A Unifying Answer On Mass Deportation

 On Sunday, November 19, the Denver Post ran an editorial on mass deportation that was divisive and included at least one lie, all with a clear goal of spreading fear and promoting opposition to the policies of President Trump.  I'm left wishing I was finally retired so I could send a letter to the Editor in response, but I'm not (yet) so I can't.  I can only respond here.  Here is what I would have written to them:

------------------------

To the Editor:

Your Editorial of November 17, "Mass deportation will hurt Aurora," is divisive and misleading, including a clearly false statement about President Trump's first term.  Your paper is sending a signal that rather than being willing to offer compromises or suggestions to make things better, you intend to spread fear and promote opposition to the policies of President Trump, while insulting the majority of Americans who voted for Trump.

According to your editorial police say there were only 12 members of the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members in Aurora.  To paraphrase Vice-President Elect Vance, "Are you even reading what you're saying?"  The wording of your Editorial suggests the Denver Post believes no deportation actions are necessary in Aurora because there are only 12 members of Tren de Aragua in Aurora. Is that really what you mean because nothing in your Editorial says you want them removed?  

An Editorial seeking to promote unity, not divisiveness, could have commended President Trump for the plan to start his Administration's deportation program by targeting violent criminals and persons on the Terrorist Watch List that are known to be in the United States.  You could encourage the Trump Administration to start with the 12 violent Tren d Aragua gang members known to be in Aurora, while cautioning them to be very precise by removing only those individuals.

Your discussion of Trump's plan for people on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is misleading to say the least.  You refer to individuals living in the United States "legally."  You make no acknowledgement of the fact that there is a difference of opinion on the legality of their stay.  Temporary Protected Status is, as the name states, Temporary.  It is not permanent.  As your article says "[f]or some going home will be a death warrant."  What about the people here on TPS for whom your statement admits going home is not a death warrant?  An editorial not so clearly intent on generating fear and outrage would encourage President Trump to adopt procedures to fairly evaluate the status of each individual and only cancel TPS for those from countries where the circumstances have improved.

Your Editorial states "Trump's attempt to repeal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was one of his first actions as President in 2017."  That's not just misleading, that's a lie.  

The truth?  One of President Trump's first actions was to call on Congress to pass immigration reform and to pressure them to do so Trump said if Congress did not act he'd have no choice but to repeal DACA.  President Trump then engaged in negotiations with both Republicans and Democrats to try to achieve a reform bill.  Trump was practicing "The Art of the Deal."

Those talks continued until the Democrats, particularly Senators Schumer and Durbin, declared that President Trump used a dirty word to describe third world countries and the Democrats walked out of the negotiations, never to return.  Trump used a portion of his State of the Union speech to invite the Democrats back to the negotiating table, offering a program that would protect more "Dreamers" than were included in DACA in return for reasonable immigration reforms that had been supported by Democrats in previous years.  Only when the Democrats made clear they would not resume negotiations did President Trump seek to repeal DACA.

An Editorial seeking to both promote unity and offer a better approach to the issue of illegal immigration would tell the truth about what happened in President Trump's first term and suggest President Trump repeat the actions of his first term by again offering to negotiate immigration reform.  A non-biased Editorial Board would then say its time for the Democrats to come back to the table and do what's right for our Country and for the Dreamers and other immigrants by seriously negotiating with President Trump.

As a person who supported President Trump, I rejected statements that Trump is the next Hitler or Stalin.  I rejected the ridiculous suggestion Trump will be a dictator and end Democracy and cancel future elections.  As a Trump supporter, I did intend to give Trump a mandate to deport illegal immigrants.  And as a Trump supporter, I reject your Editorial's outrageous characterization of Trump's plan as rabid fear-mongering by an Editorial Board that is unwilling to acknowledge some illegal immigrants should be deported, while being very willing to lie about President Trump's past actions to help fuel your false narrative.  

A different view on Separation of Church and State

The very beginning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

For decades this was interpreted as saying Government, public places, schools, etc. must be free of all religion.  No symbols, no books, no prayers, etc.  It was also interpreted by many as saying Government may not grant funds to religious institutions.  No funding of religious schools as part of school choice type programs, for example.  Some took it further to argue Government funds to help the poor can't go to religious organizations either.

Those opinions are wrong.

I recognize Congress cannot declare the United States is a Catholic country as Hungary had done in the distant past or recognize a national Church as the England did.  However, prohibiting religious artifacts or funding to religious institutions is not, in my opinion the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.

Two reasons for my point of view.  First, the concept of extending the "separation of Church and State" doctrine was born not from a principled Constitutional view but rather from anti-Catholic bigotry.  The second reason is denying faith is actually embracing a faith.  Let's unpack those.

