Sunday School 9/18/22

We're talking immigration this week, starting with your Sunday School and ABC's This Week classroom. Jon Karl was in the host's chair, and talked first with Oscar Leeser, El Paso's mayor. 

Karl asked him to describe what's happening in his city, with 1300 migrants a day arriving there. Leeser said it's more than that - north of 1500, nearly 2000 in recent days and some 80% are Venezuelans. 

Leeser said he's got a good working relationship with the Border Patrol, and that

our goal, and it will continue to be our goal, is never to drop anybody off in the streets of El Paso and make sure that no one’s homeless, no one’s hungry. So, we have our NGOs, which is non-governmental organizations that really have opened up their doors and we’ve gotten hotels. And in the last few days we’ve not had any people released into the streets of El Paso...

Karl asked Leeser to explain what he does when he arranges for migrants to move north, which is different than what Gov. Greg Abbott is doing by dropping them in front of the Vice President's residence. 

Leeser made a great point in his response.

...if you look at -- the people are not coming to El Paso, they're coming to America, and that's something that's really important.

While (in my words, not the mayor's), Abbott shoves people on a bus and sends them to a political target, Leeser and NGOs in El Paso try to get them where they want to go, where they have people they know. In the past, around 95% of asylum seekers and migrants had sponsors - family or friends who have arranged transportation, and who are waiting for the person to arrive. And now?

So, we have about 50% of the people today that do not have a sponsor, they don’t have money. So, we're helping and working to get them to where they want to go. So, that's been really important that we don't send anyone where they don't want to go. We make sure we help them and we put human beings and, you know, and we put them on buses with food and make sure they get to their destination where -- and make sure that we always continue to treat people like human beings.

NYC Eric Adams was up next; I'll have a longer interview with him in your Extra Credit, so I'll keep his remarks here brief. Adams said he's been working with New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as with the Biden administration, 

to talk about how do we coordinate and their goal is to make sure that we get the resources and the coordination that’s needed, as the mayor of El Paso stated. These migrants and asylum seekers are not coming to any particular city. They're coming to America. This is an American crisis that we need to face, the humanitarian crisis that were made by human hands by some of the governors in our southern states.

He said there's no coordination with the childish governors Abbott and now DeSantis. He reached out to Abbott and his team, asking for coordination but that's not what they got.

They took the call and stated that they would coordinate... and they did not coordinate at all because I don’t think it was politically expedient for them to coordinate. It was more to do this basically political gamesmanship that you're seeing now.

And, finally, he's committed to New York City remaining a sanctuary city, echoing Mayor Leeser's thoughts.

Let's be clear here, we've all come from somewhere. Our lineage came from a location and the pursuit of the American dream is what we’ve all fought for... And I will always believe that this is a country where people want to pursue the American dream, and there are ways it can be done correctly.

So, having heard from a sender, and a receiver, it's time to hear from the panel: Marc Short, former chief of staff to VP Mike Pence; former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp; Mariana Sotomayor (WaPo), and Alex Burns (Politico). Here are a few highlights.

• Heitkamp said that the 'stunts' perpetrated by Abbott and DeSantis aren't working. She also said that some of what's happening now was predictable, and there was a "lack of preparation" which she blames on both the current and previous administrations. She also said there's a difference between how we treat Cubans and Venezuelans, even though both are "fleeing the same kind of dictatorial, communist regime. And finally, Biden should sit down with Abbott and DeSantis now and figure something out.

• Short said none of this was happening under the previous administration because it "actually secured the border." He also talked about the "hypocrisy and...in many cases, fake outrage" by folks on the left and in the media. And, he said, migrants in Florida aren't walking there themselves, the Biden administration is flying them in - and it's not just Florida. How's that OK, he asked, but it's wrong for governors to ship them to "one of the wealthiest communities in America..."

• Sotomayor said there doesn't seem to be much of a strategy from the administration or from Capitol Hill. It might be a topic this week, what with the Martha's Vineyard shenanigans, but this close to the midterms, no one's apt to want to talk about it, other than the Rs - but they're not talking about legislative solutions; they've "tried and tried and tried again and there's just no discussion right now about whether to actually engage in any changes."

• Burns said the governors are "playing to gallery on the right in their own parties and in their own states, ahead of re-election votes that both of them are highly, highly likely to prevail in and then, maybe, turn around and run for president." He said that we have a "generational, bipartisan policy failure" on immigration, but Abbott and DeSantis aren't doing anything that serious from a policy perspective.

• Karl noted that "the administration is not putting forward anything" either.

I agree with Jon Karl on that point, the Vice President's comments last week about our "secure" border notwithstanding.

