Quick Takes (v37): Immigration Bill Passes

I've been one of those people calling for the House of Representatives to do something other than investigate the president, and just a short while ago, I found out that the actually did something.

Yep -- they passed an immigration bill.

The bill - H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, focuses on those who were brought here illegally as children, and looks to provide a path to citizenship for some 2 million immigrants - and while there's little chance that it will see the light of day in the obstructionist Senate, should there be some warp or wrinkle in the space-time continuum and it actually does make it through the Senate, it will certainly be vetoed by the president.

Here's what the bill would do:

The House-passed bill would protect from deportation and provide a pathway toward citizenship for young immigrants brought to the US illegally as children. 

These are the ones some people suggest should be sent "back home" - but many of them have only ever known the United States as home, and as a result have no home to return to.

Many would be "Dreamers" currently safeguarded by the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which only the federal courts have thwarted Trump from dismantling. 

It would also shield others here temporarily because their home countries - chiefly in Central America, Africa and the Middle East - have been ravaged by wars or natural disasters. 

You may recall the president mentioning 'shit-hole countries' in the past -- those are where the folks with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are from.

The Congressional Budget Office said it could cost over $30B over ten years, primarily because many of the folks who would benefit under the bill would be eligible for federal benefits once they receive legal status. Supporters - including the US Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO - say that these folks will help our economy, not hurt us.

So, how would this work? Here's a quick summary.

• immigrants who were younger than 18 when they arrived, and who have lived in the US continuously for the past four years would be eligible, and
• must have either an American high school diploma or a GED, and
• they must pass a background check (serious felonies are disqualifying).

To get on the path to citizenship, those who meet the eligibility requirements

• must earn a college degree, complete two years of a degree program (higher education or technical school) or
• have served honorably in the US military or
• have been employed for more than three years.

And those here under TPS? They'd be able to gain permanent residency if they've been here for more than three years when the legislation is enacted and if they have a clean record - no felonies and no more than a single misdemeanor. 

So, is it worth it for the Dems to pass this kind of bill, with Republican help, knowing that it's DOA in the Senate?  

Yes - yes it is.  They have to prove that they can actually legislate, instead of just investigating the living daylights out of Trump. 

OrangeVerse XL: Cabinetry

You've heard, I'm sure, that the president had a cabinet meeting last week. You may have heard that he was all over the map with his comments, both in the pre-meeting discussion and also in the portion of the meeting when he invites the press to play along with him.

What you probably didn't hear that his being all over the map makes for great poetry.  Here's how some of it looked during his statements. We may take a look at the portion where he took questions from the press, and at how poetic his cabinet members are, as well.

Thanks for Coming

It's going to be a very exciting year. 

I think it's going to be a very good year.

Some people think

it'll be controversial and tough

and it probably will but

we're going to get a lot done.

The 1st Part About the Shutdown

We're in a shutdown because Democrats

refuse to fund the border security. They try

and make it like it's just about the wall, 

and it is about the wall.

I said, over the weekend, 

to a number of people that, you know

the wheel, the wall - 

there are some things that never get old...

If we had a wall - and we will.

The 2nd Part About the Shutdown

We're in the shutdown because of the fact

that the Democrats are looking to 2020.

They think they're not going to win the election. 

I guess a lot of signs point to the fact

that they're not going to win the election.

And I hope they're not going to win the election.

But they view this as an election point for them.

I actually think it's bad politics, but I'm not thinking 

about the politics. I'm thinking 

about what's right and what's wrong. 

And we need a physical barrier. 

Everything else is bells and whistles. 

I know more about drones than anybody.

Sunday School 6/24/18

In the interest of my own sanity and yours, I only visited one classroom today - Face the Nation  on CBS.  How did I choose that one?

A complicated, random process that starts with "who hasn't really bothered me lately?" which leaves Chuck Todd out of the mix automatically. I then checked ABC to see if George Stephanopoulos was actually hosting his own show, and he was - but Senator Jeff Flake (Lame Duck -AZ) was on, and he's on Sunday more than your average televangelist, so that dropped George from the running.

Of the remaining shows, I used good old alphabetical order, which led me to Margaret Brennan and Bob Corker (R-TN), he of the 'cultish' comment about his fellow Republicans leading off the immigration discussion. First off, Brennan asked him if what was going on at the border amounted to human rights violations.

Well, Margaret, it obviously is not something that is realistic. It's not something that appreciates these young children, and certainly was done in a 'ready, fire, aim' way, obviously.  There was no preparation for it. I can't imagine any American's heart not going out to these families, knowing these children are being separated. And then where were they going? 

After appreciating the Trump administration for the executive order changing things, Corker noted

That's led to another crisis, if you will, because of the 20-day rule that exists. And so, you know, the administration obviously made a large mistake. I know that some in the White House want to use the immigration issue as a -- as a force to activate the base for elections, but obviously the president realized that was a mistake. And now it's up to us in Congress to work with the to come up with a longer-term solution.

Brennan asked him about legislation he supports, which she equated to indefinite detention at taxpayer expense. He noted that he wished the Senate could have passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, but

We keep trying to deal with these micro-issues, all of which are important, whether it's DACA or this issue. I realize that, before the election, that's very unlikely to occur, but we need to deal with the whole of the issue...we need to look at the whole thing. In the interim, between now and November, it's likely we will only deal with some of the micro-issues, and the issue just raised is a problem. So, we have go to deal with them. 

They talked about a poll showing that 73% of Rs think anyone crossing the border illegally should be dealt with harshly, and only 23% thinking they should be treated well; Corker thinks that's backwards.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) would most certainly be on 'treat them harshly' side of the equation, as evidenced by this one statement on the whole separation of families thing and House Republican efforts to fix things.

But mostly, what we want to do, Margaret, is the mandate from the 2016 election was real clear. The American people made Donald Trump president, made Republicans the majority in the House and the Senate to build the border security wall, stop chain migration, end the sanctuary city policy, reform our asylum laws, get rid of the visa lottery, and then also deal with the DACA population. 

If that wasn't clear, there was also this statement:

Senator Cruz has a bill. But Chuck Schumer says no, no, no, we're not going to bring is up, because the Democrats, really deep down, what they care about is catch and release. What they want is open borders and what they want is the political issue. They don't want to solve the problems. They don't want to keep families together and adjudicate this and have it go through the hearing process and do it in a way that's consistent with the rule of law. They don't want to do that. 

