, the No Nothings at their pinnacle elected several governors, hundreds of state legislators, and the Mayors of Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. Political riots and deaths were common.

Fake News to attack the surge in Catholicism and Mormonism was prevalent.  Nativist newspapers included the following: The American Protestant Vindicator, Priestcraft Unmasked, The Anti-Romanist, and The Downfall of Babylon; or The Triumph of Truth Over Popery. Best selling books of the day were: The Escaped Nun, The Female Jesuit, Priests’ Prisons for Women, The Captive Nun, The Haunted Convent, The Convent’s Doom, and The White Nun of the Wilderness. 

Anti Mormon Literature included: The Mormoness; or, The Trials of Mary Maverick, The Prophets; or, Mormonism Unveiled, Wife No. 19; or, The Story of a Life in Bondage, Being a Complete Exposé of Mormonism, and the inevitable Awful Disclosures of Mormonism. Sexual bondage, infanticide, and the miseries of plural marriage were common topics in them. One novel, Mormon Wives, sold more than 40,000 copies in the 1850s. By 1900, over fifty anti-Mormon books were in print.

The question posed by history is always: do we learn from the past, or are we destined to repeat the past? Both Catholics and Mormons are today mainstream accepted contributors to the health and vitality of our nation. Both religious groups are prominent participants in industry, education and politics. It is impossible to discuss our heritage without including them. 

Learning from the past would lead us to a rational and moderate national policy regarding Muslim immigration and the welcoming of those of the Islamic faith into American culture. Unfortunately, we seem ready to take the other, darker road by repeating past discrimination.

As I finish this commentary, POLITICO reports that Trump is considering the nomination of, Julie Kirchner, the former head of an anti immigration group to head U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Her prior organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has ties to white supremacist groups and has made many racist statements. Its advertisements have often been rejected because of racist content. Its expressed policy is that America remain a majority white population by limiting the number of non-whites who enter the country.

 Because the White House is encouraging modern nativism, it is more dangerous than the Know Nothing movement.  Religious and racial discrimination is becoming institutionalized at the highest level of government.  It is time for all concerned citizens to speak up and support religious equality for Muslim immigrants and Muslim citizens alike.

THE POLITICS OF “NO” IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN DEMOCRACIES

“Stay away from negative people. They have a problem, for every solution.”
Albert Einstein

The British and American political experiences have traditionally been based on positivity. Democracy thrives when the electorate is given a vision of moving forward, building on the past, correcting past mistakes.  The major distinction between authoritarian regimes with market economies (think Russia, China, Vietnam) and democratic ones is that in the latter case, voters not technocrats get to chart the future. 

Democracies do not operate efficiently in an environment of negative polarization. The politics of “no” is based on emotion, not reason.  Compromise becomes difficult if not impossible and the wheels of democratic government, never quick to turn in good times, grind to a halt.  In my view, the present political crises occurring on both sides of the Atlantic are the result of the politics of “no” and its inability to perform within a democracy.

First, a review of the Brexit debacle that has consumed the United Kingdom for the past several years.  The vote to leave the European Union was a “no” to many things. Among them: wage stagnation in the middle class, immigration, the EU assuming more political power, London overpowering local governments, the political elite, multiculturalism and political correctness. The Referendum to leave the EU had the great advantage of not having to specify what was being left behind.  Any “no” would fit the bill. 

The same phenomena is apparent in France where the gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) have taken to the streets of Paris each weekend since November. An open-ended “no” can mobilize a greater number of people than “yes” without the need for a consensus on what is being negated.  When the protests began the gilets jaunes refused to appoint leaders or to submit a list of demands to the French government, rightly assuming that a non-specific “no” would continue to attract more followers.

In the United Kingdom, the conservative government of David Cameron, made a major error in the framing of the Brexit Referendum, which stated: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?  What kind of national identity or vision for the future does “leave” assert? The wording simply gave every British voter with an axe to grind a way to express displeasure. Many observers have contrasted the Brexit Referendum with the campaign to legalize abortion in Ireland. The Irish Referendum was a masterpiece of positivity and won with an overwhelming yes.

