A Look at the Early Origins of Anti-Semitism and Its Effects Today

 

Anti-Semitism is perhaps the oldest forms of prejudice in the world.  At its heart is  the hatred of Jews and Judaism. Anti-Semitism includes a general belief that Jews are no long the "chosen people" as stated in the Bible due to their rejection of Jesus as the new "Messiah who would usher in a "Kingdom of God" on Earth. 

This role as "chosen" was annexed by a new sect known as "Christians" (from the Greek "Christos" for "anointed" similarly as a king or prophet who using olive oil). Based on their belief that Jesus was the anticipated messiah of prophecy, and through him, all believers were now the "chosen" or "elect" of God. They also believe that since Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, they also have forfeited their divine "blessings" or "birthrights" including their right to the Holy Land.  That now belongs to Christians.

The Catholic Church, since the Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century, considers itself the sole legitimate arbiter of Christianity, has, historically, been at the core, of anti-Semitism down through the centuries. some even consider it the originator of anti-Semitism.  The Eastern Orthodox Church broke off in 1054 over a number of technical and doctrinal issues, but most notably the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, now known as the "Holy Father" or Pope and head of the "catholic" or universal church in what became known as "The Great Schism".   

It was here, starting in the 4th Century, the Vatican begins issuing official edicts or "Bulls" to enforced Church orthodoxy. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the liberation of Jerusalem from the Muslims in what was  the first of eight major church sponsored crusades (in realty, there were dozens of crusades, though without the direct support of the Vatican).

 Pope Urban, in his directive, openly referred to Jews as "Christ killers" and "devils", and urged the crusaders to convert or murder any Jews they encountered along the way (the same applied to Muslims or non-conforming Christian sect which didn't recognize the sole authority of the Vatican as well). 

It's worth noting that even before reaching the Holy Land, those of the First Crusade (aka the "People's Crusade"), in keeping with the Pope's instructions, attacked Jewish communities in Germany in what became known as the "Rhineland Massacres of 1096". As many as 2000 Jewish men, women, and children were murdered; some were burned while others were hanged or simply run through by a pike, sword, or whatever was handy in the name of God.  

Throughout history, Jews were forced to move from one town to another, or from one country to the next; whoever would let them settle, at least for a little while. Special taxes were almost common place and restrictions were routinely placed on them. Most notably where they could live. In the east, most were limited to the "Pale of Settlement" which encompassed parts of modern Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. It was extremely poor and diseases were commonplace.

 In other places, be it in Poland, Germany, France, Spain, or England, they were herded into small, cramp sections of cities known as "ghettos". These areas were often known to be largely run down, rat infested, with little in the way of sanitation or access to fresh water. Residents had strict curfews. Failure to comply meant beatings caught by authorities. It was often much worse, especially if you were female.

Permission had to be requested to live outside of the ghetto (which could just as often be revoked). It often involved paying another tax or fee (bribe). Jews were often prohibited from owning land (though they may work for someone else who owned the land) just as some occupations were closed to them.

Have you ever wondered why Jews are associated to certain types of jobs such as pawn shops, rag collectors, "patchers" (individuals who patched or repaired pots and pans), or tailors?  That's because in most countries Jews weren't allowed to own property, particularly farmland. They could work on farms or even manage large estates, but never own them.

As a result, many moved into towns and cities where they could find other lines of work. Many would become tailors, and since they were often prohibited from joining trade guilds, were only permitted to fix broken items such as pans, pots, or furniture. In time, some became plumbers, roofers, painters, glaziers, and so forth. Ragmen collected bits of cloth and made them into towels for instance.

A few became loan brokers or ran pawnshops. Some became accountants and managed the money of wealthy...Christian...families, especially among the aristocrats. This is how the famous (or infamous) Rothschild financial house got their start. In a very few countries, some managed to become advisers of members of the elite, particularly in politics, and fewer yet ran for office (such as England's Benjamin Disraeli) and even became titled themselves. It wasn't uncommon, however, they had to leave their Jewish heritage behind in order to do so.

However, these were very few and far between. In fact, you could say they were rare to the point of hardly being believable even at the time itself. For the overwhelming majority, stories of the Rothschilds or Disraeli were the stuff of legends . For the rest, there was the constant and ever present danger of eviction on a moment's notice; forced to leave with just a few hours advance warning.

That meant leaving pretty much everything behind or selling (if you could) whatever you didn't need to virtually nothing since the only ones remaining were your Christian "neighbors". For those who were even only slightly better off, there was always the jealousy and rumors. Most just scavenged whatever remained of your existence.   However, perhaps what was worse were the pogroms.

Pogroms were little more than orchestrated violent riots directed at the closest Jewish settlement (commonly referred to as a "shtetl" in Eastern Europe). Generally these protests were result of some trumped up claim that a Jew from the shtetl stole of goose or seen after curfew. In reality, pogroms were just an excuse to intimidate Jews (such were the way Jews were thought of).

