Illegal Immigration

Let's get started with part three, in our continuing series, addressing Claudi (Fran) Davilla's comments to me about Mitt Romney. As I said before, she brings up some very important topics and I want to address them. Frankly, she's given me the impetus to actually blog about them, as opposed to just sitting back and saying, "I should blog about that."

"Personally, I cannot understand how a person's or group's beliefs can be based on a force of love (Jesus), and at the same time be against people (immigrants, non-christians, the poor) and continue tarnishing our life-giving ecosystem (by supporting industry growth and energy consumption instead of environmental preservation). He encourages family values, but are Mexican immigrants (mostly christian, by the way) not displaying family values in trying to forge a better life for their disadvantaged children? How does loving your brother, or neighbour, justifyably translate into protecting one creed at the expense of all others? But John, from everything I've read on your blogs, I know you are a peace-loving egalitarian. This is not what Romney seems to be."

To be honest, I don't know what Mitt's views on illegal immigration are. I do know it's been a hot bed topic here in Utah. Let's face facts. No matter how people like to frame this, the biggest problem is illegal immigration from Mexico. More people are screaming about illegal Mexican immigration than illegal Canadian immigration, or from any other country for that matter. While I think some of this can be attributed to racial bigotry, the majority of the problem is simply this: more illegal immigration is coming by way of the U.S. Mexican border than any other entry point.

This is where it starts to get interesting. I've heard from many people who want to "round 'em all up and ship 'em back to Mexico." They content that these people have broken the laws and they should be punished. No room for mercy, here.

This is completely unrealistic. It would be a logistical nightmare. You can't just say, "Come out to Rice Eccles Stadium tomorrow so we can deport you." That's just stupid. It's not like the Department of Homeland Security or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are coming out en masse.

Others have suggested we should help the ICE agents by deputizing local law enforcement agencies. As a friend to many officers within local Utah law enforcement, I can tell you that each and every one of them that I know is against this. Their reasons are clear and obvious.

1. It creates additional burden on the officers by making them responsible for federal law enforcement.
2. It discourages illegal aliens from calling on law enforcement to stop other bad guys because they're afraid they'll be deported.
3. Such discouragement will encourage further, more dangerous, illegal behavior on the part of illegal aliens.

This would be a horrible thing that I simply don't want to see at the local level. I want our policemen to be able to take care of the bad guys, those who want to hurt us, that peddle dangerous substances, that want to rob from us, not people who are otherwise law-abiding contributors to our society.

Those bad guys would be able to terrorize otherwise good people just by the threat of deportation. "I'm going to set up a meth lab in your basement and take over your house. If you say anything to anyone, they'll deport you."

Yes, there is a small portion of illegal immigrants that turn to illegal activities to make a living, and an even smaller portion that come her to do illegal things in the first place. These are bad guys and need to be punished according to the law. The vast majority of illegal immigrants, however, are here just trying to make a better living for their families because they can't do it in Mexico.

What's the answer, then? Are illegal immigrants a drain on social services and education? Yes, they probably are. I can't imagine it's any more that other poor people are. Having been numbered among the poor during certain points in my life, I feel like we need to take care of our poor, but that's a debate for another day.

Having said that, we still need to do something about the problem of illegal immigration if only from the standpoint of securing our borders.

The answer must come from the federal level, in my opinion. I think that George Bush's proposed immigration bill was a good start. This was a true bi-partisan bill, with representatives from both sides of the aisle backing it. For some reason, Nancy Pilosi decided not to bring it up for a vote in congress before the deadline and effectively killed it, even though it would have likely passed, given the large number of democrats that were behind it. I suspect it was simply a move to sabotage George Bush. Speaker Pilosi seems to be against anything that comes out of the Bush administration, whether it's a good thing or not.

Many people here in Utah claim that bill "offered amnesty." That couldn't be farther from the truth. It required illegal aliens to register themselves by a particular day. If they registered, they could start naturalization proceedings as if they had come into the country the day they registered. Those that chose not to register would then be deported, once caught. That's not amnesty. Amnesty is a free ticket. This wasn't free. It just recognized that the situation was a mess and offered a way out that didn't interfere with those who had come to this country legally. It also didn't punish the children of illegal immigrants, who may be U.S. citizens based on the fact that they were born in this country.

Do you want to throw a U.S. citizen out of the country because his or her parents have to leave? Do you want to take them from their parents and put them into a social care system paid by your tax dollars?

Neither solution makes sense to me.

Is Waterboarding Torture?

A week or so ago, one of my readers, the amazing Claudia (Fran) Davila, posted a comment, here, about Mitt Romney, religion, and violence (war). Fran is amazing and she brought up some very important issues. I'd like to continue addressing them, today. Check out my previous post, for the first part of this discussion.

Let's pick up where we left off with Fran's posted comments.

"And he enthusiastically supports torture of military combatants and presumed terrorists. Where in the bible does it say we should hurt and kill people in the name of religion? Not even the Koran says this. All the world's religions are based on peace, and what Romney and the jihadists have in common is that they are all perverting religion for a misguided goal."

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Fran was talking about water boarding when she mentioned torture. I could be wrong, but I've been thinking about blogging on the issue of water boarding anyway so, here goes.

I have very mixed feelings about this so-called "interrogation technique." From a certain standpoint, water boarding is not physical torture. It does not cause physical harm in the same way that electrocution, burning, beating, or cutting someone would. At the same time, there's a reason why the person being questioned is hooked up to an EKG so they can monitor his or her heart, and it has nothing to do with lie detection. The fear and stresses involved are immense and can have lasting physical and psychological effects.