I'll close with perhaps the oddest comment from the classroom, which came from Marc Short, who said

... if we were really concerned about the humanitarian crisis, Jon, then actually what we would be doing is we'd be stopping the crisis at the border, where there's 200,000 migrants every month. And they estimate 50 percent of the young women are either raped or sexually molested making that long journey from Peru and Colombia up there. If we actually had a policy in place that returned migrants to Mexico while they waited for their asylum appeals, as happened in the Trump-Pence administration, you wouldn't have the same humanitarian crisis we have today.

What on earth is he trying to say here? That the women who are raped or sexually assaulted on the way here would be better off if they were kept in Mexico? Or is it that he couldn't care less about what happens to them on the trip, as long as we don't get stuck with them?

Pretty sure we all know the answer to that question.

See you around campus.

Walmart Goes Where Others Fear to Tread

On a day where Senate Majority Leader managed to demonstrate his lack of understanding about our three branches of government; show his yellow-bellied fear of his retaliatory president; prove without a doubt that he is without cojones; and ignore the will of the American people, the world's largest retailer made a very different decision. 

First, McConnell. 

In an interview with conservative talking head Hugh Hewitt, he said Trump is looking over different proposals and "he expects to hear back next week" about what Trump would support, according to this report from Politico, which quotes McConnell saying

I said several weeks ago that if the president took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes, I’d be happy to put it on the floor. If the president is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it it’ll become law, I’ll put it on the floor.”

Now, let's look at leadership of a different kind, starting with a few news reports, starting with this New York Times article:

In response to the shooting in its El Paso store last month that killed 22 people, Walmart said Tuesday that it would stop selling certain types of ammunition that are commonly used by hunters but can also be used in military assault rifles.

The nation’s largest retailer made the announcement after weeks of discussion about how best to respond to the violence on Aug. 3. The company said that after “selling through our current inventory commitments” it would discontinue the sale of certain short-barrel rifle ammunition and all handgun ammunition.

 And here's another look at it from a CNBC article:

The biggest retailer in the world is additionally asking customers at Walmart and Sam’s Club to no longer openly carry firearms in stores, in states where “open carry” is allowed, unless they are authorized law enforcement officers. Open carry legislation is currently on the books in more than 26 states, Dan Bartlett, executive vice president of corporate affairs, said during a call with members of the media.

Now, let's look at some excerpts from the memo issued by Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, who begins with references the shooting in El Paso and the one in Southaven, Mississippi, where two Walmart associates were killed by a third. 

Our immediate priorities were supporting our associates and the impacted families and cooperating with law enforcement. In parallel, we have been focused on store safety and security. We’ve also been listening to a lot of people inside and outside our company as we think about the role we can play in helping to make the country safer. It’s clear to us that the status quo is unacceptable.

After visiting El Paso on Aug. 6, I mentioned that we would be thoughtful and deliberate in our responses. We’re ready to share our next steps.

He highlighted changes the company had previously made, including decisions to "to stop selling handguns or military-style rifles such as the AR-15, to raise the age limit to purchase a firearm or ammunition to 21, to require a “green light” on a background check while federal law only requires the absence of a “red light,” to videotape the point of sale for firearms and to only allow certain trained associates to sell firearms."

Talking about the changes being made today, McMillon acknowledged the decisions he announced would "inconvenience" some customers, but he hoped for their understanding; he also reiterated the company's commitment to focusing on "the needs of hunting and sport shooting enthusiasts," including guns, ammunition, clothing, etc. And he noted that the changes introduced today would significantly reduce Walmart's market share on ammo from around 20% to perhaps as low as 6% over time. 

Speaking about store safety, there are changes coming for open carry states (but not for concealed carry). Here's why those changes are needed (emphasis added):

...there have been multiple incidents since El Paso where individuals attempting to make a statement and test our response have entered our stores carrying weapons in a way that frightened or concerned our associates and customers. We have also had well-intentioned customers acting lawfully that have inadvertently caused a store to be evacuated and local law enforcement to be called to respond. These incidents are concerning and we would like to avoid them, so we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores or Sam’s Clubs in states where “open carry” is permitted – unless they are authorized law enforcement officers.

We believe the opportunity for someone to misinterpret a situation, even in open carry states, could lead to tragic results. We hope that everyone will understand the circumstances that led to this new policy and will respect the concerns of their fellow shoppers and our associates.

He promised a respectful, "non-confrontational approach" to explaining this particular change to customers. (And, not for nothing, but what the hell is wrong with the people who have been "attempting to make a statement" in this manner?) 

Walmart is also going to work with fellow retailers, share their best practices and, likely, proprietary technical specs and other information on their firearm sales platform. They'll do this free of charge. 

And, McMillon added some comments for our 'leaders' who are pitifully bad at leading on this issue, many in large part because they fear for their own political survival, I'm convinced. Again emphasis added.

