"So Close But Oh So Far": Immigration Reform and the Government Shutdown

It doesn't have to be this hard. It really doesn't.

There is so much that (just about) everybody agrees on:

1. Don't use a government shutdown as a crude club for negotiation, hurting people and the end objective by doing so.

2. Don't allow political symbolism to get in the way of a "good deal" which advances the Nation's interest.

3. We are not going to come up with a "forever" answer to what are the right immigration, path to citizenship and border security policies today, partly because the issues and "right answer" will change over time just as has been the case in the past. BUT we can come up with a comprehensive set of policies which bring us to a much better position than we are today and it is our responsibility to do so.

So--what to do?

1. Vote to re-open the government.

2. With the proviso that a bi-partisan group of leaders from the Senate and House will meet non-stop to craft legislation including funding to send to the President which includes provisions covering:

a. Enhanced border security including all means (e.g. personnel; technology; extended barriers) to accomplish it as justified by data and experience.
b. Giving "Dreamers" a clear path to citizenship.
c. Providing other undocumented workers who meet specific criteria (e.g. absence of criminal records) a path to securely staying in the U.S. if not to full citizenship.
d. Other enhancements to our visa and green card policies as presented in the "Border Security. Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" which passed the Senate in April 2013 by a vote of 68-32, but was never taken up by the House. (See below).
e. Consideration of action to properly address asylum seekers who, usually as families,  constitute a much greater percentage of people seeking entry today than was the case 10 years ago. (Legislation on this portion of the agreement might require more study)

Implicit in this proposal is the belief that we are not far from reading agreement on key elements thencomprehensive immigration reform we desperately need and that we should use the current government shutdown as a lever to get to "yes".

I am greatly encouraged by our ability to do this by the agreement which was reached in 2013 by the so called "gang of eight" in the Senate.

Here is a synopsis of the legislation I referred to:

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Full title	To provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Colloquial name(s)	The "immigration bill"
Introduced in	113th United States Congress
Introduced on	April 16, 2013
Sponsored by	Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Effects and codifications
Act(s) affected	Immigration and Nationality Act, Social Security Act, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 and others.
U.S.C. section(s) affected	8 U.S.C. § 1101, 8 U.S.C. § 1184, 8 U.S.C. § 1182, 8 U.S.C. § 1153, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, and others.
Agencies affected	U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Science Foundation, Army National Guard, United States Sentencing Commission, International Development Association, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Government Accountability Office, United States House of Representatives, United States Agency for International Development, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (United States), General Services Administration, Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Internal Revenue Service, National Archives and Records Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, United States Forest Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Inspector General, National Park Service, International Organization for Migration, Legal Services Corporation, Executive Office for Immigration Review, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Comptroller General of the United States, Executive Office of the President, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Judicial Center, United States Department of Labor, United States Congress, Farm Service Agency, Office of Management and Budget, Director of National Intelligence, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of State, United States Department of Commerce, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Transportation, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Department of the Interior, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, United States Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Small Business Administration, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Supreme Court of the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of the Census, United States Senate
Authorizations of appropriations	At least $1,970,500,000 with an additional unlimited amount
Appropriations	At least $62,020,000,000 with an additional unlimited amount
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S.744 by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on April 16, 2013 Committee consideration by: United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Passed the Senate on June 27, 2013 (Roll Call 168: 68-32)

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744) was a proposed immigration reform bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the United States Senate ^[1]and co-sponsored by the other seven members of the "Gang of Eight", a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who wrote and negotiated the bill. It was introduced into the Senate of the 113th United States Congress on April 16, 2013.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the bill in April 2013.^[2] The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013 and was placed on the Senate calendar.^[3] On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.

If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas had been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.^[4] It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this reform bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US$197 billion over the next ten years and by $700 billion by 2033.^[5] Its report also states that, if the bill had been passed, U.S. wages would have been 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than under current law.^[6] The Social Security Administration said that it would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion.^[7]

The Resignation of General James Mattis--Following the Call of George Marshall.

