Obstructionist Government isn't Good Government

  If a government entity were asked to process marriage applications, and 1,000 came in, and it only processed 100, that wouldn't be considered good government. If a government entity didn't fulfill its mandated job, wouldn't that be dereliction of duty?
  So, why is it okay with us that the San Ysidro Port of Entry is processing only 100 applicants a day? Neither is this good government. If as many as many as 10,000 might show, shouldn't efforts be made to process their applications in a timely manner?
   Don't you want good government? Isn't that the goal? Or, do you argue for a government that stands in the way of its own job?
  In an unprecedented move, thousands of soldiers called to the border. And yet not many -- if any --  additional workers to process the applications. Is this justice? Well, is it just to be denied due process of law? Is it even constitutional?
   This goes beyond whether you are going to accept or deny their applications. This is a question of whether you will give these migrants their day in court. Argue, if you will, that many court cases take six months before they come to trial. I will argue that in this case, you are putting them off a purpose -- without just cause.
   I read how 70,000 vehicles come through the gates each day at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Seventy-thousand! Plus, another 20,000 people walk through the pedestrian entry each day.
   That's got to be more than 100,000 people a day! You cannot tell me the San Ysidro Port of Entry and the two other port of entries in the San Diego area cannot be retrofitted to process more refugee cases.
   If government has a job, and it doesn't do it, that isn't good government. And, if government stands in the way of justice, why is that not to be considered obstruction of justice?
 

If the Fence Lacks Legal Standing, You should be Allowed to Jump it

   You are not entering America illegally if you enter it the way law specifies. If law says you go to the port of entry, and present yourself for asylum, then why would that not be considered legal entry? The law specifies it.
   And, if there's a fence between you and the port of entry? Should you crawl over it? Would that be legal?
   Do not confuse this with entering on someone's private property. You are not. This is federal land. And, federal land comes with designated uses. If the land in question is designated, in part, for entry of asylum seekers, you are using the land only for the designated purpose.
   So, again, what about a fence, should you want to crawl over it? If you damage that fence, there could be charges for damaging federal property. But, just crawling over it? If there is nothing illegal about entering that port of entry, crawling over a fence that lacks legal standing to stop you, then, is not illegal.
  I would guess our federal troops have strung barbed wire, or such, across the top of the fence, making it difficult or impossible to crawl across it. What then? If they can't jump the fence, then what of just walking through the pedestrian lanes at the port of entry? The migrants considered such a surge today, and the San Ysidro Port of Entry closed for a few hours.

Of Starfish and Jellyfish and of Their Washing up on Our Shore

   I think of the old story of the person walking along a beach, picking up starfish and tossing them back in, and someone comes along and says, "You can't save them all. Why do you even try?" Today, the story line has changed. The person is walking along the beach, picking up starfish and examining them to see if they are starfish worth saving. If they are veteran starfish, or firefighter starfish, he saves them. But, if they are immigrant starfish, he looks at them and asks what they are doing on his beach, and by what right they rode the waves that got them there. These waters near the shore are his, he reminds them, and they should not be swimming in them if they do not belong. Then, he stoops down to pick up another one -- and is stung as soon as his fingers touch it., "No, you are not a starfish at all," he says. "You are a jellyfish," And, with that, he concludes to pick up no more starfish for fear of being stung by another jellyfish. 
   So, what it boils down to is this: Are we judging fairly? Are the thousands of caravan migrants no more than starfish? Is it not enough just to refuse the jellyfish? Or, must we refuse all the starfish, as well?
  

I see a meme on Facebook from David N Smeltz, but shared by one of my own Facebook friends, that says:
It is not right when an elderly person on SS has to pay out there whole check on medication. Immigrants get it free!
And, I reply:
I thought back to the quote you offered from Abraham Lincoln as I read this, and of how if our nation is to fall, it must fall from within. I commented then that I was reflecting on possible ways this might be happening. What if the enemy knew they didn't need to ever fire a shot, that they could divide us from within? Gary, our Intelligence Community has told us the Russians are seeking to divide us, that they are using social media to divide us. This is not a conspiracy theory (unless you suppose the FBI and CIA belief in conspiracy theories), it is fact. So, if we know the Russians are seeking to spread hatred and division on Facebook, shouldn't we look at what we are seeing and look for posts that are divisive and at least wonder? Most of them might not be from the Russians (this one appears to have been generated by a regular person, but it does imitate the theme of a lot of others). I'm just saying, if we know the Russians are fomenting hatred and division and we know they are using Facebook, which of all the posts we seeing even qualify as candidates? Ones like this one do.

If You do it the Way the Law Says, how are You Breaking the Law?

   The thought is, if the caravan migrants crawl over the fence, instead of through an open gate, they are coming illegally.
   Are they? Is this true?
   I think on how national and international law says one of the ways of applying for asylum is to present yourself upon entry, and to ask for that asylum at that time.
   If the process says that is the way you do it, how is it illegal? If the law says do it this way, and you do it that way, how are you breaking the law?
  Perhaps I need to find the actual text for the national and international laws. Perhaps that would clear it up for me. Maybe the laws specify or indicate you cannot crawl over a wall or a fence or a gate.

The Tale of the Man on Tossing Starfish back into the Sea has Changed

I see the following post on Facebook, from a Sybele Capezzuti:

California doesn't have enough shelters for evacuees fleeing wild fires, but their arms are opened to migrants 

And, I post my reply:
Another meme sowing seeds of division, pitting one needy people against another and suggesting we can only help one. I think of the story of the man walking on the beach, picking up starfish as he goes and tossing them back into the sea. Another man comes along and criticizes him, saying, "You can't save them all." These days, the story line has changed a little. These days, the man walks along the beach, picking up the starfish, and examines them before deciding whether to toss them back in the sea. "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" he asks. "Does your cause even have anything to do with helping those who we Republicans care about, because I've only got time and money for them."

I would like to say the Democrats are the same way, but I don't see that. They seem willing to help everybody.

If We Believe in Rule of Law, We Let Them in for Political Persecution

  Consider on the five categories of people, one of which you must belong to in order to qualify for asylum. One of them leaves the door wide open for many people to qualify under.
  Race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, and social group.
  If a government intimidates its people in any way to vote for it, that constitutes persecution based on political belief. If a government forces its people to support it -- in any way persecuting them -- it is those people's right to take asylum in another country. If a political group or rebel group is killing people in order to gain a political advantage, the whole general population of that nation is being persecuted based on political beliefs. Death is persecution; It works that way. The threat of death and the fear of death is persecution. 
  You might call this a loophole in the law, but it is only a loophole if you think it is not good reason for letting them come. If you think it is good reason, it is not a loophole. Either way, it is the law, and living by the law is living by the law. If the law gives you a right, then it is rule of law that must be kept, not whether you do not think the law is not just because of your personal beliefs. It is the law, itself, allowing them to come, not a loophole allowing them to circumvent that law.
  If we believe in rule of law, we let them come. Circumventing the law and trying to get around it is when you do not let them come. Believing in rule of law is believing in rule of law. If you believe in it, you let them come.