Month: July 2018

Senator Rob Portman                                                                                                         448 Russell Senate Office Building                                                                     Washington, DC   20510

July 4, 2018

Senator:

I am a life-long Democrat, who also happens to be your constituent.  I know that we disagree on any number of issues in American political life, and I have written critically from time to time about your stands (I write a political ‘blog’.)

We also have occasional issues in agreement, for example, your final vote on the health care bill, you stand on LGBTQ rights, and your concern with opioid addiction.  And we have other areas in common; I graduated from Wyoming High School the same year you graduated from Country Day, and I worked for Tom Luken while you were working for Bill Gradison.  I have always thought of you as a principled man, one who stands for the values of the United States. You are a “traditional” Republican, one my Republican father would have been proud of; and those acquaintances we have in common speak highly of you.

Senator, our nation is in crisis and I hope you will help us through it.  There are two areas of absolute concern that should rise above partisan differences.  They both speak to the essence of our Constitutional Republic.

The United States has placed over two thousand children in custody, taking them away from their parents. Regardless of our national disagreement about immigration, we all must agree that those children should be reunited with their parents, either here in the US, or in their home country.  And it has to happen now.  I am asking you to do all in your power to make this occur, including making sure an actual system is established to process and return those kids.  It is a national emergency, one that goes directly to the soul of America.

And now we are building large internment camps for immigrant families.  The American answer to this migrant crisis should not be to put them in “camps.” Some of the darkest moments in our history used that solution; we need to find a more humane way to resolve this issue.   The data shows that a high percentage of migrants released on bail return for their trial.  This is a low cost, humane solution that should be implemented.

The next concern is politically more difficult.  We have a nation divided by the election of 2016.  Regardless of which candidate you supported, we are now in an era where a large portion of our nation questions the legitimacy of the current President. We have chosen one of our most trusted citizens, Robert Mueller, to determine what occurred in 2016, and it seems that his investigation is drawing near to some conclusions.

At the same time, the Supreme Court is as divided as the rest of the nation.  I know it is your duty as a Senator to “advise and consent” to the President’s choice for Justice.  But I also know that the President has done nothing to pull the nation together.  Even President George W Bush, despite the controversial election in 2000, found a way to be “President of the United States” rather than President of a specific group or view. President Trump has not.

The results of the Mueller investigation will be announced in the next few months, and it is likely the Supreme Court will play a pivotal role in the outcome.  This President has consistently made personal loyalty the highest priority in his selection process: clearly he should not be allowed to pick a judge in his own case.

The election of a new Congress will occur in November.  I believe that “fairest” solution would be to wait until the new Congress is seated to select a new Justice, using the same rationale that your Majority Leader, Senator McConnell, used with Judge Garland.  It allows the American people their opportunity to “rule” on the Administration.  I imagine this will not be popular among Senate Republicans, but if the goal is to try to unite America, then party popularity should not be the highest priority.

So, I am asking you to delay the confirmation of a new Justice until the new Congress begins in 2019, and to take steps to improve the immigrant crisis.    These actions will be a big step in confirming our national unity as we struggle with our national crisis.

Thanks for your attention, and have a good Independence Day!!!

Sincerely,

Martin Dahlman, Retired Teacher/Coach

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democrat’s Dilemma

The Supreme Court is split, four to four.  The split is partisan, four Democratic appointees, and four Republican.  While in the past, party didn’t seem to matter as much once a Justice receives their lifetime appointment, cases such as Bush v Gore and Citizens United demonstrate that the party is “strong” within each justice (thanks Yoda.)

And the Supreme Court is split four to four along ideology.  There are four more liberal Justices, not surprisingly the Democratic appointees.  And there are four conservative justices, all carefully groomed from their earliest legal careers by the Federalist Society.  They aren’t just Republicans, they found their legal ideology in law school and have carried it forward throughout their careers.

These justices are different than the “old days” Republicans. Just as the modern Republican party has changed, so has their Court appointees.  Republicans like Chief Justice Earl Warren (Eisenhower), Justice John Paul Stevens (Ford) or Justice David Souter (H W Bush) found their more liberal voice on the court.  They were the compassionate, business Republicans, who saw individual rights as paramount.

