Sanctuary cities: are they sanctuaries, or are they not?

September 20, 2022

The Democrats have long been supportive of illegal immigration into the United States. This is purportedly done to help those in other countries who are fleeing poverty, violence and oppression. To help that process, some cities and other communities became “sanctuary” communities

The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service describes this phenomenon: “The phrase sanctuary city is not a legal term, but one developed over time and more recently reflecting a response to ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) policies and actions. In general, a sanctuary city is a community with a policy, written or unwritten, that discourages local law enforcement from reporting the immigration status of individuals unless it involves investigation of a serious crime. These sanctuary communities go beyond cities, though. One can find entire counties and states declaring sanctuary status.”

Today, more than 10 states and 180 cities have become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.

Of course, the U.S. has an immigration system to deal with people who want to become U.S. citizens. There is a process that focuses on admitting individuals into the country who are coming here for the right reasons, and that attempts to prevent criminals and other undesirable types from being admitted to the process of gaining U.S. citizenship.

In general, the system prefers family members of U.S. citizens or Legal Permanent Residents. Hopefuls must pass English and U.S. history and civics exams, with certain exceptions, and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

Why, then, does the country need sanctuary communities that admit anyone who is in the country, whether they are legal immigrants, or illegal aliens?

The Biden administration has all but posted signs at the southern border saying, “C’mon in! It’s wonderful here! You can check in with the Border Patrol, or not, as you choose.”

Our sanctuary cities and states, by their very definition, are ready and willing to accept and care for immigrants, legal and illegal. Among those are New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Denver, and Alexandria, Virginia.

However, when people come in illegally, they don’t enter a sanctuary city or state, they enter Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or California. Only the latter is a sanctuary state. Most of the illegals, by far, come into Texas, which has the longest and southern-most border of the four border states.

“A new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveals that 4.9 million migrants — including 900,000-plus ‘got-aways’ who eluded apprehension from border officials — have unlawfully crossed the United States-Mexico border since President Biden entered the White House (January 2021),” as reported by Newsmax.

However, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is supposed to be in charge of border issues, still insists that “the border is secure.”

On September 15, internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents showed that roughly 8,000 encounters with illegal immigrants

are taking place each day. That is the highest daily number in U.S. history. And it does not count the “got-aways” who evade Border Patrol agents.

Even the ones who report to Border Patrol are usually released into the country. And the Biden administration flew many plane-loads of illegals to places around the country in the dark of night, and released them.

After several months of being overwhelmed with thousands of illegals each day coming into his state, Texas Governor Greg Abbott began busing them to sanctuary cities of New York and Chicago, which voluntarily became sanctuary cities, and more recently to Washington, D.C.

Given the extraordinary number of people illegally entering the border states, especially Texas, and the failure of the Biden administration to do its job to prevent this invasion, who can blame the governor for sending these illegals to the sanctuary cities that have advertised how important it is to accept them, and therefore should be prepared for them? 

And when you consider that after tens of thousands of illegals cross the border each month, and only hundreds are sent to sanctuary cities, why are Mayor Eric Adams of New York and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot whining and crying their eyes out over the relatively few that have arrived in their sanctuary? Can you say “hypocrisy?” 

While the raw number of illegal aliens entering the country is important, and the primary focus of many, exactly who these people are, and what they are doing is far more of a problem.

While many of these people are good people only wanting a better life, others are involved in child smuggling, sex trafficking, and drug smuggling, including the deadly influx of fentanyl that is killing Americans almost daily.

Shouldn’t those in the government who have contributed to these deaths by their malfeasance in ignoring laws and common sense be held accountable?

Last Saturday, the mothers of children and others killed by these drugs protested on the National Mall. They displayed large banners that featured the faces of nearly 3,500 people killed by fentanyl. “Many were young, even teenagers. Some wore their high school jerseys or graduation caps,” said a story in The Washington Post.

Trying to make Democrats confront the impact of their failed, dangerous, and inhumane border policies is critical. If shipping illegals to sanctuaries causes the administration to finally do something about the illegal entry, then hurrah!

Free speech: “Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”

September 13, 2022

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The rights guaranteed in the Amendment were selected first among the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights because of their importance to the well-being of the new nation. And free speech was the second of those freedoms to be listed.

John Milton, English poet and intellectual of the 1600s, understood the importance of the concept of free speech to individual and national freedom. He wrote, “Let truth and falsehood grapple … in a free and open encounter.” 

Under Milton’s sensible vision the American people must get information from a variety of sources to help them understand issues and craft informed opinions. This includes both speech that is liked and accepted by some individuals and groups, and speech which is not liked or accepted by some individuals and groups.

This idea is one of the most important in the founding of the United States of America, and one which has played a critical role in its success among the nations of the world throughout its history.

The rub comes when some people dislike certain points of view, and will not tolerate their existence in free discussion. Milton’s point, however, is that all points of view must be available for those interested in knowing them. 