A just published article in "The Atlantic" magazine (reference link below) provides an eloquent tribute to the character and career of General James Mattis and thoughtfully assesses why he reached the decision to resign as Secretary of Defense. 

This had to be a very difficult decision for Mattis. The case for staying on in the Administration to minimize damage from policies which Mattis found wrong I am sure weighed heavily on his mind. And it certainly could not have been obvious to him that Trump would find anyone more likely to persuade him to follow the directions which Mattis found to be correct. Probably Mattis' reason was as he stated: the President, being the nation's constitutional leader deserves a Secretary of Defense more aligned to his beliefs. That would be a difficult decision, but one of integrity.

Speaking of integrity,  reminds me of something a supreme hero of mine, George Marshall, said in the middle of World War II, in the spring of 1943. He was talking to General John Hilldring as he was giving Hilldring the job of organizing military governments for countries to be liberated or conquered.

"I'm turning over to you a sacred trust and I want you to bear that in mind every day and every hour you preside over this military government and civil affairs venture. Our people sometimes say that soldiers are stupid. I must admit at times we are. Some (people) think we are extravagant with the public money, that we squander it, spend it recklessly. I don't agree that we do...But even though people say we are extravagant, that in itself isn't too disastrous.

BUT, we have a great asset and that is our people, our country men (they) do not distrust us and do not fear us.They don't harbor any illusions that we intend to alter the government of the country or the nature of this government in any way.

This is a sacred trust that I turn over to you today. I don't want you to do anything and I don't want you to permit the enormous corps of military governance that you are in the process of training..to damage this high regard in which the professional soldiers in the Army are held by our people--and it could happen, it could happen, Hilldring, if you don't understand what you are about".

I believe that with his decision General Mattis has preserved the sacred trust which General Marshall raised to   the highest plain.

Talk about a timeless, unblinking  statement of principle. A principle which applies to the leader of any organization or to anyone holding a covenant of trust with others, above all one's family.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/mattis-proved-you-cant-serve-both-trump-and-america/578902/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5c22eb2d1adf6400019ac42f_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

It's Up To Every Generation-The Responsibilities of Leadership

We recently celebrated the 100th Anniversary of Nelson Mandela's birth. We celebrate his life; his heroic journey from humble beginnings, to being imprisoned for 27 years, to emerging as President of his country, forgiving and uniting whose who had opposed him and threatened his life.

He inspired his country and much of the world in the hope for a better future based on a common respect for others and integrity.

Yet, we sadly read this week a series of deeply researched stories in the New York Times with headlines like this:

"'They Eat Money: How Mandela's PoliticalHeirs Grow Rich Off Corruption"

"Corruption Gutted South Africa's Tax Agency. Now the Nation is Paying the Price"

"South Africa Vows to End Corruption. Are Its New Leaders Part of the Problem?"

It has so often been this way. The examples are legion. Take the aftermath of the Civil War. Slavery at long last outlawed. Yet, in a matter of less than a decade it is virtually reimposed as Reconstruction folds and new forms of "slavery" are created. Yet, leaders like Frederick Douglass continued the fight for justice and new leaders would emerge, leaders like Martin Luther King, abolitionists of their own day and some unlikely partners, like Lyndon Johnson, who were persuaded at long last to open their eyes and take action which only they could take. And, yet--still--the fight for justice for all goes on.

All of this underscores the truism that justice and freedom and respect for others do not operate on automatic pilot. They have to be continually fought for. The human tendency for self aggrandizement and pursuit of the convenient path will always exist.

It us up to each generation, to each of us, to demand of ourselves and our leaders that we do what is right even knowing we will not do so completely. I return to the words of the Talmud: it is not required of us that we complete the task, but nor are we permitted to desist from it.

We and our government face this challenge today with our President. We should recognize it is not a new challenge. We have faced it many times before; for example in the Presidencies  of Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to name just two.

