Profit is achieved on the backs of the poor

 Would we be exploiting the poor or empowering them if we sought to bring in the poor working class from other countries to hold down our production costs and thus make us competitive in our manufacturing endeavors?

  If you can make a car or a computer or an American flag cheaper overseas, it is because your labor costs are less. This is no secret, is it?

   So, why not harness your immigrants instead of hounding and hindering them? If you would bring jobs back to America, the immigrant is your key. The country that makes a product for less is the company that will sell the most of that product. We can see this is why manufacturing jobs go to Korea and China, can we not? So, if we would compete with Korea and China, we must plug into a labor source equally as inexpensive as what they have in those countries.

   Enter the immigrant (if we let him). Perhaps, instead of building a wall to lock them out, we should be rolling out a carpet to let them in. They might be the lifeblood to a stronger economy.

   Whether it is a palatable thought or not, profit is achieved on the backs of the poor.

    So, we should consider these things. Perhaps, we will conclude we are better off without bringing in immigrant labor. But, considering the issue, we should. As is, jobs go overseas. Our own American companies rely on the cheap labor of other countries -- and in other countries -- thus building the economies of those other countries instead of our own. By this thought, if you believe in America First, you bring the jobs back to the U.S. by bringing the laborer to the U.S.
 
   Where the hen roosts is where the egg is laid.

   But, we must more fully consider this before doing it. Will it be true that they will lower our wages? It seems certain there is truth in this. If you have a laborer from Mexico who will perform labor for only $5 an hour, he is going to take the job away from the person who is doing it for $20 an hour. Your laborer from south of the border isn't locked into doing just the specific jobs you brought him to do. He can move up the ladder to higher-paying jobs. And there is your danger.
 
   Eventually, automation is going to take most of our jobs, anyway -- or so it would seem. In a way, the dilemma is the same: We worry about automation taking our jobs because it is cheaper the same as we worry about immigrants taking those jobs because they are cheaper.

With the wind, bends the willow
And with a storm, falls branches from the tree
But every bent and fallen tree stock
Speaks of a tree that overcomes its knock

Edited 7/31/18

We should Lift Our Eyebrows at what Trump just did

   When it is deemed "inappropriate" for a journalist to ask the president uncomfortable questions and when that reporter, as a result, gets banned from a later press meeting -- and when such a banning is largely unprecedented in the history of America . . .
   Let us be concerned.
   Our rights and privileges are being encroached upon -- and in a manner rare in the history of America. Has a reporter ever been banned from an open press conference because she (or he) asked questions deemed "inappropriate'? I don't know.
   And, there was another event in which the dissemination of truth was restricted. We can -- and should -- wonder if it was an innocent mistake, or it if was an attempt to allow only the "official" version of what happened, as opposed to the truth. The written transcription of the Trump-Putin news conference was released, and it failed to include the part in which Putin said he had favored Trump in the election.
   An honest mistake? Just one person talking over another, and, as a result, that part of the audio was not clear? So, when it came time to make the written transcription from the audio, part of the conversation got inadvertently omitted? Perhaps, but don't overlook the fact that that exchange was one of the most quoted from the news conference. How does the official transcriber fail to realize he has not included it?
    If America is not concerned about such things as these two incidents, what has become of us? Where is the "Don't Tread on Me" attitude of our forefathers? If someone comes after our guns, they will have to pry them from our cold, dead fingers? But if Donald Trump wants to take away some of our rights and privileges, that is quite alright -- let him take them?
   Here's what happened at the one event: President Trump was making a press announcement in the Rose Garden. Now, not all the press can fit into the Rose Garden, so you have what are called pool reporters, who are there representing those who don't fit into the room. At the end of the meeting -- as is commonly the case -- one pool reporter, Kaitlan Collins of CNN,  shouts out, just loud enough to be heard over the din:
   "Did Michael Cohen betray you, Mr. President?"
   "Mr. President, are you worried about what Michael Cohen is going to say to prosecutors?"
   "Are you worried about what is on the other tapes?"
     For her conduct, Collins was called into the office -- literally. It was suggested her questions were "inappropriate," and she was too loud, and that the meeting had been over, anyway. So, she was "disinvited" from a later press meeting, which was to be an open press event.
    MSNBC's Hallie Jackson commented on the banning of Collins. "This is almost unprecedented. It is inexcuseable for the White House to make that move," she said.
   Bless America and its freedoms. Bless it that it remains a place where truth is valued, and where the government version of the truth is not allowed to paint over and wash away what actually happened. We can take these two events and not be overly concerned -- maybe even dismissing them as fake news -- but, I see in them reason for concern. You may argue that the press is not responsible, or not polite, or not honest, or whatever -- in order to justify Kaitlan Collins being banned from an open press event.
   Forgive. My opinion is so different. We have what happened clearly in front of us, and we seek to explain it away -- to make it go away. I will tell you, truth should not be so easily dismissed. What happened, happened. There is not good reason for banning Collins. It is an intrusion on our right to have the truth told to us by our government leaders. When government restricts our right to question that government, then that government is in the wrong.