Finally, we encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger... and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated... We must also do more, as a country, to understand the root causes that lead to this type of violent behavior. Today, I’m sending letters to the White House and the Congressional leadership that call for action on these common sense measures... these horrific events occur and then the spotlight fades. We should not allow that to happen. Congress and the administration should act. Given our decades of experience selling firearms, we are also offering to serve as a resource in the national debate on responsible gun sales.

We understand... our deeply rooted place in America and our influence as the world’s largest retailer. And we understand the responsibility that comes with it. We want what’s best for our customers, our associates and our communities. In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again. The status quo is unacceptable.

Yes. The status quo is completely unacceptable. 

GOP Challenges are Everyone's Challenges

On Sunday, Nebraska State Senator John McCollister challenged the Republican Party to, well, to #BeBest. 

His plea came in the aftermath of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, with the El Paso incident looming large, given the shooter's alleged anti-immigration, white supremacist 'manifesto;'  I haven't looked for it online, and won't, so I can't speak to it directly. 

Here's what McCollister posted on his Facebook page:

As you might imagine, his post caused a ruckus, in Nebraska and elsewhere, with pros and cons (probably not literal cons, but you never know) chiming in. Many thanked him for his candor, including more than a couple who wrote about leaving the Rs within the past couple of years; you can randomly connect some dots there and you'd be right, based on the comments. And on the other hand, many people thought he was out of line and that Democrats are to blame for all the evil in the world, including racism because Rs are not racist, Ds are. 

But it was this response to McCollister that sort of sums everything up. It's a press release, tweeted by the Nebraska Republican Party, in which Executive Director Ryan Hamilton suggested McCollister change his registration.  

John McCollister has been telegraphing for years that he has little if nothing in common with the Republican voters in his district by consistently advocating for higher taxes, restrictions on Americans' Second Amendment rights, and the pro-abortion lobby. His latest false statement about Republicans should come as no surprise to anyone who is paying attention, and we're happy he has finally shed all pretense of being a conservative. 

And, Hamilton made a generous offer:

I am happy to send a change of voter registration form along to his office so he can make the switch officially, and start, for once, telling the truth to voters in his district.

Note that the official response doesn't address the point McCollister was trying to get across -  unless you consider calling it "false" to be addressing the point. And regardless of your opinion on Trump and racist comments and white supremacists, McCollister's statement was relatively factual. 

Trump did talk about shithole countries, and he did tell four women of color, three of whom were born here, to go back to where they came from, and it is also true that he is a prolific liar, although it might not be entirely accurate that he lies more than he tells the truth. And of course, we all know the Rs are the party of Lincoln, and many Republicans are better than this.

McCollister is also correct that Republican senators and representatives, certainly those who serve us in the US Senate and House of Representatives, look the other way when Trump and others in the party misbehave, particularly when it comes to issues of race. They've been seen physically scurrying away from reporters, in fact.

Based on the response of the GOP chair, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it may also be true in Nebraska that elected officials turn a blind eye when the president says what he says, does what he does, allows what he allows at rallies, and so forth. And I don't think it's a very long limb, either, if the response is any indication.

So, let's compare what happened in Nebraska with what Republicans are dealing with in Ohio.

In a deleted post, state Representative Candice Keller (who lives about 30 miles from Dayton)  complained about liberals blaming the wrong things after mass shootings. And then she pointed a whole lotta fingers at where the blame really lies. Take a look:

And here is how some Ohio Republican officials responded:

• Jane Timken, the state's Republican Party chair, said "Our nation is reeling from these senseless acts of violence and public servants should be working to bring our communities together, not promoting divisiveness." She called for Keller's resignation, calling her statements "shocking and unjustifiable."

• Todd Hall, chair of the Butler County Republican Party (where Keller is running for the state senate in 2020) said that this was a time for "prayer and reflection" not Keller's comments, adding "some want to politicize these events, and I cannot condone such comment and behavior."

Interesting, isn't it? Two states, two GOP elected officials, two different takes on the state of things, and both end with a rejection of the person's ideas. 

The question is, which version of the GOP will win out in the long run?

Sunday School 8/4/19

I made myself pay attention to one classroom this morning. Simply because it was the first transcript I found, it was Meet the Press.  I may visit some of the others tomorrow, but I don't have the heart for it today, because I know it will be more of the same.

On the show today: New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, both of whom are among the many Democratic presidential candidates; Dayton OH Mayor Nan Whaley; El Paso Congresswoman Veronica Escobar; and Mick Mulvaney, the acting Chief of Staff.

Here's Nan Whaley, on her city being hit with multiple tragedies this year:

I mean, for us in Dayton, we - this is actually the second tragedy to hit our city this summer. First, we had a tornado that tore through Dayton in May. And now, we face this mass shooting. The difference is that one of these tragedies was completely preventable. And one of these tragedies has happened, now, 250 times this year, in our country, And yet, nobody can be moved to do anything about it. 