Womp, womp, as they say.

Finally, Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was next up. Brennan asked Cummings what the Dems stand for on immigration, given that Trump considers them purely resistant, obstructionist, being pro-criminal and pro-open-borders.

That we want to be humane. We want to make sure that these families are reunited after the president created this false crisis. And we want to get these families back together again. We want to get rid of this zero tolerance policy that has been announced by the president. And we want to make sure, as Sen. Corker says, that people are given an opportunity to pursue - and legally pursue an opportunity to be part of the United States of America. 

They talked about changes made by AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to remove gang and domestic violence as valid reasons for asylum, and about the old way of doing things, the 'catch and release' process. Cummings noted that a huge percentage of the folks released with an ankle bracelet did return for their hearing, and that process is more humane than what's been going on. And that it was cheaper, certainly - and that "we have no clue" what the current processes are costing.

Brennan then asked about civility, or the lack thereof, referencing the Sarah Sanders incident.

Over the weekend, Sarah Sanders... was refused service at a restaurant in Virginia because of who she works for. Her father, the former governor of Arkansas, also tweeted out a photo showing MS-13 gang members, or claiming that's who these men were, and called them Democrat Nancy Pelosi's campaign committee. Some heard that as racist. What do you make of this kind of discourse right now?

Cummings felt that Sanders should have been served,

But this tone is horrible. But again, I think president Trump has created this. Since he's become president, and even before, he's basically given people license to state things that are ugly, and those things then turn into actions, as we can see now. 

But we have got to get away from this, and we have got to concentrate on what is important at this moment. And we have got to get a -- he's got to be more competent. 

Even the policies that he likes, he has not been very good at executing. And so we have got to find a way to address that. 

That's a good place to leave things, don't you think?

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/4/18

Kinda of in a funk today, so my attention span was limited and I only visited one classroom, CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper at the helm.

The first guest was Peter Navarro, who is the White House Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. Navarro's goal today was to convince us that president Trump's surprise announcement of tariffs - 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum -- was a great idea, good for the president, good for our steel and aluminum workers, and #MAGA.

Navarro said the tariffs would go into effect next week, maybe the week after, once the White House lawyers get all their ducks in a row. Tapper played some video of the president blaming China for overproduction and saying that needed to be addressed, and then he reminded Navarro that China doesn't make the top ten steel importers into the US. Here's how Navarro responded:

So, the bigger picture is that China has tremendous overcapacity in both aluminum and steel. And so what they do is, they flood the world market with this product. And that ripples down to our shores and to other countries. So China is, in many ways, the root of the problem in both aluminum and steel for all countries of the world.

But let's be clear here about what the president's doing. Let's lay this on the table. This is an action, basically, to protect our national security and economic security. And the president was quite clear. We can't have a country that can defend itself and prosper without an aluminum and steel industry.

Silly me - I thought we couldn't be a country without a border wall, and without getting rid of chain migration and stuff. I was wrong, I guess.

Tapper reminded Navarro, speaking of national security, that the Pentagon was not in favor of what Trump did.

The Pentagon wrote a memo about the tariff, saying, indeed the unfair steel practices do create a national security problem. But the Pentagon also said that the US should use targeted tariffs and avoid angering allies who are needed for other diplomatic national security reasons, such as Canada, such as South Korea. If you are invoking the national security exemption, should you not also be listening to the Pentagon on how to apply these tariffs?

Navarro's answer was reminiscent of Trump's "I alone can fix it" comment.

What I love about this president is, he listens to all points of view, both within his government and outside, and then he makes the tough decisions. 

Which includes ignoring the Pentagon.

Also on the show was Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is considered a potential challenger to Trump in 2020. Tapper talked to him about the president's trade tariffs (Kasich is not a fan) and the president's 'gun control without due process' plan; Kasich is again not a fan. Rather, what he's trying in Ohio is a restraining order, which comes with due process.

In terms of our gun retraining order, it means, if you have somebody in the family who sees trouble in the family, they have an ability, either go to law enforcement or the court in order to get those guns out of that person who's having a very difficult time, get the guns away from them. If you're a neighbor or somebody outside, you can go to a police officer who can investigate and then go to the judge. There's got to be speed in this, because we don't want people who are emotionally - you know, emotionally in upheaval, who could pose a threat either to themselves or to somebody else, to be in a position where they can have a gun.

Kasich also noted that the agenda changes, quickly.

And by the way, have we forgotten the Dreamers, the DACA, the young people who came here? They're not even in the news anymore. And I don't - I can't believe Congress is -- Congress has got to do something on guns. 

And you know what? I think the president will sign something. If he doesn't, send it to him anyway. I mean, the deal is that you don't ask permission. You legislate; you get it to the president, you see what he does.

 I believe he will sign some really good, strong, common sense gun legislation. Send him the Dreamers. We can't be taking these kids that have been -- or young people who have been here, some of them for 20 years, and ship them out of the country for political reasons. 

Tapper also asked Kasich about 2020, and whether someone should challenge Trump, even if it's not Kasich who does it. .

Well, come on Jake. We don't know what's going to happen next week. That's not -- you know, all I'm doing is making sure that, both now and when I'm out, that I can have a voice that can help the country, that can bring it together. That's all I'm particularly interested in at this point. And if I go any further than that, Jake, I won't be able to get in my house tonight. My wife will have it barricaded. 

So, I'm not going there.... 

And, listening to the entire exchange  between Kasich and Tapper, I was reminded why I liked Kasich more than any of the rest of the Republicans. First, he's reasonable, and second, he has a great sense of humor and hes not afraid to use it - which is something we could use a whole lot more of in DC.

See you around campus.

Opportunity's Knocking

Today is February 26th. March 5th is next Monday, and is the day that president Trump gave as his deadline for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, more commonly known as DACA, to end unless Congress acted to save it.

Today, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's call for an expedited appeal of the decision to kill DACA. Here's some info from the NY Times.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the administration's appeal was expected, as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue. The court's order was brief, gave not reasons, and noted no dissents. It said it expected the appeals court to "proceed expeditiously to decide this case." 

...two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status. The administration has not sought stays of those injunctions.

The Supreme Court's move will, as a practical matter, temporarily shield the young immigrants who already has signed up for the DACA program from immediate deportation, and allow them to keep working legally in the United States. Their status lasts for two years and is renewable.

