Category: Politics

My new book, Social Justice from a Biblical basis, is now out. I hope many of you buy it.  In it, I seek to deal with a multiplicity of ideas that drive the culture in the United States and Western nations, including Israel, from a post-millennial young adult perspective.  One of those issues is immigration. Europe had its great challenge on immigration due to the Syrian war refugees and less so African refugees. The issues arising from this has been tearing European countries apart.  The United States is also facing the deep division over the massive influx of migrants from Central American Countries. They flee violent crime and poverty. There are no norms in international law requiring nations to receive migrants unless there is persecution, violence, and danger to their lives from war form government persecution, political or religious.  Large masses of people yet come who do not fulfill these standards. The division has now been set in stone by the hardened positions of the Democrats who have moved left on this issue (much more left than President Obama) and the Republicans who have moved right way beyond historic Republican positions. The Democrats seem to be supporting open borders and just letting people go wherever they want with no enforcement.  

Yet, there is another problem.  It is that a significant amount of criminal activity is being fostered due to the lack of border control.  There is fraud, even that some criminals have brought children to gain entrance, which children are not their own.  

What is the Biblical view of justice for this situation?   Justice is an order of righteousness were every person can fulfill his or her God intended good destiny,  If people are in poverty, subject to violence and in dire straits, can we blame them for seeking to escape, even if they enter illegally?  They cannot fulfill a good destiny without basic provisions of food, shelter, work, and freedom from violence. Borders and nation states as they now exist are not found in the Bible though there were nations in biblical times.  There was more freedom of movement and fluidity in people movement. Now that there is such a huge influx, the attempt to vet people for asylum claims is thwarted by releasing people before they can have a hearing before a judge. They never return for their hearings.  We now have detention centers with poor conditions for a multitude of people. If they are released they will not show up for court on their asylum claim which usually is a false claim and a lie. Yet the need is real, for many of these people need to escape. What can be done?  What is justice? Can the United States’ resources be expected to take in the whole world of people in need and support any who want to come in?

So here is a proposal.  

1. First, the United States and all nations need to strictly control their borders.  This is to keep out criminal cartels, gang members, drug dealers, sex trafficker and more.  However that can be done is the right policy; a wall, drones, beefed up security personnel, etc.  All who come must be vetted and criminals will be treated with strict and hard justice, jail, being sent back, etc.  
2. Second, It should be a serious crime to not enter through ports of entry.   All must come through a port of entry or be swiftly returned. There will be no claim of asylum from those crossing the border illegally. 
3. Third, we should drop the requirement of applying for asylum to stay.  The key is to give all who enter a temporary visa with a work permit. They can then be put in an e verify base for employment.  Their permission to stay in the United States will be contingent on being accountable to authorities for where they live and work.  If they opt out of the system, they will be deported if found. They will be removed from the qualified for employment list. Employers who hire anyone without being verified in e verify will receive a strict fine.  
4. Employers must show that they first tried to hire citizens and permanent residents and only filled the jobs with those with the visitors’ work visas because they could not find employees who were permanent residents and citizens of the United States.   The employers will pay the same salary and benefits that citizens and permanent residents receive. Thus, we eliminate the incentives to hire these visitors to save money. They can join pools for medical needs but will have to pay for it. Policy should not incentives with welfare. 
5. If there are no jobs for them, they will have to return to their country of origin or go to another country.  The e-verify system and the availability of jobs will determine whether not they can stay. Keeping a job will be the sorter of those who can stay and those who cannot.  If they are unemployed for a significant period of time, they have to leave and will be removed from the employment pool. They can avoid this if they have a sponsor who will pay for them and regularly reports with them. 
6. A merit-based system will still be maintained for those who are needed in skilled jobs who will get residency quicker. 
7. We will do what is possible to help the countries from which these migrants come if they are willing to fight crime, and create an economically successful country.  This requires finding government leaders who can do this and are not themselves corrupt criminals. 

In this way, the receiving country seeks justice for migrants and refugees.  The country enforces borders. The country avoids the huge costs of welfare and the bad incentives for people to come.  This is a moderate position between open borders and precluding migration. It recognizes the need for border control and for compassion without leading the country to financial ruin.  The number let in will be those who can be absorbed in a positive way and can make a contribution to the country. If they are employed, learn English and show stability over a few years, they can become permanent residents.  This will even help our social security revenue needs. 

