Commentary – Page 20 – Pat the Expat

Fear & Loathing on the border

The never-ending immigration debate continues to shed more heat than light. I see more vague, heartless, and ill-informed opinions on this topic than just about anything else. As a pro-immigration conservative, I often feel like my views aren’t reflected in all the noise. Here they are; I hope they are specific, compassionate, and informed.

America is just different. I am not implying necessarily better, but no sane person can deny the core attractiveness of the concept of America. We are a creedal nation: one defined not by blood or religion or geography, but by an individual’s commitment to espousing a common set of beliefs. If you wonder what they are, re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. More people want to come to the United States and live there than anywhere else in the world, and the numbers are not even close. Some immigrants already espouse the American creed; others just want to get away from whatever ills plague them in their own country. All we ask of those who arrive in America is they (eventually) share our creed.

Alas, more people want to come and live in the United States than the United States can reasonable digest. It is not a matter of space or jobs: it is a matter of culture. Just as America changes everyone who comes to live in it, every immigrant (legal or not) changes America. The vast majority of immigrants make America better. A tiny minority make it worse, or even intend to do it harm. Regardless of good intent, cultural changes take time.

If you look throughout American history, the greatest anti-immigrant movements happen not during large swells in immigration, but just after, as the new immigrants settle down and spread throughout the country. Thus has it always been; thus it is today. Foreign-born residents made up 13.7% of the US population as of last year, the highest level since 1910 (14.7%). When the first foreign immigrant lands in your small town, he is a curiosity; when several hundred follow, you begin to wonder why you can’t find white bread at the corner “supermercado.”

Asking such a question is not inherently racist or anti-immigrant. Racism requires intent (I know some academics posit a whole different theory of implicit racism: I disagree, but let’s leave that for another post, another day). As an expat in Mexico, I often hear expats complaining that we as expats should not change the local culture. These same voices call people racists when Americans say immigrants should not change America’s culture. Consistency, anyone?

Since the wave of immigration has passed, a wall is not the solution, as I have previously noted. That said, a wall is neither moral or immoral, it is just an object of policy. A wall can trap innocent people in utter subjugation: see “Curtain, Iron.” A wall can keep sadistic murderers from harming innocents: see “Prison, SuperMax.” Some immigration proponents state that the existing US-Mexico border wall is immoral because it forces immigrants to the desert where they are more likely to perish. These same people claim the wall is ineffective. Logic, anyone?

America has less physical border control than almost anywhere. I say almost anywhere, because contrary to FaceBook memes, the tiny Vatican state has none. Due to the amiability of our neighbors (and despite our occasional extra-territorial forays), America has few walls or fences, and only recently (post 2001) became interested in tracking people coming and going. America didn’t even have immigration laws until the late 19th century; our view was “if you can get here, good on you!”

See that gaping opening around the colonnade? Come and go as you please!

Today, America’s immigration system is designed to be difficult to pass. There is simply too much demand, from too many places, and Americans see no reason to to make it easier. We have to screen against drug smugglers, foreign terrorists, child-traffickers, routine criminals, and folks who just want to come to America despite not qualifying. We have to screen people from everywhere, with every language, dialect, religion, race, and culture. We have to move hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars of products across our borders instantly everyday to fuel our trade-based economy. And we have to do all this while remembering–in our creedal nation–you can’t spot a “real American” by how they talk, dress, pray, or behave. Some humility for the challenge facing our immigration and customs officials, por favor?

Some people think immigrants (legal or not) get a free ride of generous benefits at the cost of American taxpayers. Most immigrants would admit their material life is better in America, at least eventually. But immigrants qualify for only the most basic public services, such as the right to children’s education, emergency medical care, some anti-poverty programs, and various legal protections. Mostly they work multiple (lousy) jobs, have taxes and Social Security taken from their pay (which if not legal immigrants, they will never be able to file for and recover), and send as much of their paycheck home as possible to support a family.

I hope I never hear the phrase “We are a nation of immigrants” again. It is true and utterly specious. The phrase is trotted out as some kind of justification, but for what? The Native American peoples came to the hemisphere from elsewhere, and they were not uniformly welcoming of the newly arrived European settlers. Subsequent groups of migrants arrived in accordance with the few laws and limits on immigration, but were more often threatened than welcomed. Hardly a history anyone should cite to support any position in the current debate.

Likewise, spare me your tired, huddled masses of Statue of Liberty quotes. The statue, a gift from France in 1886, is a monument to the American ideal of Liberty (remember, our creed?). It’s official title is “Liberty Enlightening the World” and its design is based on the Roman goddess Libertas, calling to mind the connection between the Roman and American Republics. By coincidence only, it sits on Liberty island, not far from Ellis island, where millions of immigrants later processed to enter the United States. What about the famous “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?” It is inscribed on a plaque at the base, in the museum. Emma Lazarus wrote the poem to promote the acceptance of refugees as part of a fundraiser to pay for the base of the monument. The Statue is about why people would want to come, not whether they should be allowed to.

If overall immigration is at modern lows, why are we having a debate? For one reason, the time to solve any political issue is when there is no crisis. You fireproof the building when you can, not once the fire rages. There is a surge in the number of families and children from Central America arriving at the US-Mexico border. Some suggest it is the fruit of America’s long involvement in Latin American affairs. If that were the case, we would expect to see the greatest number of immigrants from the countries where America was most recently involved. Most of the immigrants come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. America supported several coups in Guatemala in the early 1980s. Yet America invaded Panama in 1989; where are those refugees? America supported a coup against Honduran President Zelaya when he suspended the constitution and tried to remain in office in 2009; so why did Honduran emigration increase ten years later?