In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis provided this advice: "The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that “inflammatory speech -- and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan -- is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech ‘is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’"

Only the most severe and dangerous ideas should be overruled, which means not merely ideas that are disagreed with or that anger some people, but those which actually try to incite violence or endanger people. 

Yet many Americans work hard to thwart free speech. Worst of all is if and when the government tries to stifle dissent or controversial language, or participates with non-governmental entities to oppose some speech. 

On social media platforms, claiming posts and comments are “misinformation” or “disinformation,” these targeted offerings are deleted, and the writer often blocked from further participation. 

Author Salman Rushdie offered this opinion: “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” Rushdie was recently the victim of a vicious attack by an armed man, who may have been prompted by Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses,” and wanted vengeance for a message with which he disagreed.

In the campaign for the 2020 election, some posts and comments were labeled as false by these platforms, and removed. After the election, however, some turned out to be correct. But because ideas that should have been freely available were censored, participants were denied knowing this pertinent information.

Imagine a world where only some information is allowed. Who gets to decide what is and is not allowed for anyone to see? Who has that power? Who has that right?

Some prefer to advance their narrow ideas without the troublesome problem of having to prove those ideas are the best through open and free debate. After all, who does not understand that with only one idea being offered, it will be accepted by many people who might not have accepted it had contrary ideas been available to consider.

In addition to social media platforms, other places where different ideas should be open to discussion, such as opinion sections of the news media and schools, must be bastions of the free exchange of ideas.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently released the results from its 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings survey. This survey questioned 44,847 college students currently enrolled in four-year degree programs at 208 colleges and universities in the United States about their institution’s degree of speech freedom.

The highest score on a 100-point scale was 77.92, ranking it in the “Good” level of speech freedom. Depending upon which grading scale you apply to 77.92, it is only a C-plus, at best.

Five other institutions also were rated “Good.” Sixteen institutions were rated “Poor,” two were rated “Very Poor,” and one was rated “Abysmal,” with a numerical score of 9.91. Only 76 of the 208 institutions in this survey scored above 50.0, only 27 scored above 60.0, and just 6 scored above 70.00.

This is far below the level of free speech and open debate of ideas that should be occurring in institutions of higher education in the United States. 

An objective view of the free speech environment will clearly show many efforts to discourage and even ban ideas that some people or some groups do not like.

This is not healthy for our country, and it clearly violates the intent of the First Amendment.

We desperately need leaders that can think beyond stage one

September 6, 2022

Nearly 20 years ago the brilliant Thomas Sowell — author, economist, political commentator, and social theorist — released a book titled, “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.” This applies to the immediate reaction to some idea to improve a situation, leading to action being taken without first asking, “and then, what will happen?” And then asking that question after each proposed next step.

Sowell gives an example: A state government decides it will help the state to raise taxes on businesses. The immediate result is more revenue for the state. And that is good, the government says. However, over the course of time, those affected businesses might move bits and pieces of their companies to another state, or new businesses may choose another state to place a new factory or operation. 

Over the course of time, the state will lose revenue because businesses will go to other states to avoid the higher taxes.

Had the state government indulged in thinking about what might happen after it raised taxes on business, they might have been able to foresee these very negative consequences. Higher taxes discourage business, therefore while in the short-term revenues will be larger, in the longer term, companies will see that doing business in the state will be more difficult, and some, maybe many, will leave. The state then suffers a loss of tax income, and lost jobs.

Finding examples of how this has worked is not difficult. Such examples are often the result of decisions made on emotion, because they seem to be great ideas to achieve desirable ends, and they feel good. The reality is usually very different.

Here is one example. The question being asked is, “How can we stop the mistreatment of civilians by police?” Well, if police departments have less money to operate on, they will have to do things differently, and the changes will benefit the public, as fewer officers will make fewer horrible mistakes against the public.

We can use social workers to respond to some calls, instead of armed officers. We can tell officers not to arrest people for minor crimes, lessening the number of police/public interactions, and lowering the number of people in jails and those having court proceedings.

Today, we see quite plainly how these efforts have failed. This solution has resulted in police officers quitting and retiring in large numbers. Finding new recruits is difficult, as potential recruits see what has happened, and want no part of a situation that makes them targets. 

Prosecutors do not prosecute all crimes anymore, and many persons charged with a crime are released without even paying a bond. These people are not discouraged or prevented from committing more crimes. Meanwhile, crime is doing well, rising to historic highs in some states and cities.

Another example is that the climate activists tell us that we have got to stop burning fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. One thing we can do, they say, is to stop or substantially slow the production of coal, oil and natural gas in the United States. President Joe Biden, not the sharpest tool in the shed, did this on his first days in office. 

The result was that America’s recently regained position as energy independent and a net exporter of energy came to an end. And now we have to purchase some energy that had been coming from domestic sources from foreign countries, raising the cost of gasoline and other fuels, and helping a foreign country’s economy. The oil we buy from some of them is dirtier than our oil. 