Permanent residency would be a possibility but not citizenship.  They would not be allowed to vote, but their minor children could have a path to citizenship.  (There would be no anchor babies where babies born here give their parents permanent rights to stay.  This would eliminate the need). This would take away the Democratic incentive to flip the country to the left by having a huge new population of Democratic voters.  In a generation, it is not so certain that these people will be on the left. Many are pro-life, pro-family and morality and are very open to the Gospel if they are not already believers.  They could be a source of revival in the country, if treated fairly and with compassion, they could become conservative Republican voters as well as Democratic. Both parties can be motivated to win them.  

I minister in Hispanic churches, some with large numbers of illegal immigrants.  They are dear and lovely people. This is an amazing opportunity for the Church to be mobilized, to provide for them with compassion to help them find jobs and to see them won to Messiah through the Good News. 

Four new members of Congress are radically on the left. Most have heard of Ilan Omer, who spoke with anti-Semitic tropes that offended many mainstream American Jewish leaders. In Israel, the statements of the radical four have been noted as virulently anti-Israel. However, in this post, I want to speak about their effect on the constant claim that those who oppose them are racists. The accusation of racism is now bandied about against any who disagree with their policy positions. This shuts down the debate. President Trump is a racist despite his meeting with Black business leaders and having Blacks in his administration who vouch for him. The phenomenon is called identity politics and is tearing the country apart. One of the problems with identity politics is that it offends the majority of non-minority Americans and many minorities as well. The big problem is that if everything is racism then real racism, which does exist in America, cannot be clearly identified and fought. Eventually, the destructive nature of it will be clear as it spins out of control.

Two recent examples are pronounced. One is from Alexandria Ocasia Cortez, the recently elected congresswoman from New York. She actually implied that racism motivated the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, due to her passing legislation she disagreed with and then dismissed the power of her circle in its opposition. Cortez said it was connected to the four being women of color. Just a side note, last time I looked, Cortez’s skin is very white. I wonder what she would find if she took a genetic test. Cortez himself might have been an ancestor! He was the conquistador that did not treat the natives well! But Pelosi a racist? Wow!!

The second example is Colin Kaepernick, who recently got Nike to remove a patriotic theme sneaker with the original American flag of the 13 stars. He claimed it was from a time when there was slavery and had bad associations. Nike caved and pulled the sneaker. Yet the flag was designed by the anti-slavery abolitionist pre-feminist Betsey Ross who had Quaker roots. How does this help the country if even the good aspects of its history are destroyed by false claims?

In Israel, we face a very different reality. There were major demonstrations with some violence by Ethiopian Jews in Israel who claim that they are subject to racism. The proximate cause was the death of a young Ethiopian Jew by an off duty policeman. The big difference in Israel is that all admit that racism is a problem and that for years there was discrimination against Sephardic Jews by the dominant Ashkenazic Jews. Now the discrimination is with the Ethiopians. However, in Israel, there was a response admitting a real problem to be addressed, including from the conservatives and the liberals.

Imagine my surprise when the front page top headline story in the Jerusalem Post, my religiously required reading on Friday morning, was on the Mueller report on Donald Trump, his circle and the issue of Russia collusion (Conspiring) and obstruction of justice.  The Post did a reasonably good job of summary.  

I had hoped that the report would end the focus on this, and that the Congress and the President could get on with the issues facing the country.  That was naïve on my part.  Whatever the report said, the Democrats would argue that it showed Trump was guilty even if the report did not show such, and the Republicans would say that it showed he was not guilty.  There is so much spin that avoiding dizziness is almost impossible. What was I to do?  I downloaded the report and read it myself.  Here is my take from a direct reading. 

First, on the issue of collusion and conspiracy, the report was quite clear.  There was no substantial evidence that President Trump, his circle or any American colluded or conspired with the Russians.  This is the big conclusion. However, Democrats are saying that Trumps use of the material that came from Russians and Julian Assange was almost a crime.  Really?  It was in the public domain.  If the Democrats had such material, they would not use it?  Also, the Steele Dossier used against President Trump for this investigation came from Russian sources!  The Democrats argue that the contacts Trump team’s with Russians was somehow terrible when such contacts are par for the course.

