In Hate-Crimes Legislation, Let Us Legislate against all Forms of Hatred

 We could use a better hate-crimes bill. But, as we come up with a new one, let us make it more inclusive. What are we to say, Hate is only hate when it targets a group? Only if it sets after Jews, or LGBT or immigrants is hatred a harm?

  If we are to enhance penalties against hate crimes, let us include all crimes of hate.  Hate is hate, and harms as much whether it targets a group or just a person. If we find in the person's history a record of hatred against any group of people -- Jews, LGBT, immigrants or anyone -- let us prosecute it as a hate crime. But, let us not leave out hatred that is not specific of a group. If we find a note saying, "I hate you, Josh Washington," let us prosecute that, as well, as a hate crime, even though Josh fails to be in a protected group. 

  

If We Believe in Rule of Law, We Believe These Migrants Come Legally

 To read the law is to know they come legally, these migrants.

  "Any alien who . . . arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum."

  If it says, "irrespective of such alien's status," what does that mean? It tells us they do not to be approved in advance; They do not need to be carrying paperwork. 

  The law spells it out. They are coming legally. The question then becomes, Is it we who do not believe in rule of law?

Racism Comes in Various Shades

   Racism comes in many shades. To suppose there are not people who do not want to vote for a black person, but do not want that reason to be known, is to suppose that that shade of racism doesn't exist.

   It is to suggest that no one would ever not vote for a black person while trying to cover up that racism is the reason.

   I tried to get the above thought printed in the online comments to a news story. Unfortunately, the comment was put on hold. Was it rejected because of a rule against name-calling? Racists do exist, and to suggest I'm calling someone names by saying racists do exist is to suggest that such a thought should never be verbalized or expressed, with the pretext being that it is uncivil to say such a thing. Or, was it that my comment was considered too speculative? To begin with, most comments are speculative. What opinion isn't? And, secondly, no, it is not overly speculative. Are we to say it is impossible for such a person to exist -- a person that would not vote for a black person and then try to hide or cover up that that is reason? Or course this is going to happen. Whether it is rare might be the question, but that it will happen is not.

   It is said, that to repent of a wrong, you must first recognize it is wrong. If we do not, as a society, allow ourselves to acknowledge the racism I refer to, what hope have we of repenting of it?

  Too often, we push off discussions such of this by saying, "Don't play the race card." Yes, the "race card" might be played too often, but this is not one of those moments. The shade of racism I speak of is is real. Or, do we deny that such a person as I speak of even exists? Or, do we say that while such a person does exist, their existence should not be discussed as that would be offensive to someone?

   Push off the matter if you will, but this is a matter that should be discussed.

It Might Make for Healthy Debate, but not for a Healthy America

   Record turnouts in the midterm elections? And, we see the divisiveness in the electorate as cause? We are angry with each other, this America. Some hate Trump and some hate Hillary, but we all hate each other.
   It might make for healthy debate, but it doesn't make for a healthy America.
   It might deliver a high voter turnout, but the cost of hating each other will exact a greater cost than it is worth. If you arrive at a high level of democracy by traveling the road of hatred, you are on the wrong road, regardless where it takes you.

What 'Their not Sending Their Best' has Wrought

   A record 14,000 migrant children are being held in detention centers. Why so many? Because we do not want catch-and-release;  We do not want immigrants to be released while they await hearings, because we fear they might escape and not return for those hearings. So, to spare ourselves their escape, we detain them. And, is there another reason so many migrant children are being held in detention centers? Yes; We do not believe in chain migration, which is the practice of letting migrants join extended family members. So, hoping to reject and deport them, we detain them, rather than letting them reunite with their families.
   Think back on the words of then-candidate Donald Trump when he was just announcing his candidacy. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."
   What has come out of those words? With the election of Trump, came exerted efforts to cut back on immigration, not the least of which were trying to end catch-and-release and chain migration.
    And, what is the end result, or one of them? No less than 14,000 children being institutionalized in detention centers. No less than 14,000 children being separated from the natural and nurturing bonds of their families. Consider on these children. And, consider on those words, now years old, from candidate Trump. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing  those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
    And, this is where we're at: Thousands of children are being separated from the natural and nurturing bonds of family in the name of policies we fear have been allowing criminals into our country.
    Who, in the end, has it ended up we are afraid of? The children?
    And, what have we done with them, these children? Sent them to what amounts to a soft jail? For their quarters are closely guarded and they are not allowed out.
     I think we should reflect anew on who we are considering our criminals, on who we are jailing. We started off wanting to keep out the rapists and others who cause problems. But, did we quite visualize who we would end up punishing?

If the gun is your friend, 

you will need to find 

an enemy to use it.

Has Trump Continued to Separate Children from Their Parents?

   Is the family separation policy alive and well -- you, know, the one that got President Trump is such trouble months ago? Is the Trump Administration persisting, anyway? Did it say it would stop, but hasn't?
  No less than about 2,300 teens are being held at a closely guarded site in Tornillo, Texas. And, read this from The Associated Press story, "federal immigration policies have resulted in the detention of a record 14,000 migrant children, filling shelter beds around the country to capacity."
   I read the story hurriedly this afternoon, and it was not until just now, when I came back to capture the above quote, that I noticed the next sentence. "Almost all the teens at Tornillo came on their own hoping to join family members in the United States."
   No, this might not be the separating of children from their parents as they both arrive at the border. Still, it is a separation, and one wonders about the worthiness of it. Is separating children from their parents and/or family ever a good thing?
   We should go back to the judge's ruling, and read it, and see if it applies.