The Federalist Society justices have embraced a view of the Constitution that places strict guardrails on the Courts.  They are akin to the “Strict Interpreters” of early American history; they look to the original language and intent of the authors of the Constitution.  The more liberal idea of the Constitution as a “living document” able to grow and expand with the nation, is anathema to them. Their view:  it is up to the legislatures and states to grow and expand the Constitution through legislation and the Amendment process.  The Courts “merely” maintains the “lanes.”

This dogma puts the choice of the ninth Justice at a “national crisis” level.  No longer can we expect a new Justice to “find their view” on the Court; the Federalist Society members have a pre-ordained theology that will control their rulings.  The ninth Justice becomes the fifth vote, and the Federalist Society will control our judicial process for the next twenty years.

For current Republicans (other than the old-school Republicans like John Kasich or Mitt Romney) this judicial appointment is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shape America.  The driving forces behind the current conservative party, not just the Trump voters, but the huge dark money interests such as the Koch brothers; are “all-in” on this selection.  Senator Majority Leader McConnell has no choice but to pull every string and use every piece of leverage he has to get this appointment done, and done before Democrats have the opportunity to change the majority.

It really is a win-win situation.  If the Democrats actually stop a Trump appointee, then Republican voters will be highly motivated to vote in November, and Republicans are likely to maintain power in Congress.  If the Democrats try and fail, then the life-dream of a Federalist Society Supreme Court is realized, and that conservative philosophy will be enshrined in decisions and precedent for the next century.  Republicans may lose control of the Congress, but for many it will be worth it.

So what should the Democratic strategy be?

Minority Leader Schumer has lowered expectations.  His deputy, Senator Durbin, has gone so far as to say there is nothing Democrats can do, one vote shy of a majority.  They are making a shrewd political calculation. Should Democrats commit to defeating a “Federalist Society” candidate for the Court, they will need every vote in their caucus, plus at least one more.  Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski offer the tantalizing pivotal votes to change the majority.

The problem:  even if they can get this done, the short term win on the court may well cost a longer term chance at the Senate majority.  Four Democrats running to return to the Senate; McCaskill in Missouri,  Manchin in West Virigina, Donnelly in Indiana and Heitkamp in North Dakota are in very difficult races in “Trump” states.  If they are “whipped” to vote against a Trump Court appointee, it makes their reelection chances even shakier.

If, on the other hand, the Democratic leadership “fights the good fight,” but allows those bubble candidates to vote their conscience; then they have a better chance of winning a majority in the Senate.  The four would might well return to the Senate, with the Supreme Court change becoming a fiery motivator to drive Democratic voters to the polls.

The “more progressive” end of the Democratic party, represented by Senators Booker and Warren, see this nomination as the existential fight for the nation.  From the liberal standpoint, they aren’t wrong. It is a true test of ideology: if a Democrat doesn’t stand with them on this; then they just aren’t a Democrat. The problem with that approach is that if they don’t win, and maybe even if they do, it puts off Democratic ability to actually exercise power until at least the 2020 election.

The Democrats are not as split in ideology as commentators would suggest.  The division is based more in strategy and priority:  gain control of the Congress, or stay ideologically pure and risk losing both the fight for the court and the chance for power. That is the Democrat’s dilemma.

 

 

The Last Bribe

A family fleeing from the violence of El Salvador or Guatemala or Honduras is risking a difficult journey. They face two thousand miles of walking dusty roads, riding in packed vans and freight cars, staying in dirty “safe” houses; each day being completely vulnerable to violence, rape and extortion.  How much are they willing to pay to flee life  those countries?  The average annual income is a little under $700, yet they are willing to pay from $6000 to $9000 to get to the US.  (Want that put into American terms?  The average US income is $51000, equivalent costs would be $500,000 to $750,000.)

How do these impoverished people put together ten years or more of wages to get to the US?   The New York Times reported how relatives in the US wired money to help at each stage of the journey, demanding Facebook Messenger “proof of life” pictures along the way to make sure the smugglers weren’t collecting without delivering “the package.”  Bribes to Mexican officials are all a part of the journey, with the last bit of extortion the $180 smuggler fee to get across the US border.  There is no guarantee; while “there’s an app” to meet transportation in the US, it doesn’t prevent the US Border Patrol from discovering the crossing.

And under the “zero tolerance” policy of the Trump Administration, a family caught crossing the border was separated.  Children were taken away from parents, and sent to facilities all over the United States. Those children ultimately could be released to a parent once they are out of custody, or to a relative.