The reality is all these countries are experiencing increasing violence and decreasing economic opportunity. The migrants who arrive at the American border frequently tell media sources they ‘just want a better future for their families’. Given the demand to immigrate to America, ‘wanting a better future’ is not going to get you into the country legally. Legal immigration is handled in the immigrant’s home country and strictly regulated by national quotas. These migrants are showing up at the border and claiming asylum as refugees from a “well-founded fear of persecution.” I’ll spare you the legal details surrounding this phrase and just note that high crime and no good jobs won’t qualify, meaning most of these asylum-seekers will be denied. But if that is so obvious, why did they risk so much? How do poor people from underdeveloped, violent nations suddenly decide to risk everything to walk with their children to the United States?

There are two groups responsible for spreading the word: human-traffickers and pro-immigration activists. Agustin Gomez, the Guatemalan father of the young boy who died in ICE custody after crossing the border, said, “We heard rumors that they could pass (into the United States).They said they could pass with the children”. The coyotes who organize and move people across the border are actively recruiting and offering discounts for migrants who bring their children with them. One coyote told the foreign press, “Everyone took advantage and sent them (the children) over. Some coyotes charge less because they know if you turn yourself into immigration, there is no problem. You will always go through.”

Meanwhile, groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders) have been visiting communities in Central America for fifteen years, helping organize groups to reach the United States in protest of American immigration laws. Desperate people are told they will be welcomed; they are used: by the coyotes for profit, by others as political tools. The numbers of such immigrants are not yet a crisis, but they are taxing America’s ability to detain, care for, and process them. They are increasing, and there is no logical reason for them to stop coming.

If you care, I have covered my views on immigration previously here. I would only add that the problem of families with children showing up to request asylum will only grow worse. It got bad once before under the Obama administration, and it was only brought under control by a combination of carrots (foreign aid, direct support to Mexico, catch-n-release) and sticks (family detention, some child separations, threats to without foreign aid). Sound familiar? That administration was (I believe) embarrassed by what they did, but they still did it; the current administration seems proud of it. In any event, some of those policies have been ruled unconstitutional, so there are fewer tools to address the situation.

The plight of these refugees is horrific. Imagine how bad things must be to decide to walk hundreds of miles with your children to an uncertain future. It is immoral to separate children from families just to deter immigration; it is just as immoral to encourage families to take their children on such a trek without any reasonable hope of success. Those who simply say “welcome them” must answer the questions: what solution do you propose? how many will qualify? why favor those that can walk to the border (Latin America) over those who can’t (Africa and Asia)? how will we pay for it? and, where will they go? There is nothing compassionate about the moral hazard of encouraging poor people to undertake great risk neither they, nor their chosen host nation is prepared for.

Part of the reason the immigration debate is so nasty, is it isn’t just about the immigrants, but about who we as Americans are. The nature of the American creed is up for debate: what are we asking the immigrants to profess to believe in? Compassion or the rule of law? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Individual autonomy, diversity, and acceptance? Different views of who we are color how we approach the problem. Either way, the people who suffer most are those most vulnerable: the would-be immigrants themselves.

To build a fire

Few things are as satisfying as a roaring fire on a cold night, perhaps with a fine snifter of brandy and some great company, to boot. Why is that?

After all, fire is pretty elementary and ordinary. Man’s conquest of fire is so ancient that we have no idea how or when it happened, although every society has a fire-mastery myth. And all fire does is provide light (not really that much) and heat (not very efficiently).

When we lived in northern climes, we had a wooded lot, full of pine, oak, and beech. Courtesy of Hurricane Isabel in 2003, we had a huge wall of logs which lapped the perimeter of our lot, and probably is still not entirely dissipated. The trees provided plenty of kindling, and we had a real, old-fashioned fireplace in the family room. Starting early in the fall, I would begin to gather and stack the wood closer to the house, and identify a great pile of kindling. Given the nearly unending supply of firewood, we had a fire most evenings. Later on, we had gas fireplaces, which look just fine and produce some heat, but just missed that “something.”

Fast forward to our life on Mexico, and I figured our nights of roaring fires were all behind us. We have a real fireplace (chimney but no flue), but it is gas-fed. Certainly it never gets cold enough to justify a fire. The last few weeks we have had overnight temperatures in the 40’s, but seriously, folks, that’s not fireplace weather.

Our fireplace looked odd with just a gas pipe sticking out. We looked at gas fireplace logs, but they were ugly, and crazy expensive (perhaps an import thing?) So after almost two years of staring at it, we finally decided to get a real firewood grate. We had a local ferretero (iron smith) come by and take down the measurements and design, and he delivered a custom one.

Since Mexicans like a good holiday fire as much as anyone–and they consider 50 degrees to be essentially freezing–this is the season for road-side stands selling all kinds of firewood. Now we are back in the business of roaring fires, if only for a few weeks.

Despite the past experience, I have no special skill when it comes to starting a fire. And I’m not opposed to twisting the gas handle if the fire is slow to take. After all, I’m not in fear of freezing to death, like the protagonist of Jack London’s great short story (go ahead, go read it now), from whom I borrowed the title of this post. I just know what I like: the crackle and the hiss, the warm glow, the wisp of aromatic wood.

Now with snap, crackle & pop?

Don’t be him…or her!

Right now you’re probably in the middle of the annual Thanksgiving gathering of friends and family. If you’re reading this, you probably should PUT DOWN THE DEVICE AND TALK TO REAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRAVELED FAR JUST TO BE WITH YOU. Or perhaps you’re hiding in the bedroom or bathroom just to get away from the same people (yes, everyone does it).