Detective Holmes and the Sermon of how Guns Might Kill

  The one detective smiled at the other as he laid a gun on the table "How do you think this fits into our investigation?" he asked.
   "Your gun?" Detective Oliver joked. "Let's see, you pull your gun out of your holster, you lay it on the table, and you ask me how it fits into the investigation?"
  "No, not my gun," Detective Holmes replied. "The gun."
 "Okay,you mean, his gun," Detective Oliver asserted. "You mean Thompson's gun."
  "No, I mean thee gun," Holmes said.
   Detective Oliver went quiet.
   "I mean, the gun," Holmes repeated. "Oh, yes, I mean the gun. I mean that long piece of metal we call the gun. Rick, we've heard all our lives that guns don't kill, that people do. In our profession, we hear that every day. After a while, we start to believe it. No -- let me correct that -- we've believed it from the first time we heard it. We've never questioned it. 'Truth' from the mouth of the masses, and we've swallowed it whole"
   Rick Oliver was just staring back at him, a little disbelieving.
   "Rick," Detective Max Holmes said, "We are detectives." He paused, then went on, "As our job, we look for motive and we look to see just what brought the opportunity to commit the crime. That's our job -- to find those things out."
   He paused, again. His partner remained silent.
   "But, do we ever consider the gun? Of course not. Guns don't kill; People do. We can't consider the gun. It's off limits. Our training -- and I mean the training we receive from the public, not from police academy -- has already told us, the gun is innocent."
   "So," Oliver suggested, "You're telling me you think the gun killed this guy? I've never seen a gun take itself up off the shelve, march over to a church and down the aisle, and kill someone. A person has got to do all the doing. The gun is just a tool."
   Holmes smiled. "Okay, Mister Smart Guy, let's look at what happens in a case like this. Thompson buys the gun way back in '08. Nice gun -- a little piece of heaven for anyone who owns a gun. He told us he bought it for self protection, didn't he? He told us that if anyone broke into his home, he wanted to be able to protect himself. He spoke a lot about our Second Amendment rights.
   "But, the gun just sits there. It just sits in his closet  -- a fancy gun getting no use."
   Detective Oliver was still staring, still a little disbelieving that Holmes was attacking the gun.
    "Rick," Holmes said. "When people buy guns, they buy them for a purpose. Thompson had a use in mind when he bought that gun. I'm just suggesting that if buying a gun comes with a purpose, then you might be anxious for that time to come around, so you can use it like you planned. I'm saying, you might want to use it.  Yes -- sure, sure, sure -- some people are going to be quite happy if the gun just sits there and is never used -- they'll be happy they don't have to use it. But, others? Some of them are going to long to use that gun. It's kind of like buying a ticket to a carnival that promises to come to town in the next few years, and then waiting year after year for the carnival to come and it never comes."
   Detective Holmes paused, looking at Detective Oliver, searching for signs of how he was taking what he is saying. "You okay with what I'm saying?" he asked.
   "You go on -- I'm listening," is all Detective Oliver said.
   "Well," Holmes continued, "Thompson's gun just languishes in a closet -- purpose for buying it never comes. In the meantime, he runs for public office. Loses badly. And, life deals him a few other bad turns. Well, a little bitterness, a little hostility builds up in him. He's not feeling so friendly toward everybody these days. Got a little chip on his shoulder.
   "And, that's where that gun just sitting there comes in. I know you believe guns are inanimate and that's the end of it, so I don't know that I can get you to understand that it is almost like that gun is speaking. It's almost like it's saying, 'If something is wrong, I'm here for you. If someone does you wrong, I'm here to give you vengeance. Vengeance is my specialty. I'm good at that. Injustice? Correcting that is what I'm all about.'
   "So, Thompson is angry, and the gun is there to help him express that anger." Max Holmes paused, again; smiled again, then went on: "Rick, if you were building a house, you'd need tools to do it  -- and, the right tools. And, the more fit for the job those tools were, the better the odds you'd  go about building that house. If the tools made the job easy enough, you'd go about the task of building that house. But, if the tools didn't make the job easy enough, building that house would be too much of a task and never get done. There's a difference, for example, between a hand saw and a power saw, between a tack hammer and a large hammer.
  "So, we speak of crimes of convenience. What about the gun? Does it make the crime of murder more convenient? Yes! No other weapon makes administering death so convenient. You don't need to go up and wrestle with the other guy. You can stand at a distance and kill him from afar. You don't need to use your physical strength to force the knife blade into his gut. Just pull the trigger, and the task it done. You don't need to get so squeamish about what you are doing. The splashes of his blood are not going to touch you. Everything is simple with a gun. Death made slick, easy and uncomplicated: That's what the gun is all about.  It's push-button murder: Pull the trigger -- push the button -- and he's gone."
  By now, officer Oliver was smiling back at officer Holmes, accepting what he was saying.
  "So, motive and opportunity are elements of crime." Holmes was wrapping up what he was saying. "We buy guns for a purpose and that purpose can morph into motive for killing someone. Owning a gun can bring reason for using it -- not in every case, but in a lot.
   "People say it isn't the gun. They say if the killer didn't have a gun, he'd just find another weapon. But, that's not always true. Guns make things easier, and things that are easier are more likely to happen. The gun is murder made easy.
  "So, guns don't kill, people do? Yeah, I guess that's a fact enough. But, you can hide a lot of truth with a broad stroke of thought like that. You can cover your ears to all the rest of the truth with a statement like that. You can place your hands over your ears and just sit there repeating, 'Guns don't kill, guns don't kill, guns don't kill,' and block out a lot of truth.
   "Rick, what I've said to you amounts to a little bit of sermonizing, and now, I'm really going to get religious and sermonize. If you are going to say, 'Guns don't kill, guns don't kill, guns don't kill,' don't let it be too much of a Bible to you. Somewhere in that book, there is the part about how Peter tried to defend Christ by taking a broad stroke with a sword and lopping off the ear of someone who came to take his life. Christ touched that ear, and healed it. Maybe its the same with what we have here. Maybe we need our ears restored.
   "Oh, and just a final touch to what I've been saying. When Christ said he that takes up the sword, shall perish by the sword, who knows but what he wasn't referring to perishing spiritually. Who knows but what he wasn't saying that those who take up weapons as a way of defending and preserving their lives run the risk of losing their lives eternally by using those weapons wrongfully. The killer in our case, Thompson, bought the gun to protect himself -- he was wanting to 'live by the sword' -- but it only led him to committing a crime that could cost him his life, eternally. He ends up dying by the sword."
   Max Holmes glanced at his watch. "Looks like it's quitting time," he said. "I've spent a lot of time doing my talking. Guess we better break for the home parts."