The Brexit vote has created a political crisis in Britain of epic proportions. The devil was in the details and no majority in parliament can now agree on the details of leaving the EU.  There never was a plan to follow the Referendum vote to “leave.”  Being against something in a democracy is relatively easy. Formulating a replacement is fraught with peril. 

It is now clear, there is no parliamentary majority that will support a reasonable withdrawal agreement. The office of Prime Minister has been left in shambles.  Whatever the outcome, Britain has lost international standing in the world. London is on the brink of being replaced as the financial capital of Europe.  Corporations and financial centers have fled the United Kingdom and Scotland is considering the same.

A similar politics of “no” has captivated the United States in recent years with similar results as those experienced in the United Kingdom. When Republicans captured both chambers of Congress during the Obama administration it became clear that any Obama initiative would receive a resounding “no” during the remainder of his Presidency.  If the Republican obstructionism was designed to bring governing to a halt, it succeeded.

Rather than working in concert, the executive branch and Congress were reduced to testing their respective limits of power.  Through the politics of “no” Republicans were able to win many disgruntled voters to their side without offering a solution on any major issue, domestic or foreign, for eight years.

The Trump presidency was built on a foundation of “no”.  Make America Great Again was defined by negativity.  This included his campaign pledges of: no immigration, no Moslems, no Obama Care, no foreign Involvement, and no NAFTA.

 As in the case of Brexit and as with the French “yellow jackets”, American voters had a long list of grievances that could be thrown into the mix of Trump’s politics of “no.” But it was also true to form that few positive solutions were being articulated.  It was enough to get elected that Trump could point to his credentials as an astute business leader who could solve any problem through the “art of the deal” and transactional politics.

After the election the Trump presidency continued to expand on the politics of “no.” No to NATO, legal immigration, negotiated treaties, trade agreements, the rule of law, a free press, the European Union, the United Nations, and most exasperating of all: “no” to funding the federal government unless his unrealistic demands on building a wall along the Mexican Border were supported by Congress.  As with Brexit, there is never a plan moving forward after each “no” decision is made by the President.

President Trump’s politics of “no” have developed several interesting corollaries.  First, it has resulted in an authoritarian presidency where advisors within his administration cannot speak for the President with any accuracy. Trump is in charge of the daily messaging and often contradicts himself or is unclear. Debate within the White House is either not permitted or ignored. His obedient staff is reduced to stating that their opinion is irrelevant because the President will say and do what we wants, with little notice or discussion.  The only thing that is absolutely clear, is the “no.”

Secondly, the politics of “no” reaches far beyond the White House. Republican leaders are not made aware of the President’s policy positions in advance. On other occasions, the President reverses his position after deals are worked out with Democrats.  Foreign leaders are not consulted or briefed on the President’s views. Even small details are left to chance before summits or conferences are scheduled.  While all world leaders are aware of the “no”, getting a positive agreement is impossible under these circumstances.

Since the election of Donald Trump, many Democrats have continued the disheartening spectacle of the politics of “no” by calling for no more Trump, without considering the political implications for the 2020 presidential election. The repellant and dangerous antics of the President coupled with the Mueller probe brought to investigate theories of collusion and obstruction of justice have made his impeachment too enticing to ignore.

Removal of Trump in America has become analogous to leaving the EU in The United Kingdom. In both cases negative goals that are easy to support, but with far reaching consequences beyond the initial vote of “no.” With Brexit and Impeachment, what comes after the vote has not been thought through.

  Democrats who want Trump gone are calling for his impeachment no matter what the political cost. They seem oblivious to the need to invest scarce political capital addressing the important policy issues facing the nation in preparation for the next national election.  This is so even though impeachment is more likely than not to fail and to invigorate Trump supporters. Moreover, impeachment success would only place a more conservative and tactful political operative in the presidency, Vice President Mike Pence.

Nancy Pelosi and others have wisely fought against the politics of “no” and the call to remove Trump at any cost.  These Democratic leaders are aware of a simple truth. Trump is the master of the politics of “no”.  The remedy for Trumpism is not more negativity through political revenge but rather the development of policy positions that bring about positive results for all Americans.  Further, there must be development of a Democrat political coalition not focused solely on defeating Trump but also dedicated to preparing America to thrive in a post Trump world.