What has "saved us"in these times it seems to me is the constitutional underpinning of our government--one ingeniously created by our Founders lodging specific responsibilities in three entities: the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. It is critical that the leaders of these entities carry out their responsibilities with courage and integrity.

 It is this structure combined with the Bill of Rights including freedom of speech and freedom of  the press and respect for the rule of law that gives me hope for the future.

Too often we have seen one of these entities abdicate their responsibility. We have seen this in recent years in the legislature abdicating its decision making role in declaring war and on key foreign relations matters.  The judiciary has a special role to play. We have seen that recently on matters of immigration policy and healthcare policy.

To be sure, there will be fierce debates as to where the line of responsibility should lie. Courts will be accused of improperly assuming a legislative role; presidents will argue for more latitude in their decision making.

 It will always be this way. It will be messy at times. But everyone needs to step up to carry out what they see as their responsibility to the best of their ability, recognizing the roles they have been charged to carry out.

This is the only way we can preserve our heritage and make the most of a form of government which even if  imperfect and never fully settled is to my mind the best that has yet been conceived in our world

WHAT WE HAVE TO LEARN FROM TREES: WE ARE ALL CONNECTED

I have written in several places about the “plague of the other”; how often, usually out of fear or suffering from a lack of self-confidence, we choose to see ourselves as separate from each other and as superior to “the other.”

In the book, “Everyday Bias,”* which develops the reality that we all possess implicit biases, I came across a metaphor by the author, Howard J. Ross, that I found extremely compelling in this regard.  

Here it is.

Many of us have seen the magnificent forests full of aspen trees that grow in large “stands” throughout the northern areas of North America.  The trees are extraordinary, ramrod straight, and often standing nearly one hundred feet tall.  There can be thousands of them in just one stand.  Still, we look at each of these trees and see it in its solitary magnificence.

But there is something interesting under the surface of these forests.  These trees are not at all separate.  Underneath the soil, they are connected by a common root system, and that makes each of these clusters of trees among the largest organisms on Earth.  A new tree grows because the root sends out a runner that then grows into another tree.  The largest of these is called “Pando” (Latin for “I spread”), and is located in the Fishlake National Forest in south-central Utah.  Pando covers more than 106 acres and has been estimated to collectively weigh almost seven thousand tons, making it the heaviest organism in the world.  It also is thought to be more than eighty thousand years old, making it one of the world’s oldest known living organisms.

And yet we see it as a lot of single trees.

The trees brings us to a perfect metaphor for we who are as human beings.  We look at the “other” as if he or she is separate from us.  We see the other group as a threat.  And yet, we are all deeply connected.   We share a common destiny on this planet.  We all seek pleasure and do our best to avoid pain.  We want what is best for our children and grandchildren.  All of us are the products of that which we have seen before.  And we are all (for the most part) unconscious about the “programming” that runs our thoughts and our lives.

We can transcend.  We can, through discipline, practice and awareness, find a new way to relate that honors our differences, yet also build upon our similarities.  While the potential for mass destruction looms broadly in the world and our global community expands, we are more and more invited to recognize, as R. Buckminster Fuller said, that “we are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully, nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common.  It has to be everybody or nobody.”  

That is the path before us.  It is indeed the “road less traveled” when we look at our common history.  But it is a road that is worth paving clear.

What could be a greater journey?

*”Everyday Bias, Identifying and Navigating Unconscious Judgments in our Daily Lives”

George H.W. Bush--A Role Model for Me and for Us All

Jon Meacham’s Biography of George Herbert Walker Bush

Just over three years ago I read this magnificent biography of President George H.W. Bush. Immediately afterwords, in December 2015 I dictated this set of reflections about the book and his life. 

*********************************************

This is one of the finest biographies I have ever read. It describes the life of a man whom I’ve admired for decades.  The basis for that admiration—his strength and integrity and his commitment to service and his country and his family--was brought forth in a transparent and convincing way.

The book is greatly strengthened by Meacham’s judicious use of Bush’s diary which he dictated for much of his active life.

