If We Confuse Fighting Immigration with Fighting Crime, We are Fools

We should be sending our law enforcement agents right down into Mexico.

I do not need to tell you how serious a problem drugs pouring across our border is. Within the last decade, the Department of Justice suggested the Mexican drug cartels -- not the mafia and not the Cripps and Bloods -- are our foremost organized crime problem. We were told the cartels are stationed in, I believe, 250 of our cities.

We should go right down into Mexico to fight the crime crossing our southern border. How do you fight crime, if you do not go where the criminals are and arrest them and bring them back? Yes, this will require an agreement with Mexico, allowing our investigators and officers to go down there to enforce U.S. laws.


I don't know how many countries have ever had agreements with other countries allowing for such an arrangement. But, if this if this is what circumstances demand -- and it is-- then we should do it. Would Mexico oppose our bringing officers in? It would seem they should welcome it. They have been fighting this problem for decades without winning. Surely having a partner to help them would be something they would embrace.

And, we need laws -- new laws -- specifically addressing the crimes being committed. We have laws against cultivating drugs, but do we have one saying if you raise drugs in a foreign land to send to the U.S., it is a crime? Do we have a law saying if you raise a drug that even potentially could be sold in the U.S., we will come after you? Do we have a law that says if you -- even though you are outside our borders -- direct or coordinate the flow of drugs into the U.S., you are guilty of a U.S. offense? Do we have a law making it a crime to recruit someone to bring drugs across our border? If we did, the immigrant -- who is sometimes forced to become a human pack mule at point of his life -- could finger the drug runners once they crossed into the U.S.

And, our border patrol: It is not much more than a paperwork police. It does nothing but chase people who don't have paperwork. That is not a lot of serious police work getting done, when you weigh it against the severity of chasing those who are importing drugs. 

So, get the agreement with Mexico, allowing our border agents to go right down into that country, empowering them to fight crime, not just people lacking their paperwork.

If we don't know the difference between crime and immigration, we are never going to solve either problem. We will never solve the crime question if we do no more than slapping immigration answers on it. If we just fight immigration, when crime is the real problem, ours will remain a foolhardy effort. 

How come we have such a crime problem from Mexico? It could be because we are so busy fighting immigration, thinking that will do the trick, that we lose sight of the fact that we aren't doing much to fight the crime.

The Mother Who got Away

   Here is the story of Silvia Avelar-Flores. She was buying one of her daughters things for her birthday party when immigration officials apprehended her, and hauled her off for deportation. But, when the judge heard the case, he granted her 90 more days in America.

   She got away. And, it wasn't the first time. She had been in America about 24 years. She came on a six-month visa as a 7-year old and is still here as a 31-year old. There's a trail in there of times she got away, of times the system thought about deporting her, but didn't. She got away and got away and got away.

   And, should have. 

   How do you deport a mother? How do you deport someone who, if they broke the law, broke it was as a 7-year old? This is a country of rules, you know, and the rules say you are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where in being deported are you allowed liberty? Where in it are you allowed to pursue the happiness of living in America? This is a country of freedom -- or, at least, it is suppose to be. Where in being deported are you being given your freedom?

   This is a country of laws. And, the laws suggest that if you are age 7, the parent might be convicted, but not the child. If they went into a candy store together and the parents pulled some licorice out of the candy jar and placed it in the hands of the 7-year old and they walked out together, who would you convict, all of them, or just the parents?

   Set her free.

   You might say this is not a criminal case in that manner. It is just a question of whether she is lawful to remain. She is not being convicted of a crime, only deported because she simply doesn't have the right to be here. You might say it is like the parents taking their child with them as they trespassed. Only the parents would be guilty of any trespassing charges, but all of them would be removed from the property -- child included.

   I say there is a difference. You can be removed from a no-trespass site without it adversely affecting your life. You cannot be removed from the land you grew up in and sent to a foreign land you fear without it depriving you of freedom, of friends, and of most all you hold dear. While comparing it to being removed from a no-trespass area might seem in order, it is more in order to compare it to being removed from your own home.

   For literally, that is what is happening.

What Benefits Zion National Park should Benefit Bears Ears

   It strikes me as odd that the same state leaders who oppose the designation of Bear Ears as a national monument shout praises to the five national parks in Utah. They speak of the economic benefits of the five parks, but when it comes to new monuments (a status that could lead to those areas becoming national parks), they suddenly only see bad economic consequences.
   I don't know. I rather wonder if, instead of opposing the Bear Ears National Monument and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, we ought not embrace them, and start pitching them as national tourist attractions. I would imagine if the areas are to be properly protected, tourism should not be encouraged in all places, but in those spots that do warrant tourism, bring it.
   It seems the same type of economic benefit that comes from Zion having national park status should be available to Bears Ears with it having national monument status.
 

Bear Ears: Speaking of Ears, He Who has Your Ear has Your Heart

   As you read this, if you read it on Wednesday, it will be on the day the Bear Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition will hold a press conference on President Trump's executive order relating to the Bears Ears National Monument.
   I don't know specifically what the coalition will say, but I think they might could say something about how Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke should meet with them. The Native American tribes have been asking Zinke to meet with them since January. Surely, their views and feelings deserve at least an audience, at least a sit-down meeting with the secretary.
   Nor, do I believe Zinke has met with other proponents of monument status for Bears Ears. Has he set down with any nature groups? Meanwhile, we hear of him meeting and listening to most everyone who opposes the monument designation. I have thought well of Zinke, but his uneven treatment of those with interests in the monument designation is unsettling.
   I have a couple of sayings:
   We always trust the face before our face,
   and
   He who has your ear has your heart.
   If Zinke would to come to even-handed conclusions, he should be even-handed in who he listens to.

Humor Should not give License to Demeaning Others

  The problem with humor is that it gives license to personal attacks. If you are just being funny, just joking around, just having a little fun, suddenly it becomes okay to go to the gutter and tear apart another person.
   You don't have to be correct. You don't have to be honest or truthful. After all, you're just joking, just having a little fun. Jokes aren't meant to be truthful, just funny.
  Trouble is, they end up being hurtful, just the same. Humor gives license to hurtful. Bullying and harassment aren't normally considered good behavior, but if you fashion bullying and harassment into humor, many will say you are justified.
  I think of Steven Colbert's rant against Donald Trump the other night. In the name of humor, he was about as derogatory as you can be against a president of the United States. (Oh, yes, others have surely been as derogatory towards the office, but you can only go so low, and at that point others can only join you as low-talking champs.)
  No person should be subject to the treatment Colbert offered -- certainly not the president of the United States.

The stature of a man 

comes not from the stage he stands upon,
 but from how tall he stands 

on the stage he is given.

Christians being Killed Might be fulfillment of Prophecy

   I get excited when I see what seems to be fulfillment of prophecy.
   Pick up John 16:2 and see what you see in it that fits our day. "(T)he time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."
   Well, there are Christians in this day of ours who are being killed by those who think they do God a service by killing them. I think well of Muslims and realize most of them do not think it right to kill Christians.
   But, some do.
   And, we don't need to read the news very long before we run into it.
  That could be just one way the prophecy is being fulfilled. I don't know for certain it is what Christ was referring to , but it sure seems to fit.
   Other ways the prophecy is being fulfilled? I don't know, would the murder of Joseph Smith count? Did those who killed him feel they were doing the right thing by God -- doing God a service? I don't know, but it seems they might have.
   I look down at the footnotes for John 16:2. They suggest the word "killeth" is referring to persecutions. So, the day will come that they who persecute you think that they do God service. That broadens things, considerably.