But the United States has its own price to extort.  For relatives to get a child, every member of the household must give their fingerprints to ICE.  Of course, should they be here illegally, ICE will move to deport.  And, past that arguable requirement, whether it’s the parents or relatives; the family must pay the cost of the child’s transportation from wherever the government sent them.

So a child is taken at the border and sent to contracted facilities in, say, Michigan. A relative in Texas, to get the child back, must pay for a plane ticket for the child and for an escort.  When the escort and child arrive in Houston, it’s “cash on the barrelhead” at the baggage return, the escort taking the money in exchange for the child.  It’s the last bribe, the last bit of squeeze faced by the migrants.

This is far before the status hearing, when a court determines whether the legal asylum claim of the migrant is determined.  This is not a criminal fine, nor is it some form of legal punishment.  It’s just another “fee.”

Coming to the United States to claim asylum is not illegal.  Civilized nations around the world have determined there are reasons to accept migrants, even those who “appear” at the border without the normal visas issued in their home country.  Entering the United States and making that claim begins a legal process to ultimately determine its validity.

If the entry into the United States is done legally, that is, at a legal border entry point, then there is no “illegal” activity.  However, since the Department of Homeland Security has intentionally slowed the border entry process, stacking thousands of migrants in the dangerous border towns of Mexico, the pressure to enter the US illegally is intense.

At a point where funds are at there lowest, migrants are forced to feed their families in the border towns, survive the violence and extortion, and ultimately face the cost of an illegal border crossing.  There’s no going back, and there’s no staying put.  Crossing the border outside of a designated point of entry is a misdemeanor offense in the US, but most of the immigrants are tapped out, and the  “zero tolerance policy” of the US means they won’t be released.  Since Homeland Security has also “slow walked” the increase in immigration judges, it may be years until the asylum request is adjudicated.

The US policy of child separation was one more way of “punishing” migrants.  We know there is money to be made in that business, with the new facility in Texas costing over $700/child/day to house children in tents. And far be it from the government who caused that separation, or the contractor, to bear any additional costs. So there’s one last “fee,” one last bribe, to get their kid back.

It’s the Fourth of July

It’s the Saturday of Fourth of July weekend, 2018.  Like the era we live in, it was a day of conflicts and reflection, as well as fun. The morning started out hot, high eighties by the 10am protest on the lawn of the Statehouse in downtown Columbus. Thousands joined in, demanding that the children separated from their parents at the border be reunited. The demonstration was organized by a young Mom.  She had never even been to a protest before, much less organized one; but she has an eight month old, and couldn’t imagine how it would feel to be torn from her daughter.   She had to do something.

There were no “big” celebrities, no Lin-Manuel Miranda singing a cappella (in DC), no John Legend with a new song (in LA); just a few politicians working the edges of the crowd. There were older folks, remembering the days of Vietnam and Civil Rights.  There were immigrants, proud of their heritage, and proud of their life here in America.  There were the college kids from OSU, so intense in their struggle to change the world. And there were lots of “just parents with kids;” just like the “Mom” organizer, who clearly couldn’t understand how our nation would do this.

There were a couple of hours of speeches, and a couple of people collapsing from the heat.  When the “medics” didn’t respond quickly enough, the Highway Patrolmen and Columbus Police officers came to help the stricken. Their job was “crowd control;” who knows what they thought about the protestors or the issue.  But they immediately moved through the crowd, just doing what cops really became cops to do, help people.

There was a march around the Statehouse, on the sidewalks since there was no parade permit.  When the crowd pressed into the main intersection, Broad and High, the police wanted them back on the sidewalks, and some in the crowd decided to focus on them to chant:  “we own the streets.”  Seemed like the cops were doing their job, and who owned the streets was beside the point of why we were there anyway.

Then back to the small town of Pataskala:  burgers, brats and beer; good friends for dinner, then onto the town fireworks at the park.  Pataskala lost their fireworks celebration a few years ago, the town couldn’t find a way to afford it.  But Mike Compton, the new mayor, decided that small towns had to have fireworks on the Fourth of July; it’s what made them a town.  Whether he voted for Trump or Clinton or someone else I don’t know, but Mayor Compton has a great view of what the town should be, and how to make it happen.

Sitting in a field, battling the mosquitoes, listening to little kids worry whether the rockets will hit planes: hanging out with friends and watching fireworks on the Fourth of July.  In a nation so divided, small town Fourth of July’s are a little bit of healing. The divides will come back soon enough;  a little time for the “Oohs and Aahs” is OK.