Bush’s role in overseeing the peaceful end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s, his empathetic and constructive relationship with Gorbachev and his balanced judgment emerge clearly.  His decency was remarkable.

I agree with Meacham’s judgment: “His life was spent in the service of his nation, in his spirit of conciliation, common sense and love of country will stand him in strong stead through the ebbs and flows of posterity’s judgment.  On that score—that George H.W. Bush was a uniquely good man in a political universe where good men were hard to come by—that was shared by a bi-partisan consensus a quarter of a century after his White House years.

Modest but driven, almost always compassionate, he was out to serve but also to win.  Yet he had his personal doubts.  I think he failed to appreciate his full excellence, this despite a remarkable record of accomplishments:  at Yale; in the service; in business and in public service: in Congress; Envoy to China; leading the CIA, etc.

I had no idea how many disappointments he had faced, above all the death of his and Barbara’s daughter, Robin, at the age of three.  Losses in political elections, not getting the job he wanted.  And indeed until the very last moment, feeling he would not get the Vice Presidential slot with Ronald Reagan. 

I’m not sure Bush ever would have become President if he had not been the Vice President for Ronald Reagan. He learned so much from Reagan, though never, happily, tried to be like him.

Of the various tributes to George H.W. Bush, I rate none stronger than this.  It came from his son Jeb:  “How great is this country that it could elect a man as fine as our dad to be its President?”  That remark so struck Laura Bush that she included it in the White House memoir she wrote after she and George W. left Washington in 2009.

I think it is fair to say, as Meacham does, that George H.W. Bush represented “the twilight of a tradition of public service in America, one embodied by FDR, by Eisenhower, and by George H.W. Bush.”

There is so much to be learned, and imitated, in Bush’s relationship with Gorbachev.  It took the two of them.   Bush fully understood how important it was to work constructively with Gorbachev.  And so did Gorbachev with him.  The “old suspicions” between the two super powers had to go, Bush said. Both nations had to learn how to thrive in a multi-polar world.  

If only we had not lost that instinct.  Gorbachev made a huge concession in agreeing to a united Germany and then, with great reluctance, agreeing for it to become a member of NATO.  Gorbachev’s associates were dumb-founded that he agreed to do that. 

Nowhere did Bush’s respect for and empathy with Gorbachev manifest itself more than in his reaction to the attempted overthrow of Gorbachev.  He resisted John Major’s suggestion of convening the NATO ministers out of his fear that “it will make it look like we are militarizing and that we anticipate a military threat to the West...it is the last damn thing we need to get involved in in that kind of confrontation.”

And then he spoke with Gorbachev on the phone:  “My dearest George,” Gorbachev said.  “I am so happy to hear your voice again.”  “My God,” Bush said, “I’m glad to hear you.”  They spoke for 11 minutes.  “He sounded jubilant and he sounded upbeat,” Bush dictated, “he was very, very grateful to me...for the way we have conducted ourselves.”

The peaceful resolution of this crisis was, for Bush, ratification of his essential diplomatic instincts of balance and moderation.  “We could have overacted, and moved troops, and scared the hell out of people,” Bush told his diary.  “We could have under-reacted by saying, ‘well, we will deal with whoever is there.’  But...I think we found the proper balance.”

The respect which Bush showed to other leaders was genuine and worked to great advantage.  The relationship with French President Mitterrand was an example.  There had been worry that France might not support the use of NATO outside of Europe in the circumstance of the Gulf War.  However, when Bush asked for that support, Mitterrand simply said, “we will be there.”  To his diary Bush confided that he felt that the visit he (Bush) had with Mitterrand at his place in Maine and “the respect I have tried to show him personally, (paid) off in diplomacy.  I differ with his personal diplomacy, but I think when you talk from a basis of friendship, it does help; and I think he knows I respect him.”

As always, respect builds trust and trust means everything.  