A LOOK BACK AT IMMIGRATION

"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors."  Edmund Burke

I recently read a timely article reviewing a history of the forced emigration of thousands of Scottish people from their homeland. (The Scottish Clearance: A History of the Dispossessed 1600-1900. By TM. Devine) Wealthy English land owners needed more space to graze their livestock, principally sheep. Entire villages, first in the Scottish Lowlands, later in the Highlands, were given the option of starving to death or embarking on boats for America, Canada and Australia.

A well read English periodical in 1739, the Gentlemen’s Magazine, gave the following justification for the forced emptying out of Scotland:

“Being destitute of all means of knowledge, and without any schools to educate their children, [they] are entirely ignorant of the principles of religion and virtue, live in idleness and poverty, have no notion of industry, or sense of liberty, are subject to the will and command of their popish disaffected chieftains, who have always opposed the propagating of Christian knowledge, and the English tongue, that they might with less difficulty keep their miserable vassals in a slavish dependence.”

The ancestors of Scottish Americans were summarily exported from their homeland, not unlike the bales of wool that replaced them. The number of Americans of Scottish descent today is estimated to be 20 to 25 million (up to 8.3% of the total US population), and Scotch-Irish 27 to 30 million (up to 10% of the total US population). The Scotch-Irish immigrated to Ireland before coming to America.

This article gave me pause to consider the views of any American supporting the Trump policies on legal immigration, who happens to be of Scottish heritage.  How is it possible to deny the same opportunity to others, an opportunity that literally saved the lives of their ancestors and made a path for their forbearers to thrive and contribute to the American dream?

 Other immigration histories tell a similar story. Approximately 84% of Italian immigrants came from Southern Italy and Sicily, which was still largely rural and agricultural. Much of the populace had been impoverished by centuries of foreign misrule, and an oppressive taxation system. In 1870, there were less than 25,000 Italian immigrants in America.  Shortly thereafter about 5.5 million Italians immigrated to the United States and Italians are now the fourth largest group of Europeans in the country.

The Irish were an even a bigger mass migration.  About 33 million Americans,10.5% of the total population, reported Irish ancestry in 2013. This compares with a population of 6.7 million on the island of Ireland.  A significant factor was the Irish famine. During the mid-19th Century, Ireland experienced the worst social and economic disaster a nation could suffer. A quarter of the island's population starved to death or emigrated to escape truly appalling conditions.  England did little to help and was more than happy to see their catholic neighbors seek greener pastures.

Closer to home, my Quaker ancestors immigrated much earlier, in the late 1600s. But the reasons were no less severe. English religious persecution made life unbearable in the homeland. Lastly, almost all Jewish Americans can trace their journey to America through European and Russian pogroms or the rise of fascism.   

The point is that other than African Americans, brought to America against their will and forced to endure the unthinkable, we are all here and our American family stories permitted to take root because of persecution, hate, or starvation in our ancestral homelands.  No nation is as diverse as American.  Other than Native Americans, no ethnic group can lay claim to owning the historical foundation story of America.  We were all once unwanted, unwashed, penniless, facing certain death and/or considered undesirable.

Attempts to label America “a Christian nation” in order to exclude those of other faiths is a false narrative.  The very reason for our national formation was to cobble together a nation built on religious freedom.  Moreover, those masses of people at our southern border, attempting to immigrate legally from Latin America, are often more dedicated Christians than those who seek to block their path.

This commentary is not about illegal immigration.  There is no hiding behind the claim: “my ancestors immigrated legally, and I only oppose illegal immigration.” The discussion point is much less complicated.  Given the opportunities that were afforded our ancestors, how can any of us support the Trump Administration’s assault on legal immigration?

Part II of this commentary will review Trump policies on legal immigration, the response of the legal community and the courts, and why this matters to all of us.

THE TRUMP ASSAULT ON LEGAL IMMIGRATION

“Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?” Thomas Jefferson, First Report to Congress

Part one of this commentary reviewed the history that brought our forefathers to America.  What follows is a summary of the Trump Administration’s concerted effort in 2018 to reverse years of legal immigration policy.  While there were other egregious attacks on legal immigration that took place in 2017, the most significant actions took place last year.  If such a hostile immigration environment had been permitted to take hold in previous generations, most of us would not be Americans today.