What was the administration looking for? Well, it wanted the Supremes to step in and review Trump's ending of the program, before a lower court had heard and decided an appeal. Two federal judges - one in California and one in New York, issued rulings that effectively barred the shutdown of the DACA program. Here's a glimpse at what happened in the lower courts, from the ACLU,

Both courts ruled that the administration's rationale for suspending the DACA program - that it was unconstitutional and conflicted with the immigration laws - was incorrect and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a 1946 law that regulates federal agencies and provides judicial oversight over their behavior. The law prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" actions by federal agencies, and provides a safeguard against unchecked power.

So, what happens now? The cases will wind their way through the appeals process - when the Trump administration filed the appeal with the Supremes, they also filed it in the California case, and if they haven't already done so, they'll likely appeal the NY ruling too.

And in the meantime, it's likely that no one will be working on a legislative solution, because the pressure will be off the politicians - but it won't be off the DREAMers. As the Times notes,

The court's decision not to hear the appeal could also relieve the immediate political pressure on lawmakers to permanently address the status of those immigrants, or to deal with the additional one million DREAMers who had never signed up for the DACA program. They remain at risk of deportation if immigration agents find them.

That sentiment is echoed by the ACLU.

The Supreme Court's refusal provides a reprieve for DACA recipients, but it by no means takes away the urgent need for Congress to come up with a legislative solution. even with DACA reviews continuing, nearly 800,000 DACA recipients live in fear the the lives have built in the United States are in jeopardy.

So -- now is the time for a leader or several leaders in the Senate to rise to the occasion and come up with a plan that addresses DACA and other immigration issues, rather than waiting for the eventual court ruling that will make the decision for them.  It was only back on February 15th that the Senate failed to pass an immigration plan.

• The Coons-McCain bill failed, 52-47. This bill had a path for DACA bu didn't do anything about the border wall.
• The Toomey Amendment failed, 54-45. This would have penalized sanctuary cities, but didn't address DACA.
• The Common Sense plan failed, 54-45. This one addressed DACA, included billions for border security, and would have prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents.
• The Grassley bill, which was really the Trump bill,  addressed DACA, covered border security, and ended family reunification/chain migration and the visa lottery system. This failed, 39-60. 

That's right - the president's plan was the least successful of the four considered - so we know that's not what we need. But the others, particularly the Common Sense plan, may not be completely outside our reach, if only someone would grab the bull by the horns and make it their mission to get this accomplished.

Opportunity is knocking. It will be interesting to see if anyone answers the door.

Poll Watch: What We Say vs. What They Do

Now that the Senate is trying to solve our DACA problem by holding open debate on immigration, I thought it would be fun to remind everyone what Americans think about the issue.

Let's take a look at a recent Fox News poll, taken via land line and cell phones in January; randomly chosen registered voters were asked to participate.

When asked whether they favored or opposed allowing illegal immigrants under age 30 who were brought here as kids to legally stay in the country, provided they pass a background check, survey respondents overwhelmingly favor this  - 71% to 20%.

Similarly, last fall we had strong favorable opinions of this population - -the Dreamers - when Fox asked us what we thought:

• 86% favored granting work permits to this population, provided they pass a background check
• 79% favored granting citizenship to this population, provided they pass a background check

One of the pillars of president Trump's immigration plan is that we have a great big beautiful transparent border wall to keep out the bad guys. Is that a pillar that America also believes in?

Historically, no. Only 40% favor this in the current poll; 39% did so in August 2017; 41% in September 2016, and 50% in November of 2015.

Illegal immigration ranked 11th out of 12 issues, with only 64% expressing concern. Here's what scored higher:

• health care - 82%
• political divisions in the country - 74%
• the opioid crisis - 72%
• infrastructure and the economy - 71% each
• war with North Korea  and race relations - 70%
• taxes - 68%
• Islamic terrorist attacks and sexual harassment in the US - 65%

Scoring lower? Climate change, at 57%.

Time will tell whether Congress pays attention to what we think, or if they're merely going to pay attention to what the guy at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave thinks. One can only hope...

Two other fun things in this poll? 59% of respondents favor legalizing marijuana, and 58% are at least somewhat pro choice (46% yes, 12% some or a mix).  These, too, are things where Americans seem to stand in one place and the administration stands in another. 

The Update Desk: Talking Racism with my Congressman

Remember the hideous comments the president made about immigrants from certain countries?  You know the ones I'm talking about, so I won't repeat them again.

When that happened, I sent a note to my Congressman asking him to condemn the president's comments, and a few days later he answered me. I shared my comments and his response in this post, which I closed by saying

I'll be responding to his message, clarifying my initial request and suggesting that perhaps a resolution of disgust would be a nice way for him to add another bipartisan accomplishment to his resume, and an excellent way to keep my thoughts in mind. 

That was a couple of weeks ago, and I confess to you that I hadn't responded to him - until today. I struggled with whether it would really be worth it, whether it would make any difference at all, given that his initial response was pretty much a brush off, that the president's words were not what was important, that working to solve our problems is what's important.

I agreed with the latter, certainly, but I couldn't get over the fact that my Congressman thought these words, and the many others that both candidate and president Trump has made, are unimportant. And so, today, I answered him.

While I appreciate your widely-acknowledge bipartisan approach to representing our district - that's the specific reason why I voted for you the second time - your email did not address my request, which was that you forcefully condemn the president's most recent comments. Your response that we "depart from partisan political rhetoric" does not equate to a condemnation...

 ...I'd like to appeal to you as a parent, and ask how you'd address these repeated comments with your children? Would you sit around the dinner table and chalk this up as 'partisan rhetoric' if it came up in conversation?

And how would you address the follow up question, that these comments are coming from the head of YOUR party, making this YOUR partisan rhetoric by association - would you accept it as your own? Or, if you heard members of your own family talking like this, using this type of language, would it be acceptable, or would you address it? 

I strongly believe that as a Republican, you can continue working across the aisle to solve problems AND speak out firmly and very personally about your distaste for his remarks. Failing to do so diminishes your office, and your efforts...

Am I expecting an answer? Not really.  But I can't just sit idly by without trying one more time.

Wondering on Wednesday (v120)

It's Wednesday -- you know what that means, right?

Why, I wonder, is the president so fixated on having a nice little American Bastille Day. Or North Korea Day. Or Russia Day? I don't know that anyone knows for sure what exactly he's looking for - is it to show that his whatever is bigger than everybody's whatever? Or, to show that he likes out veterans so much he'd make them suffer through an hours-long parade? Or maybe in his cold war dreams, a parade's the only thing that makes sense to show American power? Or, is it just a play for attention?  Regardless, this is a great rendition of the classic "I Love a Parade" to get you in the mood.