If so, you’ve certainly run into that dear old friend or distant relation who holds, shall we say, unorthodox views, and always finds a way to start talking about them. “You know they faked (the moon landing/9-11 attack/Kennedy assassination)?” he says out of nowhere, or she opines “(Trump/Pence/Clinton/Obama) is really the President because (bogus political website) said the election was illegitimate.” Maybe even “I heard (current scam product) can cure (cancer/erectile dysfunction/baldness).”

And the gathering is off to the races, rarely for the better.

Sorry, I have no suggestions for dealing with them. But I do have a plea: don’t be that person. “What!?!”–you say–you would never BE that person. And I admit, my friends (and I) would NEVER be the kind of dreadful bore who engages in such behavior in person.

But online, well, that’s another story, eh?

We all know people who are perfectly normal in the real world, but go all Jekyll-n-Hyde online. Yet the same norms of behavior apply. DHS rolled out the slogan “if you see something, say something” a few years back. When you’re online, it should be “if you see something, (think about it before you) say something.” So many otherwise reasonable people, with sharp minds and pleasant personalities, post/share/retweet the most ridiculous nonsense without ever checking it.

This is no less harmful than your crazy uncle who annually ruins your Thanksgiving ritual. You may think its different, because your online friends either do it, too, or just ignore you when you do it, but that’s what happens in person also!

Beside just complaining, I do have some suggestions.

First, ALWAYS remember that your online content is curated, that is, someone or something is feeding it to you. Facebook, Google, Instagram, whatever, all are designed to gather information about you (YOU are the product) and use that information to get you to use their service more, providing ever more information. They share things with you that they know you like or dislike, sometimes intensely. They will determine where your views are more extreme (on a relative spectrum) and feed you those “news items” just a little more extreme than yours. So remember, you’re being fed with a purpose. If you don’t believe me, give up all social media for a week and compare your blood pressure before and after.

Second, its OK to be partisan and visit nakedly partisan websites. It can be fun to read/see/hear your views put in their most strident and argumentative form. But unless every single person you know feels the same way (and if they do, you have a whole ‘nother, bigger problem), don’t share the content you find there. If you want to spend time on Breitbart or Occupy Democrats (to name but two), do so in the privacy of your home. Think of such visits as, ahem, self-stimulation: best if done in private and not to be mentioned at your next social gathering.

Third, whenever and wherever you see that fact/point/opinion that is so good/cool/convincing that you just have to share it, stop and check it out. Even if it comes from conventional media sources that you trust, check it out. There’s a reason every newspaper posts corrections every day. There are a wealth of websites to help you: Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, RealClearPolitics, Poynter, AmericanPressInstitute, WaPo’s Fact Checker and Fact Check @ NYT (all links provided).

Don’t just accept what you see there, either. I caught Snopes doing back-flips to defend an obviously anti-Christian/anti-Semitic video of grave desecration in Libya, and I read Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post claiming to be objective about euthanasia in the Netherlands while citing an uncle who was euthanized there! In general, fact check sites do a good job of objective fact-checking: did someone actually say the words in this quote, or are these data valid? On more nuanced issues, you must read between the lines.

Sounds like a lot of trouble, no? Why not just happily hit share and move on? Two reasons. First, remember your crazy uncle, the one we started out talking about? That’s what he does, only in person. You don’t want to be like him, even if it being online gives you the freedom to misbehave. Second, think of your friends. When you post things that are untrue, or ridiculous, or just inflammatory, you’re saying you don’t care enough to check first; it’s more important to get that fleeting sense of “aha!”

To borrow another slogan, “Just (don’t) do it!”

Thus ends my annual plea for online civility.

No go back and argue with your family, and enjoy every minute of it!

Church of Saints

In my previous epistle (thanks for that line, Johnny Cool), I went on at length with what I thought was the main scandal facing the Catholic Church today: infidelity to its core teaching about human sexuality. I promised to move from diagnosis to prescription, so here it is.

First, the leadership of the Church (the Pope and the Bishops, world-wide) must commit to radical transparency with respect to the various sexual scandals of the past. While I understand their previous reticence and the importance of not confusing allegations with convictions, the grudging release of data or acknowledgment of wrong-doing has only made the situation worse. Leaders who were guilty must be laicized. Those who were complicit in abetting the abusers need to publicly confess and submit resignations, which the Pope can accept or reject based on the individual circumstances. Since this is not a legal proceeding, but rather a moral one, the default position must be suspicion: too many lies have been told for too long.

Turning to the various dioceses and orders, I would suggest a similar approach. Two years ago, Pope Francis suggested some Catholics might not be validly married, since it was unclear if they had a proper understanding of what marriage entailed. I would suggest (humbly) the Pope build off this approach by reconsidering whether priests have been validly ordained, given their understanding of the priesthood and its vows. This would enable the removal of priests who have failed to live up to, or adequately profess, the teaching of the Church with regard to human sexuality. Bishops and superiors (who have already survived the inquiry mentioned in the previous paragraph) should be directed to conduct comprehensive reviews of the clergy to this end: either ensuring adherence to the Church’s doctrine, or offering the option for removal from the priesthood.

Looking specifically at the United States, I have always opposed the intrusion of secular authorities into the Church’s inner workings. However, I believe the situation there is now so grave that law enforcement should use their authorities to enforce transparency, protect the public, and punish offenders and enablers. These authorities should not exceed established limits with respect to rights, evidence, and statutes of limitation, but should prosecute to the full extent of the law within those limits.

