Christine Flowers: Nuance on immigration falls by the wayside in current debate
Garry Goodenough via Flickr
I was just at a round table where we discussed, in the most civilized manner possible, the immigration controversy.
Everyone in the conversation liked and respected each other, and listened to the opinions, sometimes quite diverse, from those at the other end of the philosophical spectrum. Some were focused on the chaos at the border. Others wanted to find a way to legalize the millions who were living here already with no status. Another person was upset about ICE raids on a Puerto Rican restaurant that essentially amounted to an attempt to deport U.S. citizens.
Another participant mentioned that the most extreme moves from the Trump administration, like the termination of birthright citizenship, would be blocked by the courts because they were unconstitutional. And finally, someone talked about the need to get rid of criminal aliens, the ones who have been preying upon innocent Americans like Laken Riley.
To be honest, we did have that conversation. And there were a number of people at the table. But every one of those comments was made by me.
I write this to show that you can walk and chew gum, be a law-and-order conservative and compassionate, oppose abortion and random and cruel family separations at the same time. In me you will find the wide range of opinions and priorities of the American public, and in me you will find someone who cannot be pushed into one category. I am neither “deport them all,” nor am I “accept them all.”
This is an issue of great nuance. But unfortunately, nuance does not seem to win elections.
I mentioned during that conversation that the slew of executive orders and actions were designed to create “shock and awe,” and keep the promises that President Donald Trump made during his campaign. While many pretended that “it was the economy, stupid,” I knew in my heart that the most explosive and compelling issue was immigration. After all, one of Trump’s first acts after his first inauguration was to issue the travel ban, which some incorrectly insisted on calling the “Muslim Ban.”
It was not a ban targeting Muslims, otherwise Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and a host of other countries with Muslim populations would have been included on the list. They were not. The list mirrored many countries that had been suspected of involvement in terrorism. On that basis, I was able to defend the action in some ways, even though I ended up at the airport to protest what I feared would be excesses.
This time around, though, Trump is more seasoned. He was not prepared for the backlash that many of his ill-thought out immigration policies would trigger, and some of them actually fizzled out when they were challenged in court. That is happening again. Many of his initiatives will be tied up in the courts, and that is a very good thing. The president does not get to rearrange refugee policy with a ballpoint pen, regardless of what he thinks about a unitary executive.
Nonetheless, it is very clear that Trump 2.0 has a plan, and has made sure that he picked the people he believes will execute it the best. I think Tom Homan, who served under Obama as well as Trump, is an excellent choice because he is not an ideologue interested in ethnic cleansing, like some of Trump’s advisers. Homan is the real deal. I don’t hold out much hope for Kristi Noem, who is a pretty face and wears a cowboy hat with élan, but who has never in her life had to deal with significant border and security issues as governor of South Dakota, one of the least populous states in the nation.
As a conservative, I want to see the chaos at the border erased. I want to support Trump in his efforts to get rid of criminal aliens, and in that group I include those who have one conviction as well as repeat offenders. If we have to start somewhere, start with the people who pose a threat to our security.
But, also as a conservative, I cannot support the idea that children will go to school one day and come home to an empty house because their parents have been picked up and put on a plane home. Those parents are not criminals, because violating immigration policy is not penal. It is civil. Those people clean your houses and trim your bushes and cook your meals. And yes, they are parents to U.S. citizens, because birthright citizenship is not going anywhere. As someone who is radically pro-life, I cannot deal with fellow pro-lifers who think that the baby in the womb deserves protection but a child born in this country to undocumented parents does not. As a lawyer, I don’t like to see my constitution manipulated for political gain.
Many have said to me that I am too emotionally involved in this issue. Some have even suggested that they think I am criticizing the government because it’s cutting into my business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chaos is good for my business. Deportation is good for my business. The more suffering there is, they more clients need assistance. And I am repulsed by the suggestion from my conservative friends that this is all part of my master plan.
When I sat at that round table, I said I hoped we would arrive at common sense solutions. I said that I hoped we would honor the founding principles of this country, which has always been a refuge for the dispossessed, while at the same time giving priority to the safety and prosperity of United States citizens.
Christine Flowers is an attorney and lifelong Philadelphian. @flowerlady61
This piece was originally published in the Delaware Valley Journal.