What else is on mind tonight? My three nephews; two are Navy men, the third is a civilian Department of Defense employee.  All of them need their paychecks, thank you very much, and so we're all very focused on efforts to ensure the government stays open, even though the president would love a SHUTdown, we'll do a SHUTdown, we need a SHUTdown and together my husband and I said he needs to SHUT up already!

Meanwhile, 

On Wednesday, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a deal on budget caps that would increase investments in domestic programs and the military by roughly $300 billion over the next two years: the deal lifts funding for domestic programs by $128B and hikes defense budgets by $160B.

Also on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi broke the record for the longest speech on the House floor since the House had a floor - or, at least since 1909.  Pelosi, of whom I am not a fan, was protesting that McSchumer's plan did not include anything about Dreamers, who are not a deportation priority, according to the Trump administration, and also don't appear to be a legislative priority, if Senators are willing to try and fund the government without ensuring protections for them.

I wonder about $300 billion in new spending in two years -- two years! -- no matter what it's for. I wonder why we can't just agree to address DACA and Dreamers without having to tie that to all of the 'bad' immigration - you know, the killers who come her to kill American teenagers; the chain migration that allows someone to come here and kill American adults, and the drug dealers that come here to kill everyone. THAT immigration, the Trump vision of immigration, is something I will also continue to wonder about, for reasons I've spoken of many times in these pages.

Now, we all have to wonder whether the House will approve what the Senate leaders worked out. As usual, I expect there are almost as many reasons to disapprove of the plan as their are House members, and likely fewer reasons to approve it.

And I'll continue to wonder why the people we send to Congress can't do their jobs - but will get paid anyway, in a shutdown - while my three nephews all can do theirs without any issues, and may not get paid at all.

Talking Racism with my Congressman

A while ago, when our eloquent president decided to enhance the immigration discussion by referring to various countries with people-of-color-majorities as shitholes and wondered why we wouldn't want to bring more white immigrants to America, I reached out to John Katko, who represents my NY-24th district in the House.

Katko has made a name for himself as a willing, if not eager proponent of bipartisanship, and he's actually had a number of legislative successes, something that the more recent past representatives of the district were unable to do. He's been successful enough that we actually sent him back for a second term - something, again, that his recent predecessors also were unable to do.

He's also managed to keep himself out of the fray, generally, when it comes to Trump's behavior, his rhetoric, his racist attacks, and his generally rude and insulting demeanor.  Knowing that, I still sent him this message back on January 11th:

Congressman Katko, I'm looking forward to your forceful condemnation of the comments made today by the leader of the Republican party, president Donald Trump. 

I'm sure  you are aware of his comments regarding African nations and Haiti - and the defense issued by the White House that he will "always fight for America."

I'm asking YOU to fight for decent people in New York, and across the country, and issue the strongest possible statement calling the president out as a racist and unfit to serve.

If you're not able to do that, I'm equally interested in hearing why. My vote in the upcoming election hangs in the balance.

Thanks in advance for your personal and detailed response.

I actually received a response; it was what I expected him to say, but not what I wanted him to say. Take a look.

Thank you for contacting me regarding (p)resident Trump's recent comments about immigration. It is good to hear from you.

Our nation was founded by immigrants and continues to thrive culturally and economically due to our acceptance of all nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures. However, our immigration system has been broken for many years. Having served a a federal prosecutor for over 20 years, I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of the rule of law. I believe that we must properly enforce our immigration laws, while working towards common sense immigration reform. I am eager to work with my colleagues to establish effective immigration reform.

You may be aware of recent media reports surrounding president Trump's comments regarding the immigration policies of the United States. While I was not present for the meeting in which the comment was said to have been made, I believe it is imperative that we depart from partisan political rhetoric and I will continue to reach across the aisle to start productive conversations and collaborations. I am committed to working with the president and my colleagues in Congress to pass bipartisan, effective legislation to improve the economy and quality of life of individuals and families in the 24th district.

His letter went on to talk about bills he has cosponsored regarding a pathway to legalized status for those in the DACA program (five year 'conditional status' as long as they're vetted by Homeland Security and either pursuing higher education, serving in the military or authorized to work, after which they can apply for five-year permanent status), and another bill would provide a pathway to legalized status and also deal with border security "using technology, levees and physical barriers", and also add immigration judges and appeals attorneys to reduce the backlog in immigration cases.

I take no issue with Rep. Katko's willingness to participate, to work towards immigration reforms, and to reach across the aisle to do so. Heck, I even agree with him on some of the specifics,  particularly focusing on reducing the backlog in immigration courts - but that was not the question I asked. I also didn't ask him to keep my thoughts in mind if "legislation related to this issue comes before the House for a vote."

Why? Because there is no way that legislation on this issue will come to the floor for a vote unless a member of the House actually puts forth for consideration a statement condemning the president for his vulgar and unnecessary comments.

I also found interesting Katko's reference to "partisan political rhetoric" -- implying that Trump's racist comments are representative of the Republican party's stance on Africa, Haiti and bringing in white people.  That, I have to admit, was an accusation I was not going to make. But, when in Rome...

I'll be responding to his message, clarifying my initial request and suggesting that perhaps a resolution of disgust would be a nice way for him to add another another bipartisan accomplishment to his resume, and an excellent way to keep my thoughts in mind.

Hopefully I'll have more to come on this in the next couple of weeks. 

Don't Do It, Democrats

On Saturday, Donald Trump will have been in office for a year, and on Friday there's (currently at least) a good chance that the government will shut down. Heck of a way to celebrate your first year of full control of the government, eh Republicans?

You've got the White House, you've got Senate, and you've got the House, and you might lose the keys to the buildings. Oh, sure, your majority in the Senate is not enough to get everything done, only the stuff that can be finagled into some kind of reconciliation language. So you need Democrats to do real work, like passing another short-term spending package to give yourselves one more month to start acting like adults. You know -- legislating and all that.

Stinks to be in Mitch McConnell's shoes, don't you think? Yeah, he needs Dems to bring it home for the party, for the president, and for the country. And, dammit, they better be right there to do it.