For the faithful in the pews, we must come to come to grips with our own complicity. All of us who winked at adultery, tolerated pornography, accepted contraception or even abortion played a part in this debacle. If you don’t see the connection, go back and read Humanae Vitae, then celebrate its 5oth anniversary by re-committing to its Truth. We need to confess our sins, accept responsibility, and do penance. I suggest committing to daily prayer and regular fasting; I am doing so and it is something anyone can do. Some argue the faithful don’t need to do penance in this matter, since the clergy are at fault; I disagree. The literal meaning of compassion is to “suffer with” and since the perpetrators and victims are our fellow Catholics, we must suffer with them. Even if none of the other things I suggest come to pass, we can do our part. Prayer and fasting are very powerful tools.

The entire Church militant (the Church in this world) should unite in a global act of penance. Perhaps a day-long fast, or a prayer novena for forgiveness, along with acts of collective and individual penance. I would like to see our clergy leading this effort, and especially the Princes of the Church joining in by relinquishing some of their luxuries: fine houses, travel, whatever.

Back in the early 2000s, American Catholics referred to the sexual abuse revelations as “the long Lent.” I would posit the long Lent has morphed into an extended Via Dolorosa. The only possible response to such a situation is to take up one’s cross and bear it. Some will turn away; always have, always will. It will be difficult, and embarrassing, and painful.

We are a Church of sinners, desperately trying to be a Church of saints. In the end, we are reassured by the admonition that “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Church of Sinners

As a cradle Catholic, you might imagine the last few months have been especially hard for me, and you would be right. I have felt a variety of emotions: deep compassion for the many victims of clerical abuse; sympathy for the vast majority of faithful priests; roiling, righteous anger at those who hid the abuse, attacked the victims, and perpetuated the sins; and charity towards anyone who finds faith shaken by the news.

One feeling I did not experience was shock. I admit, after I read the entire report from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s grand jury, I did feel sick to my stomach. It is 1,356 pages of non-stop perversion, lying, and cover-up, and while it is available here, for once I do NOT recommend reading it. Take my word, it is horrible. Horrible, but not shocking to me, because some fourteen years ago, I read another document which confirmed me in the suspicion that more was coming.

Near the end of the revelations coming out of the Boston Archdiocese about the sexual predation which occurred there, the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference chartered the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City College of New York, known for their investigative and forensic faculties, to gather the relevant data about the crisis in the United States. This report, known as the John Jay Report, was published in 2004. While it has none of the terrible specificity of the grand jury finding, it has three hundred pages of dispassionate and comprehensive analysis.

I was not surprised that the institutional Church tried to avoid bad publicity: this is classic institutional behavior, even if the institution in question claims to be holy. What jumped out at me from that report was the simple fact that so many Church leaders at all levels avoided punishing even the most unrepentant repeat offenders. At the time, some clerics offered the defense that they followed the reigning psychological treatment which emphasized therapy. That was true, and for a one-time event even defensible. But many of the offenders came out of therapy and re-offended, and the Church leaders just kept repeating their original mistake. It seemed clear something else was going on here. What it was, was an appalling lack of fidelity among Catholic clergy.

That lack of fidelity was to the Church’s teaching on sex. Which has been very simple and consistent: sex is a gift from God for the procreation of mankind and the bonding of married couples, two inseparable conditions. Period. End of sentence. Exclamation point. Which means it is (1) only between a man and a woman, (2) only permitted when those two are married, and (3) only allowable when the act is open to the possibility of new life.

This was always a hard teaching, and Jesus doubled down on it when he added that even thinking about sex with someone else, when married, was adultery! Of course, human history was rife with transgressions of this hard teaching, but all Christian denominations held to it as true, even as they practiced mercy when the faithful inevitably sinned.

That all changed during the sexual revolution. The notion that anybody could live without sex, or should do so for even a period of time, was stood on its head. Now, everybody should have as much sex, with anybody/anything/nobody as they want, without any consequences. Abstaining from sex in any way is considered unnatural and perverse. The only sin is to deny oneself sexual pleasure.

The Catholic Church maintained its original teaching, most famously in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae. This is one I do suggest you read, as it is only thirty-one paragraphs and has some of the most amazing predictions of what would (and did) happen as a result of the sexual revolution. The teaching was not well received, including by yours truly. Like many Catholics, I didn’t read the encyclical even when I became an adult, and I rejected the teaching as old fashioned and incoherent…without ever reading it. Many Catholic clergy had to deal with Catholics (like me) in the pews who were openly hostile to the Church’s doctrine. In fact, some of those same clergy that hoped for a change in Church teaching were themselves engaging in sexual acts, and excusing themselves by the same reasoning that the sexual revolution provided.

Now mind you, I know many otherwise intelligent people who have told me that the Catholic Church’s problem is that it is obsessed with sex. Funny thing is, I have been going to Mass more than once a week for over fifty years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard sex mentioned in Church. Of the roughly 300 Papal Encyclicals written in the last 300 or so years, sex is the subject of only a handful. Sex is mentioned in 33 paragraphs of the 900 pages of the Catechism, and most of those references are to the “fact of” two different sexes. I challenge anyone to watch one evening’s worth of cable TV and count the number of sexual ads, comments, situations, and graphic acts, then tell me who is obsessed with sex.

If you read the John Jay report, and the recent report by the German Catholic episcopate, you will see some data ignored by the press coverage. Most of the victims were adolescents older than twelve, indicating ephebophilia rather than pedophilia as the predominant problem.* Between 70 and 80% of the victims were adolescent boys; all the perpetrators were men. This indicates, as the German report points out, that the formation process for Catholic clergy attracted an unusual number of men who have same-sex attraction and underdeveloped sexual maturity. These are just data.