With a gun, it's push-button murder. You pull a trigger and your killing is accomplished.

   We speak of crimes of convenience. The gun is your ticket, then. There is no weapon that makes administering death so convenient. You don't need to go up and wrestle with the other guy. You can stand at a distance and kill him. And, death is more certain. If you aim it right, he won't just be maimed and injured. He will die. Death made slick, easy and uncomplicated: That's what the gun is all about. It's push-button murder: You pull a trigger and -- just like that -- the act is done. We speak of how if people didn't have guns, they would just find another weapon to use. But, that isn't always the case. Nothing makes murder so easy as does a gun.

 Using a gun can bring purpose to owning it 

   Motive and opportunity are elements of crime. I wonder on guns, and on motive -- how we buy guns for a purpose, and how they have a use. Do we not suppose this can lend to the motive? Should we not consider that once a person has a gun, they might search for reason to use it? So, I suggest owning a gun can be in and of itself a motive for using a gun. If buying a gun comes with a purpose, then using the gun can bring purpose to owning it; it can bring fulfillment to having purchased it.

Are borders so sacred that those crossing without permission should die?

   I think of Nigeria, and how it expelled unlawful migrants into the Sahara Deseret. The Associated Press reports 13,000 were sent into the hot desert from May 2017 till just a few weeks ago when outrage, the AP story, and UN condemnation reportedly brought the expulsions to a halt. I don't know how many died, but some did.

   I think of the U.S, and how 412 died on either side of the Mexican border with little media attention. Is it that we think they get what they deserve when they cross illegally?

Would for the Day it was America Opening its Arms to the Refugees

   America was once the melting pot. America was once the place of refuge. America was once the place that welcomed the world. And, now it is Sweden? Germany? Or is there any place left that really opens its arms to the needy of other nations? For even in countries where the refugees have been going, there is a backlash against them.
   And, are some of these migrants not to be welcomed? I speak of the Muslims. I hear from good friends of mine -- people whose opinions I respect -- that the Muslims come with their murdering and their raping. I hear how they are destroying Europe.
   Is it true? Or, is it racism to believe it is true?
   Bless the immigrants of all nations, including those from Muslim lands. I only know there are good among them. We should want to help those in need. We should want to help those of all nations. We should want to help every good person who needs a place to stay. Would for the day when it was America accepting them. Would for the day it was America throwing its arms open to them.

