Compromise? Use the Shutdown to Provide Leverage for Justice

  If we would end the government shutdown, offer this compromise:
  Give President Trump his $5.7 billion for a fence. In exchange, make him promise to give justice to the migrants. He must promise to provide all the immigration judges necessary to process the refugees applications. No more holding it to 60 applications a day at a border entry where 100,000 other people are processed across on a daily basis.
   Justice deferred is justice denied, it is said. If President Trump sees it as a crisis that people are coming across the border without permission, then direct him to the thought that it is also a crisis when our country cannot provide timely court cases as are called for in our Constitution.
   If he wants his $5.7 billion, and since asking for justice is not a thing you should  reject, anyway, he will have to agree to grant the migrants their right to have their cases processed in due fashion. If he is honest in wanting to allow legal migration, he will agree to this compromise. And if, per chance, the truth is he is designing to subvert their ability to come by limiting how many of them are processed, he will not be able to publicly admit it. He cannot reject a compromise such as this and save face.
  So, pledge him to man the ports of entry with all the officers and judges necessary to process the applications as quickly as they can be processed.
  No more having the initial hearing being only an excuse to schedule a hearing six months down the road. If you do not like it that the immigrants leave the hearing and disappear into society, don't think you have to wait the hearing for six months. Instead of avoiding their disappearing into the communities by placing them in detention centers, simply process their applications right then. Have the court's decision at the earliest possible juncture. Justice and fair play demand no less.
  And, place in this compromise a commitment to accept all refugees who qualify. If they are being persecuted in their home countries due to belonging to a social group not in favor with government or crime or societal elements there, grant them entry into our land. That is what our law calls for, and we believe in rule of law. 
   This government shutdown impasse should be used as leverage to provide that which we should be providing, anyway: justice for the immigrant.

We look 
into the eyes of beggars 
and see the faces 
of terrorists.

  
  Sometimes, I think we've gone a little bit crazy, as a nation. Insanity is when you see monsters lurking in the shadows. Truly for give me for the thought, but is that not what we are doing? The poor and afflicted flee to America, and we see only monsters crossing the border.
   Beggars come calling, and we see an invasion of 'aliens' -- our own word -- and consider calling a national state of emergency.

Solving the Problem is More Important than Saving Face

  When it comes to what to do at the border, do we make a wise decision or do we seek to protect our image?
   My thought is, the drugs are for the most part not coming with those sneaking across the border. No, they are pouring thru the main gate, hidden on the vehicles of those coming legally through our ports of entry.
   So, if the idea is to not worry about our image, but to do the right thing, then what do we do? Do we build the wall just to save face? Do we build it just because we said we would even though we can see it isn't the wisest way to solve the problem?
   Or, do we do what Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are suggesting and spend the money on high-tech devices? I do not know what exactly they have in mind when they suggest high-tech stuff.  Surely, at least part of that is high-tech stuff to stop the undocumented from sneaking across. But, I can see that high-tech devices to detect the drugs from coming through the ports of entry would be a wise course of action. Couple that with more drug-sniffing dogs.
   If the major part of the problem is at the ports of entry with the vehicles entering legally, then spend the money where the money is wisest spent.

Doesn't this Mean 'Illegal Aliens' have the Right to not be Deported?

  Does an old Supreme Court Case from back in 1982 give those we call "illegal aliens" the right to remain in the United States? 

  Plyler vs. Doe was about education rights for the undocumented, and it has only been applied to K-12 schooling.

  But, if the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution extends to children the right to go to school, why does it stop there? There is nothing in that clause that specifies it is speaking only of K-12 education. There isn't anything in it saying, "We're only talking education here." If it applies to education, then it gives "illegal aliens" all other protections, as well. 

   Says the syllabus to Plyler vs. Doe:

   "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term."

   Yes, he (or she) is. So, if the highest court in the land says this, why don't we see that -- like it or not, agree that it should be so or not -- the Constitution gives "illegal aliens" all the protections it gives to citizens.

   All of them.

   One can only wonder why that doesn't include protection against being deported. 

Life screams, and death answers

Goodness can Guide Us to Truth

  Goodness seeks the truth. And, in pursuing it, it is slow to use the weapons of anger and belittlement. But, it is fast to use that which is not a weapon but rather is the strongest force of all -- love.
  Goodness seeks the truth. It does not run from it. It does not hide from it. It does not say, "I will not discuss this with you any further." When there are disagreements, it welcomes discussion. But, it does not conduct its side with hate. It does not make false accusations, such as, "You are of the devil." Nor is it quick to fear-mongering, pronouncing false warnings. Yes, it may warn of dangers, but it weighs their truth before speaking of them.
  Goodness does not only seek the truth, it is aligned with it. Which comes first might be hard to say, but one leads to the other.
  Goodness does not only seek the truth, it brings it. Once it has found it, it shares it. And, it uses reasoning for its persuasion. It says, "Let's hear both sides and reason together, and then make our decision."
  And, when the other side says something Goodness has not considered, it considers it.
  I have suggested that before it uses a weapon, it will use a loving word. But, there are times it must use anger. When justice is at sake, Goodness must judge when it is time to endure, and when it is time to insist on justice.
   Goodness protects others; it is not all about itself. In dispensing truth, it dispenses not only those truths that favor itself, but those which protect others. And, Goodness seeks out those in need of help, so it seeks the knowledge that will help their cause. If someone speaks ill of others -- especially when it is wrongly -- Goodness might be quick to their defense. 
   Goodness seeks not division, but unity. It does not seek to divide, by suggesting one group should be favored above another.
   If we would learn what the truths are in this society of which we are part -- if we would know where to stand on the issues of our time -- we must know what Goodness is, for it will guide us those truths.

If You don't have Truth on Your Side, just Kill the Messenger

   You can enter a discussion with them, or you can yell at them, calling them liars, and tell no one to even listen to them.
   Which is President Trump doing in his fight with the media?
   If they aren't telling the truth, and you know it, you can counter it. In such a situation, you itch to tell your side of the story. You want a public debate. You want to expose what they are saying as false.
   Bring it on. I'm not afraid.
   But, if you fear what they say, if you know what they say has truth in it, you are better off if you shut them down. And, if you can't shut them down, at least call on people to not listen to them. Try to get it to where people won't even consider what they say.
   If don't have a good defense against the message, kill them messenger. Shout it loud enough, and people will listen. Tell them, you can't trust the media. Kill the messenger.
   You can't trust the media. You can't trust the media. Don't, don't listen to them.