These same men, corrupted by their own lust, proved unable to defend or even explain the Church’s traditional teaching. They emphasized excuses, extenuating circumstances, and mercy without repentance, because that is what they themselves desired. Some continued to rise into positions of power, and looked out for those who were like-minded. Some Bishops looked the other way, either because they were implicated or they lacked the courage to profess the Church’s teaching in the face of ridicule. And the scandal spread. All this was clear back in the early 2000s, yet ignored.

The problem was not the Church’s teaching, which proved to be best for all concerned in the long run. Once I finally read Humane Vitae, I saw its logic and reason and self-evident holiness, which contrasted remarkably with the state of society after the sexual revolution. The problem was not clericalism, that is the treatment of those ordained as somehow better than others, for in fact the clergy was behaving exactly like most of the people. The problem was infidelity. And infidelity should rarely surprise us.

Among the original Apostles, one was a betrayer complicit in murder. Another had so little faith he responded to the Good News of the resurrection with a literal “habeus corpus?” Two counselled calling fire down on one’s enemies, and were overly concerned with having choice seats at the heavenly feast. All but one ran away when the going got tough. Their first-among-equals was called Satan by the Lord Himself, denied Jesus thrice, and even at the end had to be reminded to have faith (“quo vadis?”).

“Put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3), even Princes of the Church, apparently.

I’ll posit what all this leads me to believe in a future post.

*In case the terms are unfamiliar, pedophilia is a sexual crime of power where the perpetrator sees the victim as an object to control; ephebophilia is a sexual crime where the perpetrator sees himself as sexually equal to an immature victim. In the first case the attackers rarely show remorse or awareness of the victims; in the latter case, the perpetrators often express their “true attachment” to the victims.

Everything You Know is Wrong (IV)

Today we descend into the morass that is individual rights. You can’t get far in today’s news without running into alleged right’s issues. NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Restaurateurs denying customers service based on politics. Neo-Nazis marching in the Capital. Talking heads often serve up these incidents as right’s issues; Face Book is full of smarmy posts claiming “rights” and directing those who disagree to get over it and shut up. Here is a dose of reality.

The rights in question are those in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. These rights limit the ability of the federal government to do things (“make a law respecting an establishment of religion”, for instance). Most of them deal with the rights of the accused (Forth through Eighth Amendments), while the Ninth is a catch-all stating there are more rights than those listed, and the Tenth indicates those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States and the people. An interesting point: these rights have nothing to do with citizenship. They are negative, in that they tell the government what NOT to do, or the amendments refer to persons, not citizens. Thus the Supreme Court has held that anybody on the territory of the United States has such rights (including terrorists, Nazis, and those here illegally)! The Fourteenth Amendment directed that the existing rights may be incorporated to the States, meaning (on a case-by-case basis) state governments (and local ones too) have the same limits when it comes to individual rights. So the federal (or state, or local) government cannot deny neo-Nazis a permit to march (“peaceably assemble” according to the First Amendment) despite the fact they are neo-Nazis. The government can regulate how and when, and place certain restrictions (e.g., no baseball bats), but that is all.

So the first question you have to ask is “is a government trying to deny someone something?” If the answer is no, then there generally is no right’s issue, right? Not so fast, my friends. The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act articulated rights protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These protected classes of people cannot be discriminated against not just by government, but also by those offering public accommodation (bars, restaurants, taxis, etc). So now you have to look at whether the individual claiming a right’s issue is a member of a protected class, and was singled out on that basis, and was there a public accommodation. Thus it is okay to have a dress code requiring men to wear a tie in your establishment, as long as ALL men have to wear a tie (not just Asians, for example). Can you throw someone out of your restaurant because they are working for the White House? Yes, since political party is not a protected class. If you throw out only women from a certain political party, now you’ve done it, you have (arguably) violated their civil rights (sex is a protected class).

What about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem? There is a Supreme Court case holding that the government cannot make persons participate in patriotic rituals (such as the Pledge of Allegiance), but that only applies to the government. Contrary to a certain President’s tweets, there is no government activity here. No one is coming to arrest the players, and they are free to kneel. Likewise, their managers or owners may decide to take action against them for doing so. Player contracts contain all kinds of behavior and teamwork clauses which let managers/owners fire them for all kinds of off-the-field issues. If the owners only disciplined African-American players, that might constitute a civil rights violation. As it stands now, there is no rights’ issue here. Want to make this issue really hard? What if you went to a game with a sideline pass, and you decided to join in by kneeling during the Anthem? You are a customer, not a player, but your ticket has terms and conditions which might enable the owner to throw you out for misbehavior. I doubt they would ever do this, as it would be needlessly antagonizing their own fans. Just showing how complicated this can be!

Finally, people with disabilities have similar protections, and during the Obama administration, the federal government argued that the protections afforded to sex also extend to sexual orientation and gender, although this contention was never determined in court and has been abandoned by the current administration. Not to mention, states cannot reduce or constrain individual rights, but they are free to add to them, so in some cases actions which are permissible under federal law are deemed illegal discrimination under state law. Clear as mud?

Let’s review. If you come to my house for a party and crack a Notre Dame football joke, I can order you out, and if you do not comply, I can call the police and have you arrested (for the sake of this example, pretend I am in the United States, as we would all have a good laugh at the idea of calling the Mexican police under such circumstances). My house is not a public accommodation, and your freedom of speech goes just as far within my walls as I say it does. Move my party to a public venue as a ticketed event, and I may still be able to throw you out for the joke, but I better not do so only to people of color, or women, or Hispanics, or Methodists, or Canadians. Or especially dark-skinned, Hispanic, Methodist women from Canada. Change this event to an official recognition ceremony at the White House honoring Notre Dame’s next football national championship (I know, I know, I should live so long), and I (or really the White House) cannot even prohibit you from wearing a “Notre LAME” sweatshirt to the event.

