Sanctuary Cities

 

I had some understanding of Sanctuary cities, but I realized that I needed to do more research to better understand.  I had no idea of the events that would occur during the time I spent researching, and ultimately, I decided it was something important to share.

Initially, the idea of Sanctuary came from churches, trying to help people fleeing from wars--In Salvador in the 1980s when 75,000 were killed, and in Guatemala where 200,000 were killed.

What followed was San Francisco in 1985, when the issue of using city funds to assist immigrants arose.  

It was not long before other states and cities had their own issues.  The legal justification of Sanctuary Cities used the framework of State Sovereignty, allowing local governments    their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement without violating Federal Law, based on the idea of the balance between Federal and State government under the U.S. Constitution.  

Courts have upheld the legality of local jurisdictions having the right to establish their own immigration policies without federal interference.  Not everyone agrees, some believing such policies undermine federal immigration laws.

Very few of us can overlook that our ancestors were immigrants, often not far in the past.  Immigrants have contributed to our culture and continue to do so.  However, does that mean we should open our doors to everyone.  In 2024 the number of individuals who became American citizens were 818,500.  However, current statistics report that between October 2019 and June of 2024 eleven million illegals arrived. although the exact number is uncertain.  Entirely locking the door to immigrants is impossible, for jobs are often done by immigrants because Americans cannot or will not do them.

My research for this blog has shown me many things, but few answers, but here are a few.

1. The U.S. Constitution has held that the federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

2.  Each State has its own state constitution, which serves as a foundational document of their laws.

3.  States possess the fundamental power to create, implement, and enforce the rights of citizens.

Today the disagreements between states and the U.S. Government are embattled.

The current challenge is that Federal statutes provide different mechanisms for bringing National Guards under federal control with no simple statuary law.  As an example, Rule 12406 is ambiguous, "one part appears to let the president act unilaterally, while another provision suggests orders should be issued through the governors, creating a conflict." 

While rights of authority are uncertain, simple but very important laws continue unresolved issues.    One important example is the wearing of masks. Some states have or are about to pass laws to prohibit law enforcement officers from hiding their ideates.  The New York City Bar Association argues that masks hide accountability.  

My efforts to better understand many important issues has succeeded in terms of a better understanding. However, the problems remain.  It would seem that the benefit of unbiased, educated, experienced people would be best qualified to work on addressing these problems. Ordinary Americans may not be able to draft changes, but they can and are making their feelings known. 

Presidential Pardons

 

President Washington was the first to grant a pardon.  The purpose of pardons was to grant mercy, correct judicial errors, and promote national unity or reconciliation in times of division.  It has served as a check on the judicial system, but also a means of healing, such as when used after the Civil War...to forgive crimes or correct miscarriages of justice.  

Gerald Ford used it to pardon Richard Nixon, believing there was a need to end the Watergate scandal to help the Nation heal.  

The idea of pardons, ironically, came from English Law, with the perspective that mercy given by the King was analogous to forgiveness from God.  How ironic that the Founding Fathers would have associated that analogy in making their decision to provide for pardons, given their strong effort to create a nation without kings, a nation of the people.  It was true that they struggled with the idea of giving the power of Pardons to the President, but ultimately, they did,

Pardons have been given for various reasons.  Jimmy Carter pardoned draft dodgers to help the country put Vietnam behind us.  In general, Presidents have used the power of the Pardon sparingly, and as intended.  Andrew Johnson's pardon of thousands of Confederate Soldiers may have influenced President Carter.  What one President does can tend to open the door for other President's to act accordingly.  Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, which might have influenced Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son.

The number of pardons varies from President to President.  Franklin Roosevelt pardoned 2,819; however, it is relevant to recall that Roosevelt served 4 terms, although he died during his final term in office.  Harry Truman pardoned 1,913.  In his first term, Donald Trump ranked third in the number of pardon's granted among all of the other presidents.  In his second term, on the first day he was in office he pardoned 1,500, charged and convicted in the Capital Riot.  Without determining pardons since, Donald Trump is well ahead among presidents in regard to the use of the Pardon power.  

