I may have written a message that, despite its accuracy, will disappoint or enflame most. Rather than trying to solve the problem or change your mind, I want to encourage listening to more than the noise and, to the extent possible, receptivity to opposing viewpoints.
Facts
It starts with a country’s obligation to enforce its immigration and border security laws. The government must enforce the laws legally, in accordance with the protections afforded to all, especially those subject to enforcement action.
The prior Presidential administration’s open border policy was most likely the deciding factor in the opposing political party’s victory in the last election. The voters wanted to close the border and, in most cases, remove those here without authorization.
We know that how something is done significantly impacts its reception (it was not what you said, but how you said it). From 2009 to 2017, the government built cages, separated families, removed more than 5 million unauthorized people, and the leader earned the title, “deporter in chief.” During that time, I worked with an immigrant community that was fearful, and many voluntarily left, leaving children behind. Absent were large-scale protests.
Yes, the prior administration dealt the current one a bad hand, but it is responsible for how it’s played. The current administration’s inflammatory proclamations and heavy-handed actions are causing extreme unrest and injury. Remarkably, the person elected to enforce immigration laws has done it in such a fashion that public sentiment is turning against it.
At the same time, state and local authorities who assert that the federal government cannot enforce immigration laws and who take action to prevent enforcement invite more intrusive enforcement. While there is anti-enforcement sentiment across the country, the extreme actions and protests seem to be localized (typical disproportionate media coverage).
Reality
Random, warrantless, and absent probable cause searches are wrong and obviously counterproductive. If I am stopped by an ICE agent in the grocery store parking lot, you will need to pick me up from the detention facility. Similarly, I would need bail money if a mob stormed my church because an assistant pastor worked for ICE.
People have the freedom to protest government actions, even lawful ones, in the most organized (e.g., paid protesters, group chats) and noisiest (e.g., banging drums outside ICE hotels) manner available. This freedom does not extend to physical confrontations and assaults. One must know that he is increasing the risk of death by carrying a gun while confronting law enforcement, even if it is his right (echoes of Kyle Rittenhouse), and it does not justify the wrong response.
Hope
While no one should relish the current strife, it can be used as a catalyst for change. Remember, images of water hoses drenching protesters and growling dogs holding peaceful citizens at bay helped turn the tide in the civil rights movement.
As I write this, federal leadership is changing, and the rival factions are communicating. I hope by the time this is published, order and justice prevail. Regretfully, both sides are already claiming victory over the other. The true victory is that our governance system (including the people), despite its imperfections, self-corrects, avoids anarchy, and progresses.
While bringing actions into proper order does not excuse prior poor actions, we can celebrate positive change. Many legislators, historically opposed to civil rights legislation, had to change their votes so those laws could be enacted.
_____________________________________________________
There is always a lot left unsaid with a few words on an enormous issue. I hope the message shows that broadening one’s perspective reveals that few things are all right or all wrong; good intentions do not excuse bad actions; and we can maintain faith in the American Way.
Peace be with us.