Your rights are inalienable, to borrow Thomas Jefferson’s original phrase. They come from “your Creator” according to the Declaration of Independence, they pre-date all government, and all legitimate government must abide by them. Many of the right’s issue today are really civility issues, as people try to get noticed, send a message, or stake out a position. That does not make those messages or positions invalid, but it also doesn’t make them right’s issues.

AMLO: A primer

By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.

AMLO came from a middle class Mexican background. Like any politician in Mexico, he began as a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled the country as a single party state for most of the 20th century. In 1988 he left the PRI for a left-wing splinter party which became the PRD, and it was as a PRD candidate he rose to national prominence as the ‘mayor’ of the federal district, Mexico City. He won in the 2000 wave election that turned out the PRI for the first time. Then called the Distrito Federal or DF, the Mexico City region (now CDMX) is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere and dominates Mexican politics. For comparison, Mexico City has 21 million inhabitants; Guadalajara is the second city with about 4 million. While AMLO espoused many socialist programs, he governed as a pragmatic leader. He was budget conscious, increased social spending for the most vulnerable, partnered with business leaders to renovate major areas of the city, and reduced crime.

Coming off a successful audition in Mexico City and a 70% approval rate, AMLO ran for the federal presidency in 2006 as a coalition PRD candidate; he received about 35% of the vote but lost by one-half of one percent to the PAN candidate, in an election many thought was manipulated to defeat him. He subsequently protested the result, and lost much of his popularity for appearing to be a sore loser.

AMLO ran again in the 2012 Presidential election and finished second, as Enrique Peña Nieto brought the PRI back to power. Sensing that party politics was part of the problem, AMLO split from the PRD and formed MORENA, a non-party Movement for National Regeneration. MORENA swept to power on a populist wave in the recently completed 2018 election, leaving all other parties in tatters.

López Obrador moderated some of his earlier positions, supporting NAFTA, allowing for some de-nationalization of the oil monopoly (PEMEX), while continuing to argue for higher minimum wages, increased social spending, an end to the war on drugs, and an end to endemic corruption. He remains a fiery orator, easily offended, and enjoys staking out maximalist positions without explaining how he will implement them. For instance, he suggests that corruption will end based on his personal example as a man of modest means (he will not live in the presidential palace, flies commercial, and declined police protection as a candidate).

Many have speculated on how the populist leaders north and south of the Río Grande will get along. President Trump has used Mexico and Mexicans as a handy foil to blame. Surprisingly, his attacks made little difference down here, and the historic election results were mainly due to popular discontent over drug violence, political corruption, and the main parties inability to do anything about either. Presidente López Obrador will have his hands full with his mandates on corruption and violence. There is actually much the two leaders can agree on, if they can look past the need to play to nationalist memes (easier south of the border than north).

There will be tough language and occasional flare-ups, for sure. However, there are important areas where the two Presidents’ interests coincide. Presidente López Obrador wants a stronger Mexican economy that keeps Mexicans home, which would be good news to President Trump, who also argued that Mexican auto workers get paid too little, which fits neatly with Presidente López Obrador’s support for higher domestic wages. Both men want stronger national economies and may be more willing to cut a bilateral trade deal as a result. If they can rise above “the wall” rhetoric, US approval for a guest worker program might be a good quid pro quo for better Mexican control of its southern border.

The last time US- Mexican relations seemed headed for a major positive change was when President George W. Bush (former Texas Governor) teamed up with newly elected Presidente Vincente Fox (conservative PAN party leader and former Governor of Guanajuato). That progress was sidetracked within a year by the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001.

Perhaps the time is ripe now: stranger things have happened!

The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker

While we were on pilgrimage, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held forth its opinion in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), popularly known as the “anti-gay bakery case.” I would like to revisit it now, because the popular views of the court’s ruling (both for and against) were so misinformed as to be unintelligible, and to consider what this case portends with respect to the ongoing crisis of incivility.

First, to the facts of the case. It is important to understand that what I write in this paragraph is not an opinion of mine or anyone else. The facts of this case were never in dispute: neither the plaintiff nor the defendant disagreed about them. Those facts were: Mr. Phillips was a Colorado baker who makes both normal, daily bakery items and custom-ordered designs. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins were a homosexual couple living in Colorado and planning to get married in Massachusetts, and they went to Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a custom cake to celebrate their impending nuptials. Phillips refused to create such a cake, due to his religious beliefs that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Phillips admitted he had no religious obligation to refuse them normal service, and offered any off-the-shelf product to his customers. Mssrs. Craig and Mullins filed a civil complaint before the CCRC contending that Phillips violated Colorado’s law against discrimination. The CCRC held Phillips in violation of the statute and fined him.

SCOTUS held for Phillips, the plaintiff, voiding the penalties applied to him by the CCRC under Colorado law. Conservatives of various stripes hailed this as a victory for personal religious liberty; progressives cited it as a legitimization of hate. Most news coverage highlighted these viewpoints, even though both views were wrong. Let me explain.

The plaintiff’s case relied heavily upon freedom of speech, and only secondarily on freedom of religion. Phillips’ argument was that making a custom cake was artistic expression (already held to be freedom of speech by SCOTUS), and he could not be compelled to express a belief (gay marriage) he did not hold simply because his services were for sale. While all the opinions discussed this issue, it was not the basis of the decision. Writing for the 7-2 majority (an important point, that), Justice Kennedy never resolved the discrimination vs. religious liberty issue, although he did concede that freedom of speech was at risk. What he focused on was the CCRC ruling, or more specifically, what the CCRC did and said in making that ruling. This is where it gets very interesting.