Of all the arguments for large scale immigration, the one I find most repulsive is the thought that we must have such so that we can have cheap nannies and gardeners. I see an eerie parallel here to the late stages of Imperial Rome with its society built on a vast number of underclasses. (Before you try to tell me that it was actual slavery, and not immigrants, remember, the economic and social circumstances are similar). The fact that we want immigrant help reflects an attitude of disdain for real work and a certain dislike of physical/mental discipline. I am old, and I remember as a pre-teen during harvest season at local orchards, teens. moms. others would turn out to do the picking. Wasn’t much but better than nothing). Mike Rowe has a scholarship program to help people find meaningful, career-oriented work in the trades or other endeavors that do not require advanced degrees. Among other things, this program is attempting to bring the concept of the dignity of work back again. It is estimated that there are about 7,000,000 good jobs available which no one seems willing to do, the labour force participation rate is about 60%, indicating a lot of people just decided it is better to lay around than to get sweaty and tired at a job. We don’t have a shortage of workers that needs unrestrained immigration to fill, we have a shortage of people already here who want to work.
I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that this is part of my argument although, sadly, from your comments George I suspect it is.
Nope, I am not trying to suggest that it is part of your argument. I actually read it all. I don’t often wordsmith, so my language structures are somewhat stilted and archaic. (a disadvantage of being old is being out of step with syntax, construction and use). I am however, reflecting on the increasing content of public debate where the last appeal is the argument that we need immigrants to do the work our society won’t do. I read somewhere a sentence that was similar to this: “California, the land of cheap nannies and gardeners.” and as I recall, it was in the context of some pride. I am more and more distressed by the mainstreaming of casual labour found in the parking lots of big box stores that is mostly composed of immigrants. One can’t build the American dream on odd-lot jobs from customers found at Home Depot. I am particularly incensed at the concept implicit in “immigrant jobs for tasks Americans won’t do.” This is both elitist and racist and was also a foundational belief of various dictatorships in the past (in particular the Nazi party, but they were not alone.). It would be a tragedy to see this concept legitimized as an argument for uncontrolled immigration.
Christine, I am not trying to imply that it is part of your argument. I wrote an extensive reply but I don’t know what part of the vast unknowable Internet world it is in.
In the case of Kiyemba v. Obama (2009), the D.C. Court of Appeals noted that the U.S. government has the authority to determine who is subject to its jurisdiction, which could extend to the interpretation of citizenship rights for children of undocumented immigrants. Many countries do not grant automatic citizenship based solely on place of birth. For example, countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have more restrictive policies regarding birthright citizenship, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident. So it seems the United States finally is taking a more nuanced approach to citizenship that reflects the complexities of modern immigration.
Sorry Christine. I disagree. If your parents came here illegally, then their offspring are here illegally. We have yet to present arguments as to the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. If you were processed at the border and skipped your hearing, you’re illegal and deportable. If you are here on a Visa that has expired, you’re illegal. If you want to come here, apply and wait at home. Asylum seekers should face tougher standards of proof of religious or political persecution. Plus they should have skills that are needed here, plus the ability to support themselves. The life of the child born to illegals is their parents responsibility, not the American taxpayer. Lastly, those jobs they are taking are only lowering the standard of living here and making larger profits for those who hire them.
The statement that “Those parents are not criminals, because violating immigration policy is not penal. It is civil.” could lead some readers to believe that entering the US unlawfully is not a crime. According to the American Immigration Council “Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense.” However, the Council also notes that “Those who enter or reenter the United States without permission, however, can face criminal charges.” The Council also notes that Title 8, Section 1325 of the US Code “makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter.” So many of those parents are criminals.
This is why Chrissy needs to stop listening to the voices in her head and seek medical care. She is a one trick pony, it is impossible for her to write anything with shoehorning in abortion.
Pot, meet kettle.
Feel free to clarify your statement.
Everyone on this site knows exactly what that means – except you? Not surprising.
You forgot to say “Google it” and claim I was suffering from TDS. Instead if explaining what you meant.
Anyone who voted for President Trump knew full well with eyes wide open that he was going to round up the “illegals” and throw them out of the country. Trump said he would do this and now he’s doing it. He’s going to hunt them down in schools and churches. Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. You can’t be Christian and support any of this.
…and that’s one of the top reasons he won. 77 million non-Christians voted for him(?) Was Jesus wrong to throw the money changers and merchants out of the Temple? Maybe if you view the deportations in that light, as thieves, rapists, murderers and grifters, then you’ll be able to sleep better.
What a unique view you have on life, I wonder what Christ would say? Fortunately there is a book that covers this
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Here are some that apply to you.
But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?
A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.
Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.
My view is not unique. Have you loved Trump today? Have you loved all those Christians trying to stop abortions or mutilation of adolescents? You’re a hypocrite. You aren’t fooling anybody with a few versus from the Bible. This isn’t about needy. This is about jobs, crime, health and politics. The needy can, and are helped, with taxpayer funded programs while staying in their home country.
Christine, Although I don’t always agree with everything that you write, I continue to enjoy reading your articles 9great food for actual thought) and listening to your shows on the radio. Hope all is well. Jerry M (DMH Paoli)