This is Escobar responding to Chuck Todd's question on what she sees as her responsibility, as an elected official in DC:

My primary responsibility, right now, Chuck, is to be with the community, comfort the community, be of service to the community... so my primary responsibility is here, with my community.  But as a legislator, all of us, as legislators, Chuck, we have to talk about what's really happening and we have to speak the truth.  It's not politicizing an event.. that truth is we have not just a gun epidemic in this country, but we have a hate epidemic in this country.

Here's Booker, after stating the the president is "responsible" and "contributing to what's going on right now" responding to the question "If the president doesn't, doesn't accept the responsibility that you believe he has, what is your  - what would you like the other elected Republicans to do?"

Well, to me, Martin Luther King said it so eloquently. What we have to repent for is not just the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people, but the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. There is complicity in the president's hatred that undermines the goodness and the decency of Americans regardless of what party. 

To say nothing in a time of rising hatred, it's not enough to say that, "I'm not a hatemonger, myself." If you are not actively working against hate, calling it out, you are complicit in what is going on. And so this is a moral moment in America, like we have seen before, where demagogues and fear mongers, hatemongers, have risen. We need moral clarity and healing and love in our nation. We need leaders that are capable of doing that. 

Castro, in response to the question of what he sees as what we need to start tackling, said this after talking about "common sense gun reform"

There is this very toxic brew of white nationalism that is arising. And I know that it doesn't reflect by any means, by any means the vast, vast majority of Americans. But unfortunately, what we see is an increasing number of these incidents, these mass shooting incidents. And so we need to pay attention to this, and we need to do something about this...The FBI Director has said that this is a particular problem right now in the United States. 

Todd wondered if the president can lay "any role, constructive role" or "because of how often he uses the language of racial resentment, does he just not have the credibility to do anything to fix this problem?" Here's Castro's response:

This president started his campaign in 2016 on a path of racial resentment and fanning the flames of bigotry. That's how he believes he won in 2016. That's how he thinks he's going to win in 2020. Unfortunately, he doesn't have any credibility anymore. You know, when he didn't step up right away and condemn the neo-Nazis after Charlottesville, (and) allowing that crowd for 13 seconds to chant, "send her back" a couple of weeks ago, he doesn't have any credibility.

 But you know what, Chuck? Like all Americans, I hope, I still hope that this president will do what most presidents have done throughout our history, which is to realize that we have to do everything that we can do to try and unite Americans instead of fanning the flames of bigotry.  He has to be a big enough man, a big enough person in these moments to do that. 

Mulvaney was asked this question: "...in fairness, Mr. Mulvaney, the President has spent the last month on Twitter stoking racial resentment in different ways and you can, you can try to rationalize that he was speaking about specific incidents, but taken together these sick people as you're describing, they hear what they want to hear. Does the president not have a responsibility to speak with a higher moral clarity when it comes to violence, a higher moral clarity when it comes to refugees?"

Here's how he responded.

Right, Chuck, let me put it to you this way. Even if he did speak the way that you want him to speak, and I get the fact that some people don't approve of the verbiage the president uses, I get that, alright? But even if they did, your point that you just made is absolutely right. People are going to hear what they want to hear. My guess is this guy is in that parking lot in El Paso Texas in that Walmart doing this even if Hillary Clinton is president. In fact, he'd probably go out and blame Hillary Clinton for doing it. 

These are crazy people, sick people, and until we figure out why we are creating this many people like this in this culture, why we are giving them such wide audiences on social media, why we are making weapons available to them when they probably shouldn't get them. Let's talk about background checks, something we have worked on tin this administration. Those are the conversations to have. Not giving Cory Booker a chance to run for president this morning by blaming Donald Trump. That is really disappointing. 

There was some additional back and forth on politics, and on policy, and on the president's "dehumanizing rhetoric", and then the question, "Is he not the president of all Americans here? It does seem as if he's always more worried about how his base is going to react to something than how the American, you know, moral fabric is protected.?

He absolutely is the president of all Americans, alright...Listen, we're going to have policy discussions, but my guess is, you show me how you feel about the president, and I'll show you who you think was responsible for the shooting. 

Todd did not drop it there, adding "well, unfortunately, it does appear this was a political motive of this domestic terrorist." And here was Mulvaney's final thought.

This was a political motive by a crazy person with a gun. How do we stop crazy people from getting guns? That's a - -if we can't agree on that, if we can't figure out a way to prevent that from happening, there's very little hope for this nation. Let's try and fix what allows sick people to get these types of weapons.

Lots to digest here.

Oh - one more thing: Mexico is most unhappy with us; at least six of those killed and several of the injured in El Paso were Mexican nationals. Our neighbors to the south are thinking that we should be doing more to protect their citizens.

See you around campus.