Citing the transcripts of the CCRC hearings, Kennedy found that the commission–which is responsible for protecting against all unjust discrimination, including anti-religious discrimination–had in fact engaged in anti-religious hostility. Commissioners “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” One commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

I mentioned the outcome was 7-2. Unlike some of the controversial 5-4 SCOTUS decisions recently announced, Masterpiece Cake shop’s majority included Justice Kennedy (who established Gay rights in his former majority opinions) along with Justices Breyer and Kagan! The last two published a concurring opinion which emphasized that it would be ok for a state to punish the baker’s refusal, but in this case the state had engaged in religious hostility. Thus this aspect was not narrow, and the outcome even more striking.

Contra much public reporting, this case neither established a religious exemption for behavior nor legalized hate. What it did do was more important, in my opinion. SCOTUS held that suggesting religious believers, even individual ones, cannot express and act on their views in public is a form of anti-religious bigotry. Further, suggesting “religious people” are inherently no different than Nazis or slave holders is inappropriate. One can hear these arguments made regularly on social media. It is heartening to know that in the United States, such views are beyond the pale, and subject to civil sanction.

Civility demands we not question each other’s motives. Everyone is free to bring ideas forward for consideration, and those ideas will fail or succeed based on the merit in them. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., hoped for a nation where one was not judged by the color of one’s skin, but on the content of one’s character. It goes without saying our ideas should not be judged by the religion (or irreligion) of whoever proposes them, but by the quality the ideas possess.

Unspeakable, not Unsolvable

Those who regularly follow my blog know I rarely venture into political commentary, as that field is overgrown with poisonous weeds and nasty critters. Sometimes, stuff happens that you just can’t ignore; this is one of those times.

The current US administration policy requiring the separation of illegal migrant children from their parents–for whatever reason–is an abomination. The DHS Secretary and others claim that this is simply the inevitable result of a series of court findings and laws passed under previous administrations. That is a technicality, and irrelevant. If it were the case, the separations would have commenced back in January 2017. Attorney General Sessions has admitted part of the reason is ‘to send a signal’ to deter further illegal immigration. You do not send a signal by mistreating children, unless you are the Mob, or MS-13.

This is an administration choice: a conscious policy decision. It must be reversed.

Why is the administration doing this? I contend that President Trump is irritated that he cannot get his border wall funded by Congress. Further, the policies of President Obama set a precedent that children illegally entering the country would be treated more favorably, and this predictably caused the latest immigration challenge of minors (with or without parents) arriving at our borders. It was a crisis in 2014; it is less so today, but still a challenge. We must be honest about the conditions that created the opportunity for this vile policy.

All that said, nothing justifies the current policy: it is abhorrent. We have to come to grips with several real issues.

First, the Unites States cannot accept all families and children who are threatened by violence in their native lands. It sounds sweet, but it cannot be. Thus we have to give our immigration officials guidance to determine who does qualify for asylum under such circumstances, and who does not. This will be hard, and will result in some sad cases. Anybody who wants to join the argument must answer the question “where would you draw the line?” If you just want to post pictures of children crying, you disqualify yourself from the debate. Posit a solution.

Second, we need to clearly publicize our policies in those countries which are the primary source of such immigration, mostly in Central America, and we need the cooperation of local governments with our policy. We also need to improve our relationship with Mexico, as this is the means for such migration and when we have poor relations, the Mexican government feels no need to assist us in reducing it.

Third, we probably need to fund President Trump’s wall. Notice I didn’t say “build it,” just fund it. It won’t work; I explained why here. But as long as it remains unfunded, he will continue to search for ways to leverage any issue into a trade for funding. That is what is happening now, in my opinion. It is a huge infrastructure project, it won’t get done anytime soon, and we can pull the funding as soon as the chief proponent is gone.

Fourth, we need a rational policy for temporary workers from Mexico. We had a good guest worker program (Bracero) for years until President Kennedy went along with spiking it in the 1960s. Re-institute it, which will immediately improve the US- Mexico relationship, help ICE re-direct to more important matters (like violent criminal aliens), and provide needed workers in agriculture (we are approaching full employment, meaning soon there will be more jobs than people to do them).

Fifth, whatever rules we come up with for families with asylum requests, or for entering illegally, we will need to have some way to detain them. Anyone arguing to resume the failed “catch-and-release” policy of past administrations is being irresponsible. While there is no immigrant crisis, the notion that we can simply detain such people then release them in the country until they eventually (could be years!) get a hearing is unworkable. Think it doesn’t cost us much? It led to the Trump phenomenon. Ponder that for a moment. Therefore, detaining families or unaccompanied minors is going to mean some type of camps, and we need to be clear-eyed about the conditions. They need to be safe, secure, and comfortable (remembering the standard of comfort migrants expect). The camps we have now are pretty good; don’t believe me, read this from the Washington Post. When we compare them to the Holocaust we undermine the case. The camps are not the problem; the stupid, immoral policy is the problem.

I will not apportion blame in this case; there is plenty to go around. Both sides are playing to their bases, using images and sound-bites to fire up the crowd. Since Mr. Trump is President and the Republicans are in control of both houses, it is incumbent on them to lead. The Democrats must stop using this issue as a tool for the mid-term elections. If anyone really cares about the people, the children, they will stop scoring political points and act, by compromising.

This is difficult, not impossible. This is unspeakable, not unsolvable.

Be Careful What You Pray For

During my social media sharing of our adventure on the Camino Frances to Santiago de Compostela, some asked me what was my spiritual goal for becoming a pilgrim. I had a ready answer: to give thanks and praise to God for a life filled with blessings. After all, what can we give God: He needs nothing from us. He desires our love, and merits our praise and obedience. but how do you operationalize that, especially during retirement?