The case of Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue was decided by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2020.  An oversimplification of the issue of the case is the Montana legislature provided tax credits to people who donate to organizations that award scholarships for private school tuition.  The Montana  Constitution said government money cannot be used to aid religious institutions.  The Montana Department of Revenue ruled that these scholarships cannot be used at religious schools.  Three parents sued challenging the Constitutionality of the rule.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents and overturned the Montana Constitutional provision.

Now why is that relevant to the topic of this article?   In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito* discussed the origin of the Montana Constitutional limitation.  "Montana's provision was modeled on the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Named after House Speaker James Blane, the Congressman who introduced it in 1875, the amendment was prompted by virulent prejudice against immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants.... As noted in a publication from the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a prominent supporter of this ban was the Ku Klux Klan."

Before laying out this history, Justice Alito cited the case of Ramos v. Louisiana (also decided in 2020) where the Court found Louisiana and Oregon laws allowing non-unanimous verdicts in criminal trials are not Constitutional because "...the States originally adopted those laws for racially discriminatory reasons."  The Supreme Court said the laws could not be legitimized by re-adopting them for non-discriminatory reasons.**

From Alito's recitation of the history on this subject, it is clear the concept of Separation of Church and State meaning taxpayer dollars can't go to religious organizations is anti-religious bigotry.  An idea hatched from the minds of the Ku Klux Klan and similar bigoted organizations and not from a principled view of the Constitution.

The other reason I dissent from the common view that Separation of Church and State is an idea I've had for a while and am laying out here for your consideration.  

I believe in God. I can't prove that God exists, but I believe in Him.***

There are people who do not believe in God.  They cannot prove to me God does not exist.  But they believe He does not.

My conclusion: Religious belief is a form of belief.  Atheism or whatever other name you give it is a form of belief.

By banning any religious belief from Government facilities, banning prayer, banning funding,  etc., the Government is in actually staking out a position in support of a different belief system, Atheism.  By promoting one belief system to the exclusion of others is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

Conclusion, if you support Separation of Church and State, you're either a bigoted Kloset-Klansmen**** or you're trying to impose your belief system on me in violation of the First Amendment.

*  Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue if found at  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf  (yes I am a wonk and not only read the main opinion but the dissenting and concurring opinions too.  Justice Alito's Concurring Opinion starts on Page 35)

** Ironically, Justice Alito was the one who argued the laws could be rehabilitated by re-adopting them for non-bigoted reasons, but he lost.  So in Espinoza he argued Ramos is now precedent and should be followed in the Espinoza case - Alito was essentially telling the liberal minority you made this rule, you now have to follow it.

*** In the movie Conclave, the Cardinal played by Ralph Fiennes had a great speech (SPOILER ALERT) - saying in essence the greatest sin is certainty because certainty means there is no doubt and without doubt, there is no faith, which is the basis of belief.  It's a good movie, not spoiled by (SPOILER ALERT) a stupid woke twist at the end.

**** Sorry, couldn't resist the double "K's" there.  :-)

Will the Democrats learn from this election?

 A Republican official I know texted me that question after the Trump victory on Tuesday.  Then I saw an article with Bernie Sanders asking the same question.  Today I saw a clip of Marianne Williamson, who ran against President Biden in the Democrat primaries, making a similar point.  Each raising the same question perhaps but each suggesting the answer should be different.

To me there were two lessons to be learned from this Election and I question whether the Democrat party and their members will learn either.

The first lesson was that the American people don't want progressive ideas like open borders, economic policies that cause rampant inflation, Green New Deal rules that drive up energy costs and eliminate good paying blue collar jobs, paying tuition for kids who are now doctors or lawyers, or who take useless degrees like art history or English at expensive colleges.  The people don't want a weak foreign policy that results in multiple wars around the world, and American jobs and technology being stolen by China. 

Did the Democrats learn that lesson?  I think not.  Bernie Sanders and Marianne Williamson, in their post election comments both pointed out the Democrat party has forsaken the working class.  However, Ms. Williamson doubled down on calling for the Democrat party to commit to "progressive" ideas, like universal health care, free tuition for everyone to any school.*  One can reasonably expect Senator Sanders will advocate the same thing in the future.

I would argue the policies espoused by progressives like Senator Sanders and Ms. Williamson are the policies President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been governing to the last four years.  They are policies that have been adopted in a number of cities and States.  And they are policies that were rejected in previous years and again in Tuesday's elections at multiple levels.

Those are also the beliefs held by a core minority within the Democrat party.  A minority yes, but they hold tremendous influence during primary season, having an ability to skew primaries toward the more progressive candidates.  The 2020 Presidential primaries are a good example.  Democrat candidates generally were falling over themselves as they moved left, embracing Black Lives Matters, endorsing defunding police, condemning Trump's efforts to close the borders.  