Worse is when a local child went missing or was found dead (usually accidently drowning, etc). Jews were often seen as the culprit. In the case of missing children, they were accused of "blood libel", which was perhaps one of the most heinous of charges which could be brought against a Jew. Essentially, it accused the individual of murdering the child and then using their blood (sometimes their bones) in the making of matzo or unleavened bread, to been eaten of the Jewish Sabbath (or especially on one of the special Holy days like Passover).   

Homes and businesses were burnt down, and if caught out, Jews were often beaten, robbed, raped, or in worse cases, murdered.  There was little that the local could do about it. Reporting the crime to authorities was useless. The pogroms were often ordered by the local lord who also happened employed some of the Jews since they couldn't own land. 

Thus they risked losing their income, home, a small tract to grow their own meger crops, all of which they desperately needed by reporting the crime! Church authorities were also often involved with these pogroms and it was frowned on to even speak with the priests and forbidden to enter a church. Then there were the inquisitions.  

Beginning in 1194, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith was founded for the sole purpose of flushing out what the Church defined as "heretics" through investigations and trials. In reality, they sought out and eliminated those perceived to be enemies or threats to the Church. Like the Mafia of old, they were the "enforcers". They inspired terror wherever they went. They relied on rumors, lies, circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and even considered moles and birthmarks to be direct evidence!

They were often summoned at the request of a monarch or powerful lord who used the act of calling for an inquisition as their own personal "proof" of devotion to the God and the Church. Many used the inquisition as a means to rid themselves of potential threats to their authority, thus preventing or reducing the chances of being assassinated, a coup, and ensuring loyal.

They were also handy for getting rid of troubling groups ranging from gypsies, various religious sects such as the Cathars and Waldensians, Hussites, or emerging Protestants following the Reformation. During the subjugation of South America by the Conquistadors in the 1500's, the Church used inquisitions against the native populations (which later expanded into what's now southwest United States).

Punishment by the Church appointed court could consist of anything from simple confession of your "guilt" and the utterances of a few prayers ("donating" a few coins didn't hurt either) all the way up to being burned at the stake (the Church often took possession of whatever you owned to boot).

Beatings and other tortures such as waterboarding or the rack were commonly employed as was "dunking" in vats of boiling or freezing water to force your confession (interspersed with prayers and promises of "divine forgiveness"). Individuals could be stripped naked and intimately "inspected" for signs of demonic or Satanic possession (including females and children) by these allegedly chaste priests. Conviction was often viewed as random, but assuredly, the "guilty" would be found out.

Technically, the torture couldn't endanger the life of the accused. It could not result in the permanent injury or loss of one's arms or legs (including hands, feet, nose, eyes, ears, or tongue) although nothing were off limits when it came the application of torture itself. In addition, once used the torture may not be reapplied, therefore you got one trip to the torture...err...I mean confession chamber. But, how does this apply to Jews and Anti-Semitism?

While officially the Inquisition could not be applied to Jews or Muslims based on previously issued edicts, the use of pogroms were seen as a way to circumvent the edicts. Violent attacks were often conducted against Jewish and Moorish (Muslim) communities. However, since Christians were prohibited from attacking other Christians, if these individuals would convert, they could be spared the beatings, lootings, pogroms, and special taxes. They could be welcomed into the trade guilds and into society in general. The incentives were enormous. All you had to sacrifice was your identity. 

As a result, thousands of Jews and Moors converted and became known as "Conversos" or "Marranos". However, many would later convert back to their original faith. This is where the Inquisition came in. One of the goals of the Holy Office of the Inquisitor was to ensure to loyalty of the masses to the Church and the "sincerity of their faith". 

Thus, a Converso who reverted to their prior faith was seen as "endangering their soul" which, of course, was of primary concern of the Vatican. Therefore, the Inquisitor would round up all the lapsed Catholics they could find and remind them of their commitment. Think of it as a revival with whips and thumbscrews!

In 1478, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the Castilian Queen Isabella of Christopher Columbus fame ordered up one of these "revivals" in what became known as the Spanish Inquisition (as an aside, Columbus is believed to have been a Converso). What was different from other Inquisitions was that the royal couple were deemed "most Catholic" enough by the Holy See to oversee the Inquisition independently of Vatican, although it's general operation was still staffed by appointed clergy. 

All Jews who had not converted by 1492 were ordered out of the country (Columbus went a step further, he left the continent). All Moors were ordered out by 1501. Anyone who remained would be subject to continued used of the Inquisition. All possessions were to remain.  Not to be outdone, King Philip of Spain applied the same standards to his possessions in the New World starting in 1569.