During the Gulf War, Bush reflected on the nature of American leadership.  Gregarious and inclusive by nature, Meacham writes, he could uphold the Presidency in keeping with these essential elements of his own character.  “All countries in the west clearly have to turn to us,” Bush told his diary, “but it is my theory that the more they are included on the take-off, the more we get their opinion, the more we reach out, no matter what is involved in terms of time involved, the better it is.  Everyone is proud.  Everyone has his place in the sun—large country or small, they should be consulted, their opinions considered and then when the United States makes a move, and I make a decision, we are more apt to have solid support.”

If only we conducted ourselves more in line with that conviction today.  If only that spirit had permeated our relationship with Russia over the last 15 years.  If we had, I do not believe we would be in the position we are today.  The neocons, whom Bush resisted, but whose son, George W. Bush, sadly did not, have continued to have an influence that has been disruptive, in my view, to the best interests of the United States. George H.W. Bush demonstrated this more than ever as he decided not to occupy Iraq.  The war to unseat Hussein, “to occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero,” Bush recalled in 1998.  “It could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish.”  If only his son had followed this instinct.

The candor and honesty of Bush’s own self-reflections pours out of his diaries in a manner that I can sometimes identify with.  The post-Gulf War period was, as Meacham describes it:  “a study in shadow.”  Coming off that intense experience, Bush had to turn back to what he really didn’t relish, domestic affairs, and it is clear to me he was tired.  He was now 66.  He fantasized in his diary about surprising the world by announcing that he would not seek reelection:  “You need someone in this job (who can give) his total last ounce of energy, and I’ve had (that) up until now, but now I don’t seem to have the drive.”  He was tired of what he described as “sniping, carping, bitching, predictable editorial complaints.”  

But he continued on.

I’ll conclude these notes with a salute to George H.W. Bush by his son George, on the occasion of the commissioning of an aircraft carrier named after his father.  “We will always be inspired by the faith, humor, patriotism, and compassion he taught us through his own example.  And for as long as we live, we will carry with us Dad’s other lessons:  that integrity and honor are worth more than any title or treasure, and that the truest strength did come from the gentlest soul.”

George H.W. Bush is a role model for me, for all of us.

George H.W. Bush--A Study in Character

This is the first time I have devoted a blog to the simple posting of a link to a video.

This one is only a few minutes in length and shows George H.W. Bush as a candidate for the Republican nomination in an interview on Face the Nation. Reagan ultimately won the Republican nomination and of course the Presidency.

It is a priceless short course in the character of this man whom I greatly admired--a combination of thoughtfulness, civility, toughness, competitiveness and, something he declaimed (unfortunately) vision which he graphically expressed here for our Nation and would go on to live as he became President in the 1988 election wisely navigating the demise of the former Soviet Union without disrespecting President Gorbachev, defeating Hussein's incursion into Kuwait and fostering the "Thousand Points of Light".

Here is the link.

Enjoy and ponder.

https://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/1069068691252436992?s=12

"Do I See Those Around Me?"

Do I See Those Around Me? Really See Them? Intentionally see them? As Individuals, just like me. 

The honest answer is: sporadically, just some of the time ...at best.

If asked to sum up everything I believe and hope to honor when it comes to human relationships,  it would be: this:

 "Everyone Counts". 

Perhaps the most basic way we show another person counts is to simply recognize and appreciate they are there.

I was moved to think about this thanks to a talk by Peter Salovey, President of Yale, in which he cites this poem written by Claudia Rankine,  the Frederick Iseman Professor of Poetry at Yale.  In her powerful work Citizen:  An American Lyric, she explores the meaning of belonging in contemporary America,  by describing mundane situations like this: 

 

In line at the drugstore it’s finally your turn, and

then it’s not as he walks in front of you and puts his 

things on the counter.  The cashier says, Sir, she was

next.  When he turns to you he is truly surprised.

Oh my God, I didn’t see you.

You must be in a hurry, you offer.

No, no, no, I really didn’t see you.

 

Who do I see—or not see?    Who do I see, and who do I look past?

Questions I will try to keep more consistently in mind.