In 2024, Kamala Harris was so worried about offending that core minority, she was unwilling to publicly state a position on most issues or explain whether or why she may have reversed a previously stated position.  Example: why did she reverse her position on Fracking?  On defunding police?  On confiscating weapons?  Why could supposedly moderate Democrats like Montana's Senator Jon Tester not refute a very extreme claim that he supports abortion up to the moment of birth?  Because to say he supports any restriction whatsoever on abortion, would lead the vocal minority to rise up against Tester.

The answer to the first question, in my opinion, is no - the Democrats, particularly the extreme progressives, will not learn the lesson from this election that their views are too extreme for the American people.  I believe they will follow the lead of Ms. Williamson, Senators Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and claim the Democrats lost because they did not embrace these extreme positions.

How did Joe Biden, a mainstream Democrat with a moderate record built over decades, emerge successfully from those primaries in 2020 and remain the standard bearer to begin 2024?  Well that leads to a discussion of the next "lesson" people are asking if the Democrats learned.

The other lesson was well stated by Bernie Sanders when he asked "Will the big-money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons...?"  Marianne Williamson said it a bit more bluntly, saying voters "...rejected this elite, smug, arrogant culture which acts like a suppressant on the voices of the [Democrat] party."

For a party that goes by the name "Democrat" and "Democratic" they are not.  In 2016, we know the Democrat National Committee (DNC) rigged the debates and other activities during the primaries to favor Hilary Clinton and deny Bernie Sanders the nomination.  In 2020, all candidates dropped out after Joe Biden won South Carolina, clearing the way for Biden to run one-on-one against Bernie Sanders, with strong support of Party officials.  In 2024, Party officials did their best to discourage and hamper opponents to President Biden in the Primaries, forcing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run as an Independent and ultimately support President Trump.

Then in the ultimate insult to voters in the Democrat Party, when Joe Biden withdrew from the race this year, the Democrats held a vote of Party insiders and chose Kamala Harris to be the standard bearer.  The candidate for President from the Democrat Party had never received a single vote from the people registered as Democrats.  How democratic is that?

The "elite, smug, arrogant culture" Ms. Williamson referred to is not just within the DNC.  It was in the White House after Joe Biden won.  While inflation was steadily climbing to its peak of 9%, Biden officials were telling Americans its only transitory and taking no action.  When they did take action, the President introduced an "Inflation Reduction Act" and tried to tell us that increasing the deficit significantly would help reduce costs.  Then when the Wall Street Journal introduced the phrase "Bidenomics" as a shorthand to describe the country's economic problems, the Biden Administration embraced it Even former Obama financial leaders said the result would be more inflation.

It was obvious during the first three years of the Biden Presidency, that Joe Biden's physical and mental health were in decline.  Yet it was that "elite, smug, arrogant culture" Ms. Williamson described, led by "the big-money interests and well-paid consultants" mentioned by Senator Sanders that supported Biden's bid for re-election, feeling they could fool the American people by denying all the events of the past four years and running another "basement campaign" like in 2020.

So back to the question, will the Democrats learn this lesson?  Break it down into parts - will the Democrats turn away from the "big-money interests and well-paid consultants?"  Start with a quick history lesson about how those folks got such control of the Democrat party.  Turn back the clock to 1972, the active core minority at that time was very liberal and they succeeded (with help from some dirty tricks by President Richard Nixon's campaign) in nominating one of their own - a very liberal Senator George McGovern as the Democrat candidate for President.  McGovern was crushed in the general election.  

To prevent a core minority from ever again succeeding in nominating a far left candidate, the Democrat party created a huge number of "Super Delegates."  Basically party insiders who listen to the "big-money interests and well-paid consultants."  In 2016, Bernie Sanders never had a chance of beating Hilary Clinton because those Super Delegates made up a huge portion of the Delegates and over 75% were backing her.  In 2020, it was obvious the fix was in with those delegates for Joe Biden after he won the South Carolina primary and just about every candidate other than Bernie Sanders withdrew from the race (and most later got a job in the Biden Administration).

I don't see the Democrats changing that practice.  They continue to have an extreme minority wielding excessive influence in the primaries and Party leaders will try to control and pander to that minority rather than confront them.  Plus, that is easier than taking power away from the Super Delegates and putting it back in the hands of - gasp - the people.

Now to the second part of this lesson.  Assume you're one of a select group of Super Delegates, with heightened influence over who is selected to be the nominee for President, and you benefit from the attention of "big-money interests and well-paid consultants" not to mention celebrities like the ones we saw backing Kamala Harris.  Would you not feel elite and be smug and arrogant?  And do you think big-money interests or well-paid consultants who wield influence over the Democrat party are going to be less smug or arrogant?

The lessons are there to be learned.  But I suspect Democrats don't buy into the old saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

* Ms. Williamson referred to colleges and technical schools.  Of course Democrats do not support kids being able to go to the elementary, middle or high school of their choice.

Ms. Williamson's comments can be seen here: https://tinyurl.com/msbkpasw

Senator Sanders' comments can be seen here: https://tinyurl.com/epebbr5w