I know, I know -- you think I'm crazy suggesting that 'we' do anything to help 'them' get what 'they' want, at 'our' expense, or that 'we' do anything to help Trump accomplish anything. But in my eyes, if 'we' cause the shutdown, 'we' will suffer the consequences even though 'they' hold the reins to all of the horses.

The House passed a short-term bill tonight, fairly easily, that will fund the government for a month.

The House approved the measure 230 to 197, despite conflicting signals by President Trump sent throughout the day and a threatened rebellion from conservatives that failed to materialize. The bill's chances had appeared in  question until shortly before the vote, providing only a faint glimmer of hope that a crisis could be averted before much of the government exhausts its funds at midnight on Friday. The bill would fund the government through February 16.

The plan would fund CHIP for six years, which is something that Dems care greatly about. It would also apparently do some more 'repealing' of Obamacare taxes, and that's something about which Dems should care considerably less. And yes, I understand this is the House not the Senate, but look - it's Republicans protecting CHIP, right? This is an opportunity not to be wasted.

Trump has been saying all along that a shutdown is on the Dems; I think he started saying it even before it became a real possibility.

The #schumershutdown is picking up steam on social media, and people are saying that Dems care more about illegals than they do American children, the military, and all the people who run all of the programs that all the Dems are all in favor of... Trump and his minions will hammer Dems on this, and what's the answer?

As with much of the 2016 election cycle, we still don't know what the Dems stand for, even as we know without question what they stand against. The party tried to reinvent itself through the DNC and its dance with Bernie Sanders; it tried (and failed, unfortunately) to get Dems elected to replace Trump administration hires by throwing money into races all across the country, and now we even see Dems primarying other Dems, which hardly seems like a good idea.

The Democratic Party has to stand for something, and as I see it now, the best thing to do is to stand for keeping the government open, not shutting it down, and to stand for action on other bills in return for the favor, including DACA, comprehensive immigration, and whatever other priorities there are. 

And when they do stand, they need to do it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Challenge the president to ignore them. Do it all day, every day -- but do it from a position of strength, not of weakness.

Trump is despicable - no argument there - but being the people that Trump can't govern without is much better than the alternative.

Don't do it. Be the better party. Be the party of yes, and don't let the government shut down tomorrow.

Wondering on Wednesday (v118)

Here we go again, everyone - it's Wednesday!

Buffalo Congressman Chris Collins was one of the earliest supporters of Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, and he has continued to be a staunch defender of Trump as president. On Tuesday, Collins was on CNN's 'Cuomo Prime Time' broadcast, talking about the warm fuzzy president that we're supposed to recognize when we see him (full disclosure: I'm really bad at picking him out of a crowd even a crowd of one).

Here's the Congressman's take on what happened at the meeting where Trump's um, colorful comment drew so much attention:

It's disappointing that anyone would leave a private meeting and politicize that, and certainly a lot of that language was denied. All I know is this is a president who is not a racist, who cares about the young people who are here now, who have lived here most of their lives. He will be generous and compassionate with them, but he needs what he needs on the border wall, on border security. That's a reasonable compromise.

So, now that it's officially the day of Wondering, I can't help wondering why it is that every Republican who has commented on this whole debacle, Collins included, has managed to completely conflate DACA with shitholian nations such as Haiti and the African continent? And I wonder how on earth can we rely on our elected officials if they don't even know that our southern border separates us from Mexico, not Africa? And, staying with the Republicans, shouldn't they be worried about the potential for a Bernie Sanders victory in 2020 if we let in all these Norwegians we should be coveting? What are they thinking, I wonder?

We've learned, with this president, that the most important thing on his mind, or the position that's the most important one he has is whatever was said by the last person he talked to, Hence, Norway was the anti-shitholian comparison.  Given how many world leaders Trump has talked to - you know, all those ones he 'respects' -  in his first year in office, it's hard not to wonder how much worse this could have been.

The president tweeted on the stroke of 8 PM the winners of the Fake News Awards. Here's the celebratory tweet, in case you missed it. 

Note that to get to the list of winners, you don't get them from the White House website, you get them from the GOP website. I wonder about that right off the bat. Are these the president's awards, or the Republican party's awards?  Whose fake news is this, anyway?

I should tell you I certainly tried to see if there were any red carpet pictures -- what's an award show without those, right? -- and I certainly tried to see who the winners were, but that's all on hold until the website gets up and running,it seems (cue the ketchup commercial), although I did see an unconfirmed tweet about CNN winning some...

One more wondering before I go.  Facebook is in hot water these days, as some tech folks called them out for not doing enough to keep us safe from those pesky Russians pushing their fake news false narratives pro-Trump and/or anti-Clinton news stories. Seems these folks thought that more could have been done, especially since the 'screeners' who reviewed reported accounts and posts were not instructed to look for stuff that was fake and pull it down.

Speaking from experience, I know that it can be hard to convince the reviewers to take stuff down (in my case, it was a porn thing not a political thing), so I get there could be some frustration. 

But here's the thing that has me wondering: what difference does it make, at this point, if the fake stuff that was posted to try and influence our election came from a Russian bot or from an American in the Russian River Valley wine region in California, or having dinner in the Russian Tea Room, or from an American sitting in a corner dive having a white Russian?

Is a Russian bot more of a threat to us than we are to ourselves?  Just wondering...

Sunday School 1/14/18

Today, I listened in on the conversation on NBC's Meet The Press, where Kentucky's Senator Rand Paul was one of Chuck Todd's guests; from the other side of the aisle, Colorado's Senator Michael Bennett joined. Immigration and racism and salty language were on tap for the conversations - no surprise there. Similar conversations were held on the other shows as well.

Rand Paul was up first, and he told a story of when he went to Haiti and Central America to perform eye surgeries, using that to frame Trump's most recent incredible comments in a different context for us.

You know, I don't think the comments were constructive at all. But I also think that to be fair, we shouldn't draw conclusions that he didn't intend. I know personally about his feelings towards Haiti and towards Central America... I did about 200 cataract surgeries with a group of surgeons in Haiti and the same in Central America. And when we asked Donald J. Trump as a private citizen to support those trips, he was a large financial backer of both medical mission trips. So I think it's a unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn't constructive, is the least we can say. 

And I think it's unfair then to sort of all the sudden paint him, "Oh well, he's a racist," when I know for a fact that he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped finance a trip where we were able to get vision back for 200 people in Haiti. 

Um -- "sort of all the sudden" talk about Trump being a racist? Where has Rand Paul been hiding? There have been more than ample opportunities, some of which were mentioned on the show.