Make America Great Again -- Knock Down the Wall before it is Built

   One secret to a strong economy is to have a large pool of the working poor.
   Think of it, was not China once a poor nation? But, it became a great nation, economically, in part by taking its working poor, and working them for less than what other nations pay their laborers. Now, it is a principle of capitalism that if you make a product cheaper than someone else, you are going to sell more of that product than your competitors will.
   It's basic economics.
   China beat us at our own game. They took capitalism, and beat us up with it. By making products cheaper, they sold more. America, America, America: If you are to excel as a capitalist, you must find a way to hold your labor costs down. It is a lesson to be learned.
   So, if we really want to make America great again, maybe we shouldn't build that wall.
   Let me explain: A friend today pointed out to me that Japan once utilized its inexpensive labor to make transistors and televisions and other such products cheaper than other nations. Then, the Japanese became a little more sophisticated, and turned to making cars cheaper than others, while yielding a good share of their TV and transistor market to other nations.
  Now, in the world of "sophistication," America is a leader. Long gone are the days of having a large pool of inexpensive labor. So, if we want to compete with the world -- if we want to make cars for less than other countries, can we find a way?
   Hmm, don't think too hard, but don't we more working poor knocking on our door than any  nation on earth? Yet, instead of welcoming them in and saying, "Pleeease, come, help us grow," we lock them out. Ironically, we suggest they will ruin our economy if we let them in. We are not too wise. No: We are so self-defeating as to speak of tossing up a wall to keep them out.
   Let me say it again: If you make a product at less expense than your competitor, you will sell more products than he. And, if you don't keep your wages down, you won't be the country selling more cars or televisions or computers or sporting goods than anyone else.
   The laws of economics will prevail against you. No secret there, is there?
    But, we have an advantage over other nations. There is no country on earth where so many working -class people are clamoring to get in. If we were to but to capitalize on that, we might return our land to greater economic greatness than what we are now enjoying.
    Make America great again. Knock down that wall before it is ever built.

Makayla Yeaman Hid, then Tried to Flee, and then was Shot

  Inside a home in West Jordan with a sign warning trespassers they will be shot, and if they survive, they will be shot again, in the early morning hours of June 8, Nikolas Hill, found a home invader hiding inside his closet. At one point, she held the palms of her hands in the air, toward him, and, at some point -- perhaps not the same point -- she said, "I'm going to go." And, at some point, she made a break for the front door, which was right next to the closet where Hill had discovered her.
   But, it was locked. Having gained her entry through the garage  -- as it is believed she did -- she must not have known.
   The home intruder, Makayla Yeaman, turned back toward Hill, according to the account of the incident provided by Hill, himself. He had his gun raised. Her hands had been in the air, palms toward him, but they dropped towards her waist, and Hill said that is when he knew she was a dead person. An interviewing officer would later ask him how it made him feel when her hands reached down to her waistline. He would explain to the officer that this was not the first time that he had killed someone, but the first time he had killed someone in his home. He said he did feel unsafe and the training he had had just kicked in. He wasn't playing games. He was the person standing between the intruder and his family -- and intruder wasn't going to leave the home.
   As it ended up, she didn't -- at least, not alive.
   Hill said he fired four shots, believing two hit her in front, one in the side and one in the back. A knife would be found near her body, and Hill said it did not belong to him. The interviewing officer would ask Hill if he saw her display anything (meaning a weapon), and Hill would respond that he did not, but that it was dark, and he just reacted.
   Weeks later, the district attorney's office would screen the case, and decide not to prosecute.

    (Note: The above story I wrote after obtaining the incident report from the West Jordan Police Department Friday. The part of the incident report I got most of the information from was the report written by an interviewing officer, Detective Jason Richards. I obtained the 70-page incident report after making a records request weeks ago. They called me Monday and said they would release the incident report, but that the investigation, itself, was still ongoing. It has been believed that there could have been someone else involved in the home invasion, in addition to Makayla Yeaman. Whether that is why the case has continued to be investigated, I do not know.)

 

I wonder at those who aspire to be part of the goodness of America, only to be told they are not good enough for America

If America was once the land of dreams, what is it now? The land where dreams are illegal?

We've Shattered Their Dreams and Shattered Their Families

   If America were once the land of dreams, what is it now? You can still dream of coming to America, of course, but what are the chances of those dreams coming true? They have been reduced. The dreams aren't realized as often -- not with us having made them illegal.
   There was no harm in this dream of coming to America. But, we have turned their dream into a nightmare. Think of those who reached the border, only to have their children taken from them.
   Shattered dreams and shattered families. this is the America of our day.

If America is no longer available to those who seek a better life,
it is no longer the land of opportunity.
If it is no longer open to to the down-trodden,
it is no longer the land of promise.

America is not just a country, but an ideal, and not just a nation, but the standard of what nations should be. 

How Virtuous is a Law that Allows You to Look for an Excuse to Kill?

   From that great source Wikipedia, we learn that the term "Make My Day Law" came about in 1985, when Colorado created a law shielding folks from legal liability for using force against home invaders. 

   The term, "Make My Day Law." comes from a Clint Eastwood movie, of course, being a reference to the line, "Go ahead, make my day." The meaning, as Wikipedia points out, is, "Do something, so I'll have an excuse to kill you."

   Now, if we're passing laws saying gun rights advocates can look for excuses to kill, that isn't a good thing. There is too much power in the gun lobby. Say all you like about Second Amendment rights, but it remains, this is not a good law. It is wrong, what it allows.

   How influential are movies? Do they affect our values? Do they affect what laws we pass? How virtuous is a law that gives people the right to look for excuses to kill?

   Being a conservative in 2018 isn't the same as being one 50 years ago. I do so wonder but what principled conservatives back then wouldn't have seen such laws are not good. Ronald Reagan was a conservative hero of mine. The "Make My Day Laws" came about in the middle of his administration, but they were state laws, not federal. I do wonder if he would have signed such a bill, and hope he would not have. 