·      *Despite the fact that the number of displaced people is at the highest level since WWII, the Trump Administration lowered the refugee cap for 2018 to 45,000 and then only admitted half that number, 22,491, the lowest number in 40 years.

·      *Immigration authorities in 2018 denied 37 percent more filings related to immigration including travel documents, work permits, and green cards.

·     *The number of immigrants who received visas to move permanently to the United States, normally highly skilled workers, dropped 12 per cent in 2018.

·      *The Trump Administration began seeking a regulatory policy change in 2018 to deny the spouses of H-1B visas, the right to work.  If this change receives final clearance, over 100,000 spouses could lose their jobs.

·      *In 2018 the Administration separated thousands of children from their families. The humanitarian crisis that resulted was blamed on the Latin American families with young children fleeing violence and oppression rather than on the misplaced policy which had been set in motion with no method of uniting the families in the future.  Internal Administration documents have revealed that the program was designed as a threat to cut the flow of families seeking legal asylum.

·      *The separation of families was exasperated on April 6, 2018 when then Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his “zero tolerance” policy to criminally prosecute asylum seekers who were not afforded a timely review at ports of entry and crossed the border without inspection.  This policy was in direct opposition to immigration laws passed by Congress. In short order, 3000 children were forcibly separated from their families.

·       *Throughout 2018 the Trump Administration systematically ended temporary protection status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who fled natural, criminal and political disasters.  When deadlines came up for certain countries, the Administration simply refused to “redisignate” a TPS for each country.  This placed immigrant from those countries in immediate peril of deportation and made it impossible for new individuals to be classified under TPS. The countries most affected by this policy were Salvador; Haiti; Nepal; Honduras; Syria; and Yemen.

·     *In May and June 2018, the number of individuals permitted to enter the country to seek asylum dropped by 42 percent.  This was due in great part to new implementation rules adopted by the Administration.  First, more restrictive guidelines for the first screening interview, narrowed the qualifications for entry.  Second, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exasperated backlogs under a new policy of “metering” that limited the number of individuals seen each day at ports of entry.  The hope was that long waits would turn the asylum seekers around.  Third, the Administration began limiting the “credible fear” test for asylum to “persecutions by the government” and by removing “gang violence” as a factor to be used in granting asylum. (there is great irony in this given Trump’s use of the horrors of Latino gang violence as a reason to wall-in the border)

·    *  The Department of Justice sought to make major changes in the asylum process by making the immigration court system more restrictive. First, a long held requirement that asylum seekers receive a full hearing before an immigration Judge was eliminated.  Second, after an asylum seeker passed the “credible fear screening” test they must now remain in detention, unable to collect the data needed to be granted asylum.  Third, there have been Administration attempts, not yet implemented, to charge $50.00 for an asylum application.

·     * In June, 2018, Donald Trump nixed Congressional attempts to address the backlog of immigration cases by increasing the number of immigration judges.

There are other actions taken by Trump and his minions of political appointees throughout the federal government designed to undermine legal immigration.  The above examples are merely the highlights.  What I hope is clear is that none of these policies has anything to do with illegal immigration, or building a wall, or providing more security for the American people.

Whatever one thinks about the ACLU, we must be grateful at the fortitude of this organization in swiftly filing lawsuits to protect the recognized rights of immigrants.  The ACLU’S guiding principle is that when the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one vulnerable group, everyone’s rights are at risk. The ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project is dedicated to expanding and enforcing the civil liberties and civil rights of immigrants and in combating public and private discrimination against them.  In 2018 they were busy filing lawsuits around the country…and winning.

It would be a mistake to assume that America’s approach to immigration was a fair and equitable one, prior to 2016.  Before Trump was elected President, our immigration system was already in need of major repair.  For example, individuals from many countries were forced to wait for decades to receive a green card. Workers without college decrees only received 5,000 green cards despite the overwhelming need for agricultural workers.  There was no immigration category for entrepreneurs who wanted to start a business. There was an unreasonable cap on immigrants with “extraordinary abilities” (scientists, business leaders, professional athletes).