For some reason, the comments that get skipped are the ones about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the American judge with the funny sounding name and who, according to Trump

happens to be, we believe, Mexican... I have a Mexican judge. He is of Mexican heritage and should have recused himself...

So, no, Senator Paul -- there's NOTHING sudden about calling Trump a racist.

And, if you change the word 'shithole' to 'economically-deprived' and actually used the term in a nuanced sentence such as the two you suggest, we would be having a completely different conversation than the one Trump decided to have.

Let's take the whole scenario and put different words in there and let's say, "We'd rather have people from economically-prosperous countries than economically-deprived countries." Or, "We realize there are more problems in economically-deprived countries, therefore there's a bigger impetus for them to want to come." Then it wouldn't have been so controversial. 

We do need a "valid, legitimate debate over immigration" and we need it to be bipartisan and we need it to address a number of issues, not the least of which is the DACA issue, and also not the least of it is the crush of illegal immigration.

And you can't have an immigration compromise if everybody's out there calling the president a racist. They're actually destroying the setting. And he's a little bit of it, but both sides now are destroying the setting in which anything meaningful can happen on immigration.

Sounds sort of like the president talking about Charlottesville, doesn't it? "Good people on both sides"? I also think I'd say that the president is more than "a little bit of it."

Senator Bennett, when Todd asked him about whether concluding that Trump is a racist was fair, did his best to provide context as well.

I was raised not to call people racist on the theory that it was hard for them to be rehabilitated once you said that. But there's no question what he said was racist. There's no question  what he said was un-American and completely unmoored from the facts.

He seems to have this impression that immigrants to the United States, like my mom and her parents who were Polish Jews who came here after the Holocaust, somehow, you know, come to the United States and are just lazy and, and the truth is exactly the opposite. You spend any time in neighborhoods across Colorado, what you find is immigrants here striving to make this country better and provide for their families and for the next generation. So I think he has no idea what he's talking about.

And - and on the question of what's in his heart, do you have any idea - thought, Chuck, that he would've called into question Barack Obama's birth certificate if Barack Obama were white?

That's a pretty basic question that no one -- Trump nor any of his minions, have answered. And, as far as I'm concerned, don't need to actually speak to - we know the answer is no.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 12/31/17

I was taking a stroll through the hallways today, thinking I'd make one last stop in each of our Sunday School classrooms. But I started - and stopped - with CNN's State of the Union.

Why? Well, call me crazy but it seemed appropriate to end the year with someone interviewing Anthony Scaramucci. 

Yep - that Anthony Scaramucci, the one who once called Trump a "hack politician" and an "inherited money dude from Queens County" and who gave that  super focused interview with CNN back in July, in which he was super focused on telling us what the president was super focused on.

Today, the Mooch was talking with Dana Bash, for reasons that I will likely never understand. I mean, you're CNN - the most reviled network in the country, at least with the president and his followers.  You're number one with a bullet on the #FakeNews list, for cripes sake - and so you end the year talking to a guy who worked for the administration for 11 days before going down in flames because of his inability to control what he says to reporters?  I can only imagine that Ivana Trump or Marla Maples were unavailable to offer their opinions on how the president feels about year one.

That was Bash's first question - how is the president feeling about his first year in office?

Listen, I think the president feels great. I talked to him last Monday. And he's very happy with what happened as it related to the tax reform bill that was put in place recently. And so, listen, I think you got - 2018 is going to be a big year, a big year for the Republicans.

Honing in on the tax reform question, Bash wondered if the president was punishing Blue states in the tax bill, with the SALT provision, which limits the deductions for state and local taxes. Trump implied he could have worked with the Dems on taxes. Scaramucci knows the answer on this one, he does.

I think all the president's saying there is that there are always chips on the table for bargaining purposes. And so, because they weren't willing to deal with him, a lot of the chips that they could have used were left on the table. 

And so that is actually a signal from the president. He's trying to signal the Democrats that he's ready to work with them, and that whatever chips are on the table for health care or for DACA, he's there to negotiate with them. 

I mean, I think that's been the hallmark of his entrepreneurial success as a business leader, is being a great negotiator, and I think he's just trying to signal to these guys, listen, there's stuff that we can do together. 

As it relates to the SALT situation, I know people on the Democratic side will say that was a punishment for the blue states. I don't think anybody sees it that way. I think we're past that as it relates to tax strategy the good relationship with Secretary Mnuchin.

The goal there was just basically to find ways to lower the overall rate, but then also make everybody a little big more competitive and accountable on their budgets at the state and local level.

So -- so to me, I think, long term, that is probably short-term states for - short-term pain for the states like the one I live in, New York. But, long term, I think it will make those states more adaptive, aggressive, and leaner and more entrepreneurial. So I think it's a good thing, by and large.  

They talked a little about the FBI and the president's attack on the agency, as well as attacks from other Republicans; Scaramucci thinks it's just the president expressing some "frustration" but Bash wondered whether it's really Trump being worried about the outcome of the investigation.

After discounting that, and referencing the NY Times interview about how "he expects the investigation of Mueller to treat him very fairly" he offered some insight.

So, I'm not worried about it. I don't think he's woried about it. I think he's frustrated about it. I think he doesn't like the scandals incorporated that go on in Washington, where we find the scandal du jour to try and distract our political opponents from their agendas by picking on them personally.

And so I think that has got to stop on both sides, frankly. I have said that if Senator Clinton had become president, they would be attacking her on her emails, they would be attacking her on Uranium One. 

Washington has this magnificent way of finding scandals to hit people with to distract them from their agendas. The great news about the president is, he's undistracted, he's undeterred and I think he is going to have a phenomenal 2018.

There was more after that, but there's really no point in going any further.

Because while Scaramucci  may have convinced the folks at CNN that he's still close to the president, I'm not sure that's really true. Heck, I could have given any of the answers that Scaramucci did - all you have to do is watch the news.

And the answer about the "scandal du jour" and the fact that if Clinton has been elected she'd be attacked on Uranium One and her emails -- good lord, the email stuff has never stopped and Trump himself has been hammering on the Uranium One issue. News broke today that AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has ordered an investigation, as was promised last month.

The Mooch would know that, and CNN certainly should know that -- and certainly should have questioned it, instead of letting it lie like a sleeping dog.

Closing out 2017 with this guy sort is a perfect way to wind things down. And allowing interviews like this to stand without questioning the easy stuff is something that hopefully we'll see less of in the coming year.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 12/10/17

We're back to our regular Sunday School programming, after last week's look at religion and politics.