The US Navy SEALS, and other elite US military units, use water boarding as part of their survival training to psychologically prepare them for the possibility of capture. The SEALS have quit doing it, though, because it has such a horrible effect on morale. The CIA continues to use it as part of their training.

From what I understand, even the most hardened CIA operative usually "folds" within 14 seconds of subjection to water boarding. And this is when they know that the person performing it is not going to let them die.

Why do people "start talking" so quickly? Water boarding simulates drowning. Most of us can hold our breath for longer than 14 seconds. From what I understand, from people who have undergone it as part of military training, is that water boarding is so terrifying that they can think of nothing else but making it stop. The fear of death and drowning is far more severe than the reality of their situation.

Is this torture? In my mind, it most certainly is psychological torture, with a potential physical threat due to stress. There's a problem with such things. The person is so afraid that they may tell you anything in order to get it to stop. That puts the value of the information into question.

The updated Army Manual of Interrogation prohibits water boarding, and many of the other things we saw at Abu Ghraib prison. It was updated because of what did happen at Abu Ghraib. The CIA, on the other hand, can still use water boarding as an interrogation tool. They received written permission from President Bush to do so in 2006. They've denied using it since 2003, however.

So, is water boarding torture? Yes. It's mock execution. I can't see any other definition for it, legal or otherwise. It's only been under our recent administration that it status as torture has ever been questioned.

It's also horridly effective. Even given the chance of someone giving false information, the CIA has claimed that a lot of very good intelligence in the War on Terror has been garnered through water boarding. The 2002 through 2003 interrogations of Al-Qaida suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri are examples.

Let me give you some food for thought, though. This is a question that nags me when I ask it of myself. I'm not sure of my answer, and that doesn't make me very proud of myself. There are parts of my psyche that fall on both sides of the issue.

Here we go.

If you knew that there was an imminent terrorist plot that would result in the potential death of hundreds or even thousands of lives, and you also had a prime suspect in that plot in your custody, would you employ water boarding? What if other means of interrogation had yielded very little?

Remember. Time is of the essence. People's lives are on the line, and you have a sworn duty to defend them.

If you knew that your actions as an interrogator - putting one person through a few moments of sheer terror - could save thousands of people and their families from horrible pain and death, would you do it?

What would you do?

Talking with Fran

A week or so ago, one of my readers, Claudia (Fran) Davila, posted a comment here about Mitt Romney, religion, and violence (war). I have the highest amount of respect possible for Fran. I really do. She's awesome. If you have yet to go and read her blogs, especially those on sustainable living and her post-oil survival guide, you should.

Because of my respect for her, even if I don't agree with her on certain details, I think some of the things she talked about in her comments to me deserve more discussion.

Here's part of what she said.

"He points to impending jihad from the middle east as a great threat based on their religious views, which Romney says needs to be prevented with escalating war - though somehow for Romney to run a country and lead wars abroad based on his religious views is okay? Where's the difference?"

I don't think Romney would have tried to lead the country based on religious views. There were a few things that happened on his watch as governor of Massachusetts that are not in line with strict LDS tenants. At the same time, we cannot separate a person's faith and beliefs from their actions, and Fran is good to point that out. We also need to understand that a person's stated affiliation does not mean that he or she is a perfect example of the group they are affiliating with.

This is the very problem that Islam is facing. What happens to Islam when it comes to terrorist organizations using Islam to justify terrorist acts?

As I see it, there are many people who are perverting the teachings of Islam in the name of hate. They hate others who are not like themselves. They hate the conditions they are living in. They hate their own lives. They have been indoctrinated to this hate from birth, and continue to indoctrinate others. They have turned to violence as a means of justifying their feelings, and inflicting pain on others. Such people believe that only by murdering others and inflicting fear and pain can they make themselves feel better, and increase their own standing in the world. They use a perversion of religion to justify their hatred and violent actions. This is not true Islam.

I agree with Fran that escalating violence cannot solve the problem. Such action simply gives fuel to the terrorists. "See! The evil American Satan is bombing us! They are killing us! We are justified in killing them and the evil Jews!" they scream. All the while they ignore the fact that they started this fight when they targeted and killed innocent civilians (non-combatants) to further their true cause: chaos and destruction.

How do you deal with someone like that? How do you deal with a group that indoctrinates others into a culture of hate and violence? They want you to talk with them, to try and understand them, because then you've let your guard down. They don't want to be understood and helped. They want to kill you, and they will do it by any means they can. This is especially true with so-called "Islamic fundamentalists." (I hate that term. These people are extremists. They are not practicing the fundamental ideals of Islam.)

"And he enthusiastically supports torture of military combatants and presumed terrorists. Where in the bible does it say we should hurt and kill people in the name of religion? Not even the Koran says this. All the world's religions are based on peace, and what Romney and the jihadists have in common is that they are all perverting religion for a misguided goal."

We can both agree that the jihadists are perverting religion. I'm not sure Romney is but, as I said in my initial reply to Fran, I didn't actually hear the speech she was talking about.

I'm going to deal with the torture issue, and some of her other very good points, in later posts.

Homage to President Hinckley

If you live in Utah, you probably already know that Gordon B. Hinckley, beloved Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, passed away quietly at the age of 97 yesterday. He will be missed by all members of the LDS Faith, including myself, and many others as well.

My seven year old daughter took the news the hardest. It often surprises me how close of a connection my children had with the prophet. They never met him in person. They only knew of him through television. Same goes for me. And yet we love him, all the same.

I won't bother to go into the many great and marvelous things he spearheaded while he was in office. Many others have already done so. I'll just leave you with my own message of love for the man, condolences for his loved ones.

In spite of his passing, I also have great hope for the future. I know the LDS Church has Jesus Christ at its helm. Our next prophet and president will be chosen soon, and the work of building the Kingdom will go on.