Now that Trump has placed the spotlight on immigration by attempting to further destabilize a troubled system, it would be a good time for a more enlighten Congress to consider and overhaul all aspects of immigration. We need to return to the fundamental belief that: “all are welcome”.  Unfortunately, the present policies tell the world: America is closed to those who need our help the most.

THERE IS NO GOING BACK TO NORMAL

The March 1, 2019 NYT editorial comment, penned by Alex Kingsbury, struck me as significant on many levels. (Go Back to Normal After Trump? No Thanks) Mr. Kingsbury pointed out that the statement made by House Oversight Committee Chairman, Elijah Cummings following the public testimony of Michael Cohen: “We have to get back to normal,” is not the result that concerned Americans should be looking for. Hoping to rid the country of a President who ignores the rule of law, who is incapable of truth telling and who has destroyed 50 years of hard earned political diplomacy, may bring us back to the old normal, but this is not enough and in some cases impossible to achieve.  

 Chairman Cummings eloquent comments following the Cohen hearing were widely reported by the media as the high point of the day long proceedings and an attempt at reconciliation in our fractious political climate. But there can be no return to the “good times” engendered by the Obama or Clinton presidencies if one is a Democrat or to those years surrounding the Bush(s) or Reagan administrations if one is a Republican. The Donald Trump presidency has exposed too many shortcomings of “normal” and created a new paradigm.

As Mr. Kingsbury points out, the investigations by the Mueller probe and by the Justice Department in the Southern District of New York have brought additional focus to the “normal” policy of: “treating crimes by the poor as felonies and crimes by the powerful as misdemeanors.”  It is jaw dropping to me that Paul Manafort’s defense team recently argued to the sentencing federal Judge that he should receive a more lenient sentence because “were it not for the Mueller investigation his crimes would never have been exposed”.

While Manafort’s plea for leniency is ridiculous, his point supports Mr. Kingsley’s conclusions.  There are too few prosecutors investigating too many white collar crimes, which are time consuming and complicated.  Wealthy Criminals are violating the public trust, jeopardizing national security and corrupting the political system to rack up millions in profits, often untaxed profits, with impunity. For the most part, these wealthy criminals know that regulations are lax and enforcement underfunded.

Before the Trump gang gained power to remind us how the wealthy flaunt the rule of law, we had the worst recession in our lifetimes. This meltdown, which adversely affected millions of Americans, was caused in great part by the malfeasance of bankers and financial manipulators.  In the aftermath there were few prosecutions. There can be no returning to normal when it comes to ferreting out white collar crime.

Statistics clearly show that when resources are directed against violent crime, these crimes drop dramatically. The same is true of tax fraud but the number of IRS agents has not increased in over 50 years due to congressional underfunding.  The federal government, now in the middle of a deficit crisis, is losing 458 billion a year due to tax evasion, according to the IRS.  There can be no returning to normal when it comes to enforcing our tax laws.

Again, in the area of enforcement, bringing powerful individuals and organizations to the bar, for their complicity in sex trafficking and pedophilia, cannot return to normal. American Universities (Penn State, Michigan State), religious institutions (the Catholic Church) and private individuals (Jeffery Epstein, massage parlor owners) must all be investigated when criminality is apparent. Having a friend in high places must not prevent investigations with adequate resources committed to prosecuting these complex crimes against children and women that often cross state and national borders.

There are many other issues, not touched on by Mr. Kingsley, where it would be a mistake to return to normal. Climate change is one of them.  There is no doubt that President Trump has reversed eight years of progress on climate issues by calling global warming a hoax, by withdrawing from international agreements and recently, by ignoring a report released by the Defense Department raising concerns.  But it is too late for the “old” normal.

Global warming is now out of the slow and steady manageable stage and is entering an accelerated period of worldwide crisis.  Even China, with its commitment to electric cars is showing more concern than the United States.  The “new” normal must replace superficial strategies for a comprehensive policy where our country becomes an inspiration to encourage, not a drag to discourage solutions.

The “old” normal in American politics called for the wealthy and social conservatives in one voting block against the middle class, poor and social liberals on the other.  The Trump election and presidency have shattered this view.  Trump has exposed the existence of a large voting population, in traditional Democratic strongholds, who are economically disadvantaged and who believe the traditional two party system has left them behind.  These voters will continue to support a President who will seek to keep out immigrants, fight against the effects of globalization, promise to bring back basic industry and to withdraw America from international commitments.  These voters will not magically disappear when Trump is no longer in office.

For those who thought that the election of Barrack Obama meant that racism was no longer pervasive in America, the election of Donald Trump has proven this a pipe dream.  Clearly, racism remains virulent. There is no returning to the past belief that respect for minorities was winning the day.  The “new” normal must begin with early childhood education to teach all students the history of slavery, of segregation, of the past use of legal remedies to deny minorities their basic human rights and of the meaning of white privilege in today’s society. Only then can we all understand and share the same national story, learn from it and grow past our racial divide.

In foreign affairs, there is no returning to normal with respect to the Atlantic Alliance.  After two plus years of Trump treating our European allies more like rivals than partners, very few Europeans believe the President will do the right thing during a crisis.  There are too many cracks in the Alliance to return the relationship to “normal”, even with a new President in the White House. European leaders have been forced to move beyond Trump because of the ambiguities caused by his actions on Iran, in Syria, on arms control treaties and in imposing tariffs. There is also outright fear and indignation caused by his rhetoric on threatening not coming to the aid of NATO members who do not pay their bills.

While the next President might attempt to restart the Alliance, Europe will now be inclined to develop other strategic partners, particularly economic ones, and to act independently of American interests.  Not all the goodwill that has been lost will be regained.  The United States will be more alone in the world than at any time since WWII.

Donald Trump has made it impossible to return to the “old” normal, following his departure. His wrecking ball adventurism in domestic and foreign affairs has been cataclysmic and will require not simple repairs but rather major resets in policy. The challenge for Democrats reaches far beyond winning elections.  The ultimate test will be governing in the post Trump world.

TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE

“Everybody's joining up to fight
For the right to be wrong
I need some
Sentimental hygiene”         Warren Zevon

The subject of tolerance in a mature democratic republic such as the United States would appear to require little thought or discussion.  One would assume that tolerance of others is a positive notion that always signifies good character and is an enlightened, liberal goal, above reproach. 

In fact, the history of tolerance in political theory and philosophical circles reveals that the concept of tolerance is complicated and is often exercised without any compassion or even true acceptance of others. Since the time of the classical philosophers there have been two opposing schools of thought. On the one hand are those who believe tolerance is a positive force that can be used to strengthen diverse societies.  On the other is the belief that tolerance is nothing more than another tool of the majority to keep well-meaning minorities in their place.

 I have concluded that as tolerance is utilized in practice today, it is often anything but a virtue.  On the bright side, understanding tolerance as it relates to “the others”, with whom we are in conflict, can provide a roadmap to help us understand the difficult social, political and moral issues with which we struggle.  The key is to recognize the difference between intolerance, permissive tolerance and respectful tolerance.

In order to understand tolerance, it is important to recognize that majorities cannot come to tolerate a racial group, a religion, a sexual orientation, gender roles or any other minority without first having an objection to the particular group the majority decides to tolerate. Most often, the gift of tolerance from the majority to the minority comes at a price and with rules.  This has been defined as permissive tolerance. 

Consider the following examples of permissive tolerance from American and European history.  Jews will be tolerated but must live in ghettoes and pay special taxes.  African Americans will be tolerated as long as they live in red lined districts, accept impediments to voting and racial profiling.  Non heterosexuals will be tolerated under “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies or as long as they do not seek marriage status.  Women in the work place will be tolerated as long as they accept lower wages for equal work.  In this manner majorities throughout history, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, have used tolerance to dominate minorities.  In this context, tolerance is about power, not morality. 

The problem with permissive tolerance, as history has often proven, is that the majority may change its collective mind and have the original objection to the minority reinstated.  In this way intolerance returns and the minority is again persecuted, with no rights at all.

 Moreover, permissive tolerance is often used to compel assimilation of the minority into the majority.  While some assimilation is necessary to encourage a “national identity”, when the majority demands changes to fundamental values of a minority, it becomes an obvious affront to the minority seeking to maintain its own views and identity.

The process is a bit different for individuals as opposed to majorities who claim to be tolerant of others. When one who believes they are tolerant says: “I was racist in the past but now I am tolerant of minorities who mind their own business”; or: “homosexual behavior is against the Bible, but now I tolerate them as long as they are not permitted to marry”; or “I tolerate women at work as long as they do not bid on the highest paying jobs”, this is hardly a virtue. 

The minorities we attempt to shower with permissive tolerance want no such thing.  It is not enough to not be persecuted.  They want to be respected as fellow human beings.  They want to be considered as neighbors, friends and colleagues who are diverse but treated equally in every respect.  This is called respectful tolerance.

I will consider two additional questions raised by the tolerance debate.  First, when is intolerance (refusal to tolerate or respect opinions contrary to one’s own) the appropriate course to take?  After all, notwithstanding our democratic freedoms and liberties, the majority is rightfully intolerant of incest, pedophilia, terrorists and anyone who would exercise the “assassins veto” by killing another individual who disagrees with them. (think Saudi Arabia and Russia).  But where do we draw the line? When do we come down on the side of individual freedom and when do we seek to ban unacceptable views and behavior?

This leads directly to the second question.  Should we confront those who practice unacceptable intolerance like racism, homophobia, religious persecution and attacks on the LGLT community by coaxing them back into tolerance through rationale discourse or should we attack their views with vigor to show our displeasure of intolerant behavior? Here lies one of the paradoxes: In order to preserve tolerance, must we be intolerant toward those who are intolerant? 

Since the election of Donald Trump, this question has become a daily dilemma for many progressive Americans. Some take the position that Trump supporters must be met with intolerance because they will never change.  Others (myself included) believe that the key to winning back democratic supporters is to stay tolerant toward these voters who elected Trump and show respect for their opinions and concerns.

The conceptual framework developed by the esteemed political philosopher, Rainer Forst, offers a commonsense solution to some of these questions.  He believes that tolerance and justice are closely correlated. The majority or individual with an objection to a particular group or behavior must justify its objection by asking: “are my reasons for objecting sufficient to reject the group or practice as a law abiding citizen?… The objection cannot be based on religious or ethical views or some traditional belief that can be generally justified in a pluralist society.”  See: The Power of Tolerance, A Debate (2014)

This approach also works when confronting unacceptable intolerance. Rejection of an egregious behavior, belief or group must always be supported by justifiable legal/ethical norms rather than by emotions or unsupported subjective standards of the majority.

By applying this simple test, it is possible for each of us to make our own value judgments on whether to reject a behavior or group as outside the parameters of a modern democratic society, or whether the group or behavior deserves our respect. The Trump supporter in the Mid-West, concerned about losing his job and worried that the information age and globalization are leaving him behind can be shown respect by progressive democrats, not intolerance.  

Under this model it becomes possible for competing interests to live together in conflict, but with a high degree of understanding.  In weighing whether to be tolerant: rejection or respect become the only two choices.  We eliminate permissive tolerance which has been the cause of so much unbridled resentment by minorities, trying to make their way in the modern world.

With permissive tolerance, majorities are resentful because the minorities who are tolerated do not accept the concessions that are extended to them and remain angry. Minorities are resentful that society has failed to offer respect instead of superficial permission for their views.   For example, I believe the Democratic Party was guilty of permissive tolerance in the last Presidential Election, toward many Mid-Western voters and their views. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” label on Trump supporters was even worse and bordered on intolerance toward a large portion of the electorate.   When there is no justifiable reason for an objection toward a minority view or behavior, it is time to demonstrate respectful tolerance, with no strings attached.

I will finish with an observation that may not be obvious to all.  When one respectfully tolerates another religion, racial minority, political ideology or the like, this does not mean that one is adopting that person or belief as one’s own.  Conflict between competing interests remains and the (civilized) debate continues on a level playing field.  After all, this healthy conflict is the basis for our pluralistic democracy.

For those that take the time to understand tolerance, a new method of understanding “the other” opens up.  It compels each of us, when in the majority, to consider what it is like to be in the minority, where permissive tolerance feels a lot like no tolerance at all.

 It also works when confronted with a political debate, where both factions are too concerned with “being right” and complaining about the intolerance of the other.  Searching for objective justifications for the other’s position encourages respectful tolerance and civility as we seek to regain a semblance of political order in our fragmented society.