Today, I dropped in on Face the Nation on CBS. One of John Dickerson's guests was Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), who talked about Roy Moore, Al Franken, and funding the government.

Durbin followed Susan Collins (R-ME) on the show, so some of his questions drive from her answers. You know how that goes.

On the Roy Moore issue, Dickerson asked Durbin whether the Senate has any business overturning the will of the people, if they do in fact elect Moore this week.

Well, John, I can tell you this. First, the decision is to be made by the voters in Alabama on Tuesday. And I hope they will do the right thing in terms of defining their standards and values when it comes to people representing them in Washington. But we have heard from Republican senators first who have suggested that if Roy Moore ends up being elected to the Senate, he would face close scrutiny, investigation, even removal from the Senate once he arrives.

I agree with Senator Collins; it's a complicated issue. (Note: Collins described it as a very tough decision.) But I tell you this. We faced the reality this past week. I've known Al Franken for over 20 years. He is my friend. He was on the floor of the Senate announcing his resignation; I sat just a few feet away from him. He said it was the worst day in his political life. It was a somber feeling. It was a reality. And I hope the voters of Alabama appreciate that reality when they make their decision on Tuesday.

After Moore and Franken, the conversation turned to taxes. Dickerson wondered what the Democrats could do to change the bill, since it was moving to the conference committee with enough Republican votes to pass.

...Susan Collins made it clear she's still waiting before she makes her final decision. I think others are in the same position. Jeff Flake, for example, from Arizona made it clear that bringing up this issue about DACA and DREAMers is critical to his vote when it comes to tax. So I can't assume where the Republicans will end. But they have an awful lot to accomplish in a very short period of time.

Dickerson asked if getting a deal on DACA would be worth shutting down the government.

Well, I can tell you this. We don't want to see the government shut down. We want to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to solve our problems. We believe that DACA is central; the president is the one who made this the issue. September the 5th he eliminated the DACA program and put in doubt the future of over 780,000 people in America. And we want to get this done and accomplished.

34 Republicans in the House came out last week and said, "Do it before the end of the year." The Senate Republicans have said the same thing. Lisa Murkowski yesterday tweeted that her Christmas wish - her greatest Christmas wish is to see this done, DACA and the DREAMer issue resolved, this calendar year. It is within the power of the Republicans to get this done and to put together a package we can pass. We want to stand by them, work with them, and get that done. 

And, there's the Children's Health Insurance program, too, that needs to be dealt with. Dickerson reminded Durbin about a statement he made

I'm not prepared to go home for the holidays until we get our work done.

Was that still the case, Dickerson wondered?

Well, I feel very strongly about it...DACA to me personally and the DREAM Act are very personal and mean an awful lot. But when we're talking about funding our government, providing the resources and programs that many middle income families use across America, dealing with the opioid crisis, making certain that we take care of our veterans, making certain that we have the money for biomedical research, these are part of the conversation and part of the dialogue as we close down this budget. It is up to the Republicans to make a decision about what we will do. I think we can get this done. 

That's a nice dose of optimism there, and a good way to start the week.

See you around campus.

The Sins of their Parents

While some of the conversation around the ending of the DACA program has centered on the constitutionality of President Obama's executive action (or the lack thereof), a lot of the discussion has focused on the fact that these folks are here illegally and therefore they need to be sent home, or that they're taking jobs away from Americans and for that reason they must be sent home; or even that they're criminals and for that reason, they need to be sent home.

Here's a snippet from the statement by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on the "orderly transition and wind-down" of the DACA program making those points:

The decades-long failure of Washington, DC to enforce federal immigration laws has had both predictable and tragic consequences: lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers, substantial burdens on local schools and hospitals, the illicit entry of dangerous drugs and criminal cartels, and many billions of dollars a year in costs paid by US taxpayers. Yet few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers and job seekers.

No one really thinks that any significant portion of the Dreamer population is made up by gang-banging drug dealers who are stealing jobs from Americans.  And, if Congress is again unable to craft and pass immigration reform legislation,  I see no reason to punish this particular segment of immigrants for the sins of their parents.

Seriously -- under what other circumstances do you think it's appropriate to punish children for the crimes of their parents?

• What would be the correct punishment for children of people who operate meth labs, partake of child pornography, or rob banks?
• What would be the appropriate punishment for college-graduate, gainfully employed, tax-paying children of gang members?
• How, exactly, would you punish Henry and Nancy, whose father murdered their mother, my friend and former coworker, eleven years ago next month? 

I know, I know -- there's nothing to worry about. The administration has promised that deporting the DACA people will not be a priority, but who can believe that? 

Why should any of these people trust the government now, when it was the government that promised them they would be safe if they came out of the shadows, gave their information, paid the price to obtain and renew their temporary green cards, got jobs or started companies, paid their taxes, and maybe enlisted and served honorably defending our country in the military?

Speaking of the military and trusting Trump, maybe someone should ask the LGBT community about that?

TGIF 9/8/17

Here are this week's random thoughts; deep thinking is coming tomorrow.

We ran into a friend at a festival here in town this evening, who told us the story of getting a ticket for running a red light on his commute to work. He said he immediately, without prompting, started explaining to the officer that he was listening to news radio and it was at the time that they were talking about Trump's decision on DACA that he got so angry and frustrated that he stopped paying attention land that's how he ran the red light.

Sadly, the officer wasn't having any of it, and our friend got no relief for the infraction. But, this is New York, and we historically have a hard time not acting on stuff that doesn't need action. How long before we codify 'listening to the radio' becomes a specific category of distracted driving, like texting or talking on the phone or taking a selfie? Or better yet, how long before we see 'It Can Wait - News Radio Stop" signs on the Thruway?

Speaking of New York, we're one of the states that has sued president Trump for his decision to end the DACA program. There are now 15 Blue states and the District of Columbia involved in the suit. Am I the only one who sees comedy in this? After all, one of the alleged reasons for the administration's decision to wind the program down was the threat of a lawsuit by Red states.

What's interesting is that neither the Red nor the Blue states are suing the right people: that would be the 535 member of Congress who can't, or won't, come to term on legislation that 'fixes' integration. Can the Attorneys General get together and take on Congress in court?