So I chose to go on a pilgrimage as a sign of respect and obedience and faith: God has given me so much, I should accept what He has in mind in this endeavor, too. I naively anticipated spending a lot of time in prayer at exquisite, ancient churches, long hikes on a smooth trail under a favorable sun, deep discussions with fellow pilgrims about the meaning of life.

What is that old saw? “If you want to make God smile, tell him your plans.”

What my wife and I got was something far more physically and emotionally challenging than we anticipated, despite many hours of training and over a hundred-and-fifty practice miles of hikes in the mountains of Mexico. The biggest challenges proved to be the keys to what God wanted me to learn, or at least that’s what I have discerned upon further reflection. Those challenges were: first, the overly positive view of the camino I absorbed from guidebooks and online sites, and second, the relentlessly, freakishly bad weather which seemed to follow us like Joe Btfsplk! (Lil’ Abner character if you don’t know; he always has a rain cloud over him)

(Blogger’s note: I covered this first learning point once previously here, so if you want to skip forward, please do. Go to the paragraph which begins “The second challenge was the weather.”)

Some who walk the camino have a remarkable spiritual experience that helps clarify the rest of life. They truly love the camino and want others to have the same type of experience. They often go back and do multiple routes or the same route multiple times, learning new things all the time. In their passion for what the camino has provided to them, they have a tendency to overlook how the camino might be experienced by other new pilgrims. They begin to describe steep hills as “gently rolling terrain,” forget about the dreadfully bad trail conditions going up and downhill, or just how truly dangerous the weather can get. I took such advice without the necessary grain of salt, and we (my wife and I) found ourselves in some very bad circumstances.

Up and down and rocky: this was a good part!

When we survived these situations, my relief quickly changed to anger, then rage. Neglecting to mention such challenges, or minimizing them, puts people at needless risk. This isn’t a question of “learning to overcome challenges”; as a former soldier, I know how that works, and it doesn’t involve exposing others to risk by failing to inform them. During my long camino hiking days, I wondered why God led us into such situations, and was I overreacting? Anger is a tricky emotion, as it can easily lead to all kinds of sin. I kept coming back to the notion of righteous anger: anger that is justified. Think Jesus with the money-changers in the Temple, Saints James (yes, Santiago himself) and John calling for vengeance, or “wipe the dirt from your feet” (Matthew 10:14).

Why would the Lord want me to experience such anger? What could it teach me? Prompted by the Holy Spirit, the thought occurred to me that I was tasting a small sample of God’s righteous anger at humanity as we fail him day after day after day. His justice would seem to necessitate severe punishment, and yet He relents, due to His Divine Mercy. My take was I was given this taste of divine anger to learn how to show divine mercy. Long way to go on that one, but at least I think I know what I am working toward.

The second challenge was the weather. If we had experienced even average weather for May in Spain, our camino would have been more enjoyable. I have to admit, the weather reminded me of the major military exercises I was involved with over 30 years ago in Germany (ReForGer, anyone?). It seemed like those exercises always occasioned long periods of gloom and rain. Bad weather is just one of those things that can affect any trip: so what?

This one was harder to understand. The poor weather interfered with my ability to pray as much as I intended: I had to focus on the slippery trail, the foggy route, or how hard the rain was falling. We had to spend more time on simple things like doing laundry, or finding something warm to drink, and less time visiting shrines or taking in the beauty of the countryside. So my initial reaction was that the bad weather was just bad luck.

When I returned home, one conversation I had on the walk up the mountain to O’Cebreiro kept coming back to me. The weather was cool that morning, and the fog dissipated. The clouds were thick but nonthreatening, permitting a little better view of the climb ahead of us and the valley behind us. For once, I was a little less obsessed with the weather, but still tired and not looking forward to the long uphill climb.

Another pilgrim approached me along the way; I recognized him as someone who had been staying in some of the same towns, someone we had passed or had passed us numerous times. As he passed by me, I gave him a lackluster “Buen camino” and he responded with a hearty “it sure is! What a lovely day.” “Really?” I intoned. He explained that this is one of his favorite parts of the camino, and the weather was perfect for it. He had walked the Camino Frances several times, the earliest being back in the 1980s, before it was so popular. He remembered when O’Cebreiro, our goal for the day, was little more than a church and a few barns on top of the mountain. Now it’s a quaint little purpose-built village of bars, albergues, shops, and that church.

I admitted that I wasn’t feeling that warm, fuzzy glow about the camino he clearly was. He took that as a challenge. “Where else can you get a view of beautiful mountains and lush green valleys like this?” he asked. He didn’t expect my retort: “From my house.” “But what about the weather?” he parried. I replied, “Clearly better at home. I would be in shorts and sunglasses at home.” “Fair enough,” he continued, “but here on the camino you can meet total strangers and make quick friends over a meal, or a walk. Can you do that where you live?” Why, yes, I thought, that is exactly like where I live! But I didn’t say it: I simply smiled and told him, “Ok, buen camino!”

That conversation eventually came back to me as a second spiritual growth point. Many people fall in love with the camino because it is so different from where or how they live. That wasn’t going to happen for me, because I already experience those advantages every day. I went on the camino in thanksgiving for blessings received: God was showing me that it need not necessarily have been that way. It is easy to accept blessings and become accustomed to them, especially when they seem so constant. I think the constant bad weather was a little reminder to enjoy what I already have, and to not take it for granted.

So I met my spiritual goals, even if it didn’t work out the way I anticipated. Pilgrims like to talk about finding “your way” on the camino. Sometime we have to remember what Jesus said: “Yo soy el Camino…”