Lest We become Tasman Maile

  I consider on Tasman Maile, who was sleeping with his gun when his two-year old picked up the gun and shot himself.
  You may dismiss Maile as a criminal. He was charged with drug distribution and was a restricted person in possession of a fire arm to begin with.
   But, I will remind you he was also a loving father. He was also a normal person, in so many ways. I would quite guess he slept with his gun because he was afraid of the bad guys. He was a practitioner of the Second Amendment as much as anyone.
   I do not say owning guns is wrong. Guns can do good; They can protect you. But, the same, we should see the dangers. If Maile had not had a gun, his child would be alive today. If he did not sleep with the need of a gun at the ready, his child is still toddling about their house. We cannot deny the danger of guns, nor the danger that comes with living by the precept that you keep them in the ready even when you sleep.
   Each person must judge his or her own need for a gun. I would only suggest we not teach everyone that they need guns. For some of us, the danger of owning guns will be greater than the danger that comes with not having them. I believe each person should reflect on the different scenarios that might arise from gun ownership. And, among them: What if someone breaks into your home, and you do have the gun, in what circumstance do you shoot him? Do you shoot everyone who enters?
   Your owning a gun opens the possibility you will use it. People might die as a result of your owning a gun. To administer death on another person, if done wrongfully, is to commit murder. So, it becomes imperative that you mentally lock in your mind conditions that might arise where you will not use the gun.
    Who would kill a two-year-old child? And, who would kill anyone who means them no harm? All God's children have good traits. They can be tender, some being with emotional conditions that make them so. Adults can be as children, tender and in need of care. Yes, nobody should enter your home -- yes, yes, yes. But, it might happen, and it is possible those coming in might mean you no harm, but are just there to take care of what they perceive as their own needs. They lack the good judgment of where they should be and what they should take, even as Maile's son lacked the good judgement of whether to take his dad's gun.
  Maile certainly regrets and rues what happened. After the shooting, he took two guns and threw them in a dumpster. If we go out and buy guns, and then do not use them correctly, the day may come that we also rue owning or using them.
   Tasman probably never thought ahead of the scenario that it could be his own innocent child that might awaken him. To him, the need to sleep with the gun was that it would be bad guys that might come. Even so, when gun owners go to bed, but keep their guns in the ready, they assume that if someone comes, it will be a bad guy.
   And, they leave open a terrible possibility by making that assumption. Just as Maile's precious child ended up getting shot, so might a precious child of God end up getting shot and killed -- and you might be pulling the trigger.

'Don't Think Twice; It's Alright' and Maxine Waters

 As I start to write my last blog, having written not a whole lot more than, "I think twice on Maxine Waters," I'm on YouTube, and mercy me if a song doesn't come on titled, "Don't think Twice, It's Alright." I wonder if the heavens are imploring me to accept the my first thought instead of thinking twice. I wonder if I'm getting a message suggesting that what Maxine Waters is doing is alright.
   Don't know if that is the case, but it's normal enough to wonder.
   The man in the song is leaving home because he has been abused by his wife. Now, I don't normally believe in families being broken up; I don't believe in husbands leaving their wives. But, the man in the song was treated so poorly, he left his home to escape it.
   Now, there's more than one way you can go as you look for an analogy. If we are to find a message in the song, and apply it to immigration, what shall the message be? Looking at the story in the song, I can see at least two possibilities:
   (1) Even as in the song, the man was driven out of his home because of ill treatment, so it is with the immigrants: They have sometimes been mistreated in their home countries. We might be inclined to tell them not to leave home, but to stay there and work things out by bettering their home counties. But, maybe sometimes things are so bad, we should understand when they feel the need to flee. just as the man in the song fled to escape his abusive wife.
   (2)  Even as the husband in the song leaves his wife to migrate about, and that is what causes the breakup of his family (him and his wife), even so the migrating of the parents into another country is what brings to pass the breakup of the children from their parents'. And, just as the man's leaving his wife is not a good thing -- it is the breakup of that family -- even so separating the children from their parents is not a good thing, but it is simply what happens. So, as so many are arguing, if you don't want to lose your children, don't leave your home country to migrate to America.
    I'm not saying whether I endorse that second thought, I'm just saying it is one of the things you could take out of the song if you are looking to apply the song to immigration. And, I guess I'm crazy enough to look for messages when I write, "I think twice on Maxine Waters," only to have a song titled, "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright," come on.

Do I not Need to Think Twice on What Maxine Waters is Doing?