The issue of obstruction of justice is more complex.  This section of the report did not conclude that Trump was guilty of obstruction and did not conclude that he was exonerated.  It appears at times that he wanted to end, disrupt or influence the investigation.  However, his advisors and lawyers prevented this, so it did not take place.  Most of the issues of obstruction came from his hard push back against the investigation in public comments.  Could this influence grand juries in an undue way?  There were also cases where he wanted to contain the investigation.  However, none of this happened.  The descriptions of the President in this section are terribly unflattering.  They show that side of the President that his opponents and even some supporters most hate.  However, Mueller did not conclude that he obstructed and noted that different views and disagreements on what constituted obstruction was a factor in not coming to a clear conclusion.  So, there was no conclusion that he did obstruct justice or that he did not. Several past prosecutors and leaders of the justice department noted that it is hard to make an obstruction case when there is no underlying crime. The case is undercut by the first conclusion of no consipiracy/collusion.  Therefore, the issue is trying to disrupt an investigation when the person being investigated is innocent.  Does hindering the investigation or pushing back against it constitute obstruction?  The report says again that this is a matter of disagreement in viewpoints.  Obstruction of an investigation where the person would be found innocent is still on one interpretation obstruction.  But what if the innocent party believes that the investigation itself is unjust and a set up that is presenting false information?  The person in fear may try to prevent such an unjust conclusion.  It is clear that the President did not trust this investigation since the investigation team was a team of almost all Democrats and even some connected to Hillary’s team.  But Trump’s advisors persuaded him to cooperate to an unprecedented level, having his staff testify, providing tons of documents and not claiming likely upholdable executive privilege for some matters.   So the Special Prosecutor did not come to a conclusion.  If there was a clear and provable case of obstruction with corrupt intent the prosecutor would have said so. He left this ambigusous.  There was not such a clear case. The President’s actions were to proclaim his innocence and influence the process so this would be established, not to see a false conclusion made.  Corrupt intent would therefore be very hard to prove.  Congress can establish that his actions were so bad that he could be censored or impeached.  This would go nowhere in the Senate, so is a waste of time. 

Now the Republicans want to investigate possible criminal behavior in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Intelligence Agencies and the State Department that led to the investigation in the first place.  They want to look at why Hillary Clinton was not found guilty in handling classified information and also for obstructing justice (the case there seems very strong).  So if a corrupt regime led to the investigation how could President Trump be guilty of obstruction?  How complex this is?

The danger of both Republicans and Democrats is losing the independents who probably want the country to move on and end all these investigations.   

Recently two events highlighted the tyranny of the left in seeking to shut out discussion of anything that any leftist group rejects.  A mother of a student at a Catholic College criticized young women who wore tights to mass as too revealing and distracting to men.  Then two airports, one in Buffalo and another in San Antonio rejected a Chick-Fil A concession due to their opposition to the LGBT community.   On the first matter, it was not long ago that mothers would teach their daughters that young men (really all men) were very attracted to the female body and dressing in revealing ways was a cause of lustful thoughts in men.  They counseled them to be helpful to the men.  This is quite obvious, but we are not supposed to say this, even if it is dress for the mass.  The intense rejection and protest of this one letter shows the hatred for traditional moral norms.  One comedian who does not care about modesty (he tells many dirty jokes) said his visit to the gym is like observing a gynecology exam.  He gets away with it because he is no proponent of traditional morality, but the reason for the push back is against any assertion of traditional moral sensitivities.  So also with Chick-Fil A: they do not as a corporation oppose the LGBT movement, and their hiring is without discrimination.  But their founder does give to Christian organizations like Athletes in Action which is a Christian group that fosters sexual relations as only intended by God for traditional marriage.  

One could ask why single out Chick-Fil A.  The position of Athletes in Action is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore by their reasoning, any person who supports Catholic Charities should also have their business boycotted.  Any member of a Catholic Church or an Evangelical church should be boycotted.  We are finding that the left now has a list of things that they have defined as no longer subjects for discussion, and that by intimidation they will shut down all discussion.  Here are a few:

1. That human sexual physical relations is intended by God for traditional marriage alone.  
2. That transgenderism is a rejection of clear biological realities. 
3. That transgender treatments are dangerous to the body (This is very scientific)
4. That transgender females (biological men who compete in women’s sports) have an unfair advantage and destroy women’s sports. 
5. That Christianity is God’s way of salvation.  
6. That black on black crime is much more of a serious problem in the cities than police abuses.  
7. That some homosexuals flip and become heterosexuals.  Maybe we should look at this.  After all, some homosexuals speak of gender fluidity. 
8. That the founders of the United States were good men and have to be judged by the progress they made in their age, not by our age.  Their statues should remain, and they should be honored. 
9. That human rights were rooted in the Biblical faith.  

The intimidation has to stop, but only if we rise up and are not intimidated.  These points are legitimate points for discussion have to be asserted and boldly.  Also, it should be noted that the one common element in the intimidation and the claim of hate speech is the hatred mostly of Christianity and traditional morality.  The assertion of traditional morality is said to be hate speech.  We must fight back.  That morality is a great source of world progress.  Family stability based on traditional morality is the key to progress.  We are not demanding that we impose our morality on others, but that we can be proponents of our faith and morality and convince others of the truth.