Also, other countries that could be purchasing energy from us, and helping our economy, are instead buying Russian energy, which helps Russia’s economy, and that helps it fight its unprovoked war against Ukraine.

These results could fairly easily have been predicted with a bit of intelligent thought. And, in fact, these results were predicted by those who went beyond stage one and saw where these rash decisions would take us. Too bad Biden and his advisors did not consider the possible results of their plan. Or maybe they just don’t care.

So much of what the political left does or wants to do to “make America better” sounds good, or looks good on paper. But in reality, they often want to undo elements of our country that have worked well for more than 200 years, and the proposed solutions themselves cause problems that are often as bad or worse than the situation they sought to improve.

They don’t seem to understand that making changes to systems that have been in effect for a long time, and are deeply integrated in our way of life, need to be done thoughtfully, and that most of them must gradually evolve to replace existing systems, and not be implemented too quickly, causing chaos.

This is particularly true with climate matters. Clean energy sources like wind and solar power have not evolved nearly enough to take the place of fossil fuels. That will take many years. In fact, the reality is that we may never be able to not rely to some degree on fossil fuels.

Education is a critical function, but America’s is in deep trouble

August 30, 2022

When talking with folks who have lived in America for many years, one thing is a common topic: the many crises we see today.

We are very divided, politically. Our news media is infected with many organizations that have abandoned neutrality in reporting. While our military may still be highly effective, recent new ideas within its leadership are weakening it. And education in grades K-12 and at the college level is seriously troubled.

On the topic of education, that observation does not mean that there are no good schools or no great teachers, only that the system is damaged and getting worse. Some evidence of that follows.

The Program for International Student Assessment tests 15-year-old students around the world every three years, and is administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2018, the U.S. placed 25th out of nearly 80 nations for average scores in mathematics, science and reading.

Number one China averaged 578, while the U.S. averaged 495, only a few points above the overall average score of 489. The top five average scores belong to China, Singapore, Macao, Hong Kong, and Estonia.

The U.S. scored 478 in math, below the OECD average. In science, the United States scored at 502, above the average score. In reading, the U.S. scored 497, slightly higher than the average.

If there is any good news in these ominous figures, it is only that the scores have not fallen further from where the country ought to be in recent years. Scores have remained fairly stable in math since 2003, and science since 2006.

While China — America’s number-one economic and military threat — teaches young people calculus and quantum physics, many American K-12 schools and colleges are more concerned with students’ chosen pronouns, gender issues, creating equity and diversity, and pushing the historically false Critical Race Theory.

Changes to the curriculum and classroom activities for our youngest and most vulnerable learners are often made without the public’s knowledge, or without the consent of parents. Parents are people who pay taxes that fund public education, and are responsible for properly raising their children. Yet, when they attend school board meetings to question or complain about the activities in their children’s schools, their frustration and anger is labeled as “domestic terrorism” by U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland.

Things at the post-secondary level are also gummed up. Diversity and equity issues, and the drive to raise enrollment push true education matters to the back. Many colleges and universities offer courses of study that may satisfy the desires of students, but do not provide learning in subjects with which one can make a living. This is likely a factor in the current situation where President Joe Biden wants to relieve some former students of $10,000-to-$20,000 of their college loan debt.

Recognizing the problems in colleges today, on the first day with university status, Bluefield State University President Robin Capehart outlined to faculty and staff some of the problems the school faces. Citing a book published by social scientists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa titled “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses,” Capehart noted the following findings of a trend that is moving away from students’ focusing on learning, and instead toward getting a degree in the quickest and easiest way.

They say that many college students: were underprepared for college work; lacked academic commitment; were more focused on the nonacademic aspects of college life; and had become adept at the “art of college management,” which is the ability to navigate through their college work with the least time and effort, relegating learning to a matter of happenstance.

For their part, the institutions had become so dependent upon enrollment that they enable the students’ ambitions for an easy time by sacrificing academic rigor, by promoting social and other nonacademic aspects of college life, and investing in amenities that would further enable enrollment gains, Arum and Roska wrote.

Capehart told the audience that Bluefield State has two choices: “You can give them what they want — or you can help them see what they need.”

He then listed five attributes that focus on learning: the need for students who want to learn; a rigorous curriculum; engaging instruction; effective and efficient delivery of support services; and last, but not least, accountability from an external source. This transition will be difficult, he said.

How many of the nation’s institutions of higher learning need to re-structure their academic environment as Bluefield State is doing? How many of them will do it, or even understand that they need to?

America faces substantial challenges from other nations in military strength and other critical areas. How is the country going to regain its high position in the world, or even maintain the lesser position in holds today, if we don’t stop this foolishness, focus on the basics, and once again strive for excellence in education, the military, government, business, science, medicine and the other critical areas?