We learned in an earlier TGIF post that Wisconsin is 'investing' three billion dollars in incentives to bring Foxconn to Paul Ryan's district er - I mean - to a depressed area of the Badger state. Which is fine, I guess; I mean, if you're willing to take 250 million bucks out of the education budget and put it into keeping a professional sports team in Milwaukee, why wouldn't you be willing to bet the farm for a foreign company promising to bring jobs to your state?

Why is what's happening in Wisconsin relevant tonight? Well, because we're about to see a battle royale across North America for rights to bet a totally new farm on the new second headquarters for Amazon. Per the company's website:

We expect to invest over $5 billion in construction and grow this second headquarters to include as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs. In addition to Amazon's direct hiring and investment, construction and ongoing operation of Amazon HQ2 is expected to create tens of thousands of additional jobs and tens of billions of dollars in additional investment in the surrounding community.

Now we all know how much time the president has spent talking about the Foxconn project - #jobsjobsjobs and #MAGA and all that -- but how much time has he spent talking about an American company looking to make an investing in an American city and hiring American workers?

That would be zero. Zip. Nada.

Why?  Because Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, owns the Washington Post. 'Nuff said.

TGIF.

Talking About DACA

You've heard the news - DACA is rescinded unless Congress comes up with a plan that will save it by March 2018. The program was enacted by President Obama in 2012, and it allowed those who were brought to America illegally as children and who have been here continuously since 2007 to pay $495 each to apply for DACA benefits, and pay $495 every two years to renew their application, undergo the background check, and receive permission to work, to go to school, to serve in the military, to pay taxes, and so on. Criminals and gang members need not apply. 

There are some 800,000 people in the program whose long-term fate is now unknown. Will their employers keep them, knowing that they can be eligible for deportation if Congress doesn't act? Should they pay for their next semester of school? Should they re-up for the military, or get out now?

And, what happens if they get deported? They have no home - many came here at the age of two, three, maybe six years old. The have siblings who are American citizens, parents who are illegal, and they are here because we invited them to come forward, out of the shadows, go through the application process, and get our stamp of approval. 

We happily took their application fees, to the tune of around $400,000,000 not counting renewals - but now, they're job stealers. Oh, sorry - now they're pawns in a game of It's All About that Base. Oh, wrong again, sorry. Now, they're victims of an unconstitutional act by the former president, and so, their time is up.

Here's what a variety of people are saying about the decision, announced not by president Trump, the coward, but by his immigration hardliner Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak? - Barack Obama

At this point the question is, 'Okay, you no longer have that legal, that status that President Obama gave you and he had no authority to give you. So, you're back into your illegal status, I would suggest go home and get in line, come into the United States legally, then get a green card, then become a citizen. "Do it the right way like so many hundreds of thousands of your countrymen are trying to do. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with following the law?" - Kris Kobach

I think that it's a known fact that there are over 4 million unemployed Americans in the same age group as those that are DACA recipients; that over 950,000 of those are African Americans in the same age group; over 870,000 unemployed Hispanics in the same age group.  Those are large groups of people that are unemployed that could possibly have those jobs. - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it. This is a sad day for our country. - Mark Zuckerberg

First, let’s not think Trump — who invites cops to abuse suspects, who thinks ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio was “doing his job” when denying others their constitutional rights and who issued the Muslim ban — cares about the Constitution (any of the “twelve” articles). Trump says, “We love the dreamers. … We think the dreamers are terrific.” But in fact he loves the applause he derives from his cultist followers more than anything. Otherwise he’d go to the mat to defend the dreamers and secure their legal status. - Jennifer Rubin 

250 of my Apple coworkers are #Dreamers. I stand with them. They deserve our respect as equals and a solution rooted in American values. #Dreamers contribute to our companies and our communities just as much as you and I. Apple will fight for them to be treated as equals.. - Tim Cook 

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue! - Donald Trump

That last one? Yeah, who knows what he's talking about.

What Color is the Stripe in YOUR Wallet?

You may have heard that North Carolina has dropped plans to include a pink stripe on driver's licenses issued to illegal immigrants who have temporary status under the federal  'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals' program.

If you're unfamiliar, DACA allows kids who were brought to America illegally to stay for a limited period of time without the risk of being deported.  The program allows Homeland Security efforts to be placed on removing more dangerous illegal immigrants.  There are a number of eligibility requirements, including age, arrival date, length of continuous residency, education requirements (in school, GED or diploma), prior honorable military service, and a generally clean criminal record with no felony convictions and three or fewer misdemeanors.   If the immigrant's application is accepted, 'legal presence' is granted, but not 'lawful status', that being reserved for citizens and legal immigrants.

North Carolina, which has other stripey driver's licenses, wanted to put a pink stripe on the licenses granted to DACA applicants, because that would be consistent with federal work permits, but mostly because it would make the roads of the Tar Heel State safer. Honest. Here's what Transportation Secretary Tony Tata had to say:

This program is about accountability and safety, making our roads safer for all North Carolinians.We have strong support from the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association. Those approved through the DACA process will take driver exams and road tests, as well as provide proof of auto insurance prior to receiving a license.

However, pressure from lawyers, immigrant groups, and civil rights groups was quick and powerful, particularly the voice of NC Jewish groups. Durham Rabbi John Friedman noted

I don't think these licenses have anything to do with the Holocaust and I'm not saying anyone is a Nazi. But it cannot help remind Jews of the yellow star.

Those sentiments were echoed by Raleigh's Rabbi Eric Solomon, who stated

Our efforts do not end when major discrimination turns into minor discrimination. It ends when we are 100 percent positive that discriminatory policies will not go into effect in our state.

In the end, NCDMV went with a standardized format that meets the letter of their law, which states that temporary licenses need to be clearly marked. And I'm fine with that.

But in the interest of transparency, and on the whole safety issue, wouldn't it be helpful to have lots of colored license stripes? For example a different color for, say,

• people convicted of DWI/DUI/DWAI (or people who cop a plea to a lesser charge)?
• people convicted of 'distracted driving', such as texting, emailing, messing around with their on-board computer, putting on mascara, or yelling at their kids in the back seat?
• people convicted of a drug offense?
• people who are carrying a concealed handgun?
• sex offenders?
• people who have had car accidents?
• other random felons?
• people who don't have a high school education?
• people who served but were dishonorably discharged from the military?

Wouldn't folks with those stripes potentially be more dangerous for the police who stop them, or potentially make the rest of the people on the road in North Carolina less safe than someone who actually goes through the process of obtaining DACA status?