In general, earlier presidents were more constrained in using pardoning power.  Andrew Johnson's grant of thousands of former Confederate Soldiers was the first of the massive granting of pardons.  Many presidents in the early years did not issue pardons beyond 3-digit numbers.

Was the decision by the Founding Fathers to grant a Pardon Power to Presidents a bad idea.  Is it time that a separate branch be created to make the decision of pardons?  Or are the votes of American citizens in electing our presidents the best source of entrusting that power to the wisdom of those they elect.?   I do not know the answer, but it does seem to warrant consideration.        

      

 

George Orwell's Animals

Buddies

Have you noticed just how intelligent animals can be, and how sometimes they have buddies, like these two that we watched for several years.  Perhaps George Orwell had noticed that when he wrote "Animal Farm."

But first, it was the word " Dystopia that prompted this blog.  A Dystopia is an imagined, deeply flawed society, where life is wretched, dehumanized, and fearful.  Two good examples of the word are the books of Aldous's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

The description of dystopia includes acts of extreme control, forced labor, mass surveillance, wealth, worker exploitation, and environmental neglect.  Examples of dystopian behavior include wealth inequality, with stark differences between the rich and poor, increasing homelessness, financial instability, and social and economic dystopia. 

In addition to George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," and his many other works, he wrote "Animal Farm."  "Animal Farm" has been called a fairy story by Orwell himself, but "Animal Farm" has also been called satire, a masterpiece, and a view of the future.  The title of the book, as well as the characters being talking animals might cause you to assume that "Animal Farm" is a children's book.  It is not.

"Animal Farm" is a dystopian book in which the main characters are animals laboring in the field, forced by humans to live a dystopian life.  What Orwell did was use animals to address issues he saw happening to humans, whose abuse was often ignored.

Here is a taste of what Orwell's fusion of political and artistic purpose moved forward.  

The farmer for whom the animals worked was a drunk and sloppy farmer, and Old Major knew he had not long to live.  He decided to speak out about the things he had learned over the years.   "Let us face it:  Our lives are miserable, laborious, and short.  We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty.  No animals in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old.  No animal in England is free.  The life of an animal is misery and slavery:  that is the plain truth."

Old Major did not live to guide the animals to rebel, but he inspired them to proceed forward on their own.  The book goes forward to explain how they achieved independence and how they managed once they took charge.    

I hope some of you might find "Animal Farm" worth reading.  

As for why I used the picture that I did at the top of the blog, I believe it is proof that animals are smarter than we give them credit, and they have emotions that we overlook.  Orwell chose farm animals to represent how humans are able to respond to opportunity, just as the animals did.  Did it work? 

Campaign Promises

Recently I came across a campaign speech for the presidency.  The candidate chose to make one of his first speeches in Kansas.  His theme was about how we should do things better.  The candida spoke of hungry children, of those on reservations with 80% unable to find work, of poverty, locks on doors and riots in American streets.    

He did not win the election, so we will never know whether he might have corrected the problems he had addressed, for Robert Kennedy was assassinated before the election.  

His brother Ted eulogized him with these words:  My brother need not be eulogized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life: to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.  

Certain speeches remain familiar.  For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's during the depression spoke these words: " All we have to fear is fear itself."  In also, John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."  George W. Bush after 9/11 declared: "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."  Barack Obama, even before the election, declared "Yes we can," and Eisenhower warned, "The potential for misplaced power exists and will persist".  Donald Trump declared, "The golden age of America begins right now."  

Do campaign speeches matter?  Sometimes.  However, other factors determine success, such as legislative achievements, public opinion, use of the media, and whether what a candidate says in campaigning aligns in his actions in office later.  Would he have fed the children, found jobs for everyone, erased poverty, poverty, riots, and the need for locked doors?  

You may be surprised to learn that Political Research shows that presidents fulfil an average of 2/3rds of their campaign promises.  Whether that is good or bad is left to you.