   I think twice on Maxine Waters. As long as she does not call for harm to come to them, is her calling for cabinet members to be confronted in public places acceptable? Is it just raising your voice to voice what you believe in -- and what you oppose?
   It is just raising a voice of alarm against what is wrong -- raising a hand to say the injustice has got to stop?
   Is it just another rendition of Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take it!"?
   Maybe leave out the part about, "No Sleep, No Peace," though. Calling for people to be so harassing that another person cannot sleep seems a bad thing to do.
   Protesting is not wrong, done peacefully. Calling on your leaders to mend their ways can be a good thing.
   Then, I think again. I think how we need to be more civil with each other -- both sides, including those who condemn Maxine Waters, but even while in the act of doing so, they themselves use hateful language.
   I believe we need to respect each other -- respect each other's believes. Protesting can be good, but why not just chants of, "Save the kids -- Reunite them!" or, from Maxine's own speech, "There will be no wall built on the backs of these children"?
   Stating your belief can be done without personal attacks. I wonder if hate begets hate, and personal attacks beget personal attacks, as President Trump so often launches personal attacks against those who oppose him. Are they just reacting in kind?
 

With power
 comes an obligation to those you 
have power over

   We often speak of serving your constituents, referring to the people from the state or district that elected you. And, while they would be the primary constituents, you cannot escape your responsibility to any who be impacted by the decisions you make. Fairness of mind, and fairness of character charge you with the responsibility to be fair to all who will be impacted by your decisions.    You should love all mankind and not want to wrong or harm or do injustice to anyone. So, the laws you make should come only after you consider on what they will do to others, on whether they will reflect a love of all those who will be impacted. Love of all mankind means love of all mankind. 
   So, what then of the immigrant? I would suggest we have an obligation to them. Whatever laws we make, those laws should be fair to them, and do them no harm nor injustice. More: When possible, the laws we make should help and care for them, for that is the measurement of love.

"It's not a matter of space; 

It's a matter of heart." 

-- Kyle Poulter

 Do we have space for all those who would come to America? Is that really why we are limiting immigration? Or, is there another reason we have pulled back on how many people we let in?

We Should ask if Our Laws are Just

  We are big on rule of law, but shouldn't we also ask if our laws our just? I think of Vicky Chavez, who with her two children is holed up in a church in Salt Lake City to avoid deportation. I wonder if a case like hers should make us wonder. A young mother who doesn't appear to be doing any harm to America by being here, why should we insist she leave? Is she a thief, a drug runner, or a terrorist? Not likely. So, why do we not want her? If we can see she is doing no harm, why do we think it so imperative to kick her out? 
   Are laws just when they take good people and make them illegal? I don't know how endangered she will be if she goes back to Honduras. If she is endangered there, of course she should be allowed to stay here in America. And, even if she isn't endangered, if we had just laws, perhaps we would be letting her stay. 
  Maybe we should cry for our nation. What have we become, that we do not allow good people (a certain set of them) to live among us? Laws that are unjust should be changed. We should be as concerned about having unjust laws as we are about the laws we have being kept.

I'm wondering 

if we ought to gift the Statue of Liberty

 to Germany

Just kidding, of course. But, you know, while we ridicule the idea of open borders, some countries actually have them, Germany perhaps being the foremost among them.

There's a Better Way to Run an Investigation

   What I suggested in yesterday's blog will quickly be lost, even in my own writings being covered over quickly by a flood of new blogs. But, oh that we could see the difference in the way we do things with they way it could be done. Oh, that we could see there is a better way to do things than what we are doing.
  The Russian investigation has taken better than a year, you say?
   And, if we were to take all the principals -- all those who know something -- they might be able to say everything they have to offer, one after another, and have everything said within a day? Well, is this not true? If they were all honest and truthful and forthright people -- people not afraid to share all that they knew -- and they each took their moment to say all that they knew, how much time would it take for them to say everything? I really cannot imagine it would take so much as, say, four days.
   Getting everyone who is involved to simply tell the truth, and the whole truth, right from the start would be a better way to run investigations. We are America. We should seek to do things the right way. Frankly, I do believe this is the right way to run an investigation.

An America that Demands an Explanation the Very Next Day

  On March 9, news broke that Susan Rice allegedly told our Intelligence Community to "stand down" on its investigation of Russia interfering in the U.S. election.
  The very next day, every principal in the story was called into a hearing to determine if the "stand down" order did take place, and, if so, why it was given.
   Now, actually such a meeting never took place. But, I wish it had. I wish we were such lovers of truth that we demanded an answer and sought to get to the bottom of things the very next day. Susan Rice dropped what she was doing and came to the meeting. The accusers dropped what they were doing and came to the meeting. Others were called in. None pleaded the Fifth. None said they would not comment. Everybody was frank and open and forthcoming. No one dodged out. No one hid from telling the truth.
   There might be times you might get to the bottom of things immediately. Just get all the principals there, have each tell everything they know, and that might complete the matter.
   I would like to think we valued truth so much as this -- that we demanded to know the truth the very next day. This would be an America I would love. It would take an honest and forthcoming type of people, but let us be that people.
   And, as I write, it occurs to me that this could be a way of handling the whole Russian investigation, itself. Maybe it could not be achieved in a day, but you could go a long ways in two or three. Call in all the principals -- everyone you could think of. Let each of them tell everything they know  -- publicly, for this would be a meeting open to the public.
   And, let Donald Trump and Barack Obama not be left out. They, too, would tell all that they knew.
   Then, if we wanted or still needed an investigation after this blitzkrieg hearing, then we would have one. But, we would start out by getting everything on the table that could immediately be put on the table.
   Truth would take the first step in our search for the truth. And, if things remained hidden from the truth, then you could seek them out.

If She does no Harm by being Here, What Just Law Kicks Her Out?

   She remains at the church, her request that her case be reopened having been denied. Vicky Chavez, with her two young daughters is sheltering from grasp of immigration officials at the First Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City.

   Border agents have made it a practice not to capture immigrants when they are in churches, and hospitals and other sensitive places. 

   I will wonder on Chavez's case. What harm would she do, if she were set free? What damage would it be, if she and her children were allowed to remain? She is hardly a thief, hardly a drug runner. If those are the elements we seek to screen out with our immigration policies, then why refuse to let this one stay? Why reject this mother and her two children?

   What means more to us -- rule of law, or whether the rules are just? Is it just to throw this mother and her two children out? Yes, rule of law is important, but it is also important to get rid of laws that are unjust. If someone is doing no harm by being here, what just law would kick them out?

When You have a Love of all Mankind, then You Serve all Mankind

  When your are elected to serve, you must be mindful of that that word 'serve' and who it applies to. Service is a trait of the Christian, and of those who don't even believe in God but who believe in doing good. Those who are service-oriented are blessed with the tendency to love not just those in their own family or in their own group, but everyone -- all mankind.
   So, who should they serve? Just those who voted for them? Just those from their own district or from their home state? No, if they love all mankind, they seek the betterment of all mankind. When service is part of your make up -- when it is in your DNA, so to speak -- then you serve all of humanity.

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations . . ." 

-- George Washington

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges...”

— George Washington

Don't Send These to Me, for I will Sweep them Right Back out the Door

You remember a couple days ago, that lady who crawled up the Statue of Liberty? What she really was trying to do, was get a better look at the poem that's posted there. Looking closely, she found what it really says is, "Don't give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. If you did that, that would be an invasion. No, and don't send the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, for they are all criminals -- criminals just for coming. And please don't send the homeless, tempest-tost to me, for they will only want my welfare and my hospital care -- and they are way too poor to pay for what they need. So, seeing all the problems they will cause, I lift my broom as they try to come in, and I sweep them right back out, for my door is golden, and the only people walking through it should be those who will keep it that way by helping make me rich."

More on Judy Olsen's Suggestion

 In order to work legally in the United States, you need to pay federal taxes. So, in order for Judy Olsen's suggestion to work, we would need to make some kind of agreement with the federal government.
  I blogged yesterday on Olsen's letter to the Deseret News, noting she suggested Utah offer I.D. cards to undocumented residents, allowing them to pay state taxes and work. I liked her idea, noting that getting them to work legally and pay taxes would be a good thing.
   But, I failed to recognize that they wouldn't be working legally unless they were paying federal taxes. Employers are required to hook them up to the federal taxes.
  So, if we want the program to work, how do we do it? Could we make an arrangement with the federal government to tax the immigrants, without having their names released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents?
  Or, could we deduct the tax and pass it onto the federal government without releasing their names to the federal government? The employer is then deducting the tax as required by law. And, the immigrant is then paying the tax as required by law. And, he is not required to file income taxes as long as he has not underpaid on the taxes.
  The better way of the two suggestions is to get the federal government to sign of on the program, but I have doubts as to whether we could get that approval.

Famous Illegal Immigrants

 "Wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of famous Americans who were once illegal," I ask on Facebook. "Are there any? I'd like to think so, but do not know."
   I search, and am surprised at who I find. The names are not just of Americans, but they are big names, including a former governor. Quora.com lists John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Charlie Chaplin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Michael J. Fox.
   Buzzfeed adds actresses Salma Hayek and Academy Award-winning Charlize Theron, and the star of The Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan, to the list.
   The Hollywood Reporter says Oscar nominee Demian Bichir overstayed his visa. He later was naturalized as part of President Reagan's amnesty. The Reporter also says The Associated Press has reported that Melanie Trump was paid for 10 jobs without having a work visa to be here. And, the Reporter says Hiep Thi Le, the star of Heaven & Earth came to the U.S. on a forged document.
   WBAL TV says world-renown brain surgeon Alfredo Quinones-Hinjosa once scaled the fence at the Mexican border to enter the United States.
  The Washington Examiner tells the story of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio, who in 2012 told the New York Times Magazine that he was illegal. He wrote a piece in Time titled, Not Legal Not Leaving. Border Patrol agents seized and detained him in 2014, but I don't know if he was deported.

  From Judy Olsen comes a letter to the editor of the Deseret News suggesting a "Utah solution" to the dilemma of what to do for those immigrants who are here undocumented.
   If they lack a Social Security number, let them register for a Utah state I.D., Olsen suggests. She says there would be two benefits. "First, people would be given temporary work privileges without the need of falsifying or stealing Social Security numbers," she writes. "Second, the state could impose taxes roughly equivalent to what the rest of us pay in federal and state taxes, only the money would stay in Utah."
   I like Olsen's idea. I like it that we should make it possible for them to work legally. I like it that we should get them to pay taxes, the same as the rest of us. No more working under the table.
   But, there is a problem. Once they are on the rolls, doesn't ICE (Immigration Customs and Enforcement) come looking for them?
   Utah already has a Driver Privilege Card that is issued to the undocumented, should they want it. That program, began in 2005, allows them to get drivers' insurance, and thus reduces the number of uninsured motorists. The program calls for them not to be identified to ICE, but there is question as to whether ICE does get enough information that it can identify them. Federal law enforcement offices do have access to who has driving privileges. Although the records don't distinguish between regular drivers and those with the Driver Privilege Cards, at least one immigration attorney, Aaron Tarin, has suggested he has seen an "undeniable statistical pattern" of ICE detaining immigrants after they renew their cards. (This, from a Sept. 1, 2017, Deseret News article.)
   But, if you already have the cards, why not expand the program to what Olsen is calling for?
   Now, this is a big deal. Giving undocumented immigrants the right to work and the ability to pay taxes in their own name probably has never been done. Utah was one of the first, if not the first, to offer the Driver Privilege Cards, so that, too, was a big deal.
   I wonder on Olsen's suggestion. I wonder on whether instead of just doing it, we should get the federal government to sign off on it. All we would need is their approval that we not turn the names over to them. We are not granting immigrants the right to stay. The federal government will still be coming after them. None of that changes. The law is still the law and immigrants are still subject to all the laws that deport them. They are not getting a free pass to stay in this country. The only difference is that while they are here, they are paying taxes and not working under the table.
   Those are things that everyone should want.

America is not just a country, but an ideal

I believe in the American flag
I believe in a flag that waves not just for its own, but for all the world
I believe in the stars and stripes
I believe in stars that shine over all the world, not just America
And in stripes representing valor and purity
Valor is not courage if it hides from helping others
And purity is not pure if it thinks only of its own
Bless America, for it is not just a country, but an ideal
Not just a nation, but the nation that sets the standard for what nations should be

America is an Ideal, and Ideals Must be Shared

   I see a picture of what could easily represent a globe-shaped light, wrapped in an American flag motif, with the stars covering the northern hemisphere, and the stripes covering the southern. 
   And, I think how so it is with America. Our flag is not limited to our country, but stands as a beacon to all the world. If it waves, it waves not just to its own, but to those around the globe. If it lights, it lights not only this land, but all the world. 
   Forgive, but I believe not so much in an America First, but rather in an America for Everyone; not in an America that is selfish, but in an America that shares. America is the land of ideals, and, those ideals are bigger than the nation itself. It could be said that, inherent to having ideals is the sharing of them. So, I believe in an America that shares, and in an America that cares, and an America that dares to help the oppressed, instead of an America that fears if it helps others, it will destroy and ruin the nation. I believe in helping the oppressed from other countries, even if it means opening our borders to the portion of them who are truly in need. Now, you can hardly open your arms to love them without opening your borders to let them in. Letting them in is the way of loving them. Forgive me for being so political with you on this Fourth of July, and forgive me if you do not agree, but this is what America is to me. It is freedom and justice for all -- for all the world. America is an ideal, and the ideal must be shared, for in order to live your ideals, you must share them.

Freedom does not give itself borders

   "I will give my freedom as far as the Swanee River, but I refuse to help those who come from beyond," Freedom never said.
 

When You Enter an Entity, You become Subject to its Laws

   When the immigrant enters the U.S., he becomes subject to U.S. law. And, we start reminding him how important Rule of Law is.
   But, how important is international law? Do we feel we, as a country, should abide international law on providing asylum to immigrants?
   When the U.S. entered membership in the U.N., it became subject to international law. Just as we should expect the immigrant to abide the laws of the country he enters, so we should expect us, as a country, to abide the laws of the organization we enter.
   If we believe in Rule of Law, let us believe in it in both cases.

If freedom means the right to move from one place to another freely, if it includes the right to choose where one will live, then what of the immigrant? Is he to be outlawed when he reaches a border?

Heroes like those in 'Chariots of Fire'

   Highlight from church today? They played a little bit of Chariots of Fire, in which Scottish runner Eric Liddell refuses to run in the Olympics on a Sunday, when his 100-meter race is scheduled. A teammate offers to let him run in his spot on another day, but it is in the 400-meters. Now, 100-meter sprinters do not translate well as 400-meter runners, as that takes an endurance they are not familiar with. But, the same, Liddell wins.

   I never saw Chariots of Fire, but I read how it is also about Harold Abrahams, a Jewish Englishman who runs to overcome prejudice.

   Now, here's my thought: Wouldn't it be neat if such figures as Liddell and Abrahams were heroes of ours? What if schools had a course on heroes such as these? I will tell you I cannot name too many heroes along this line, but wish I could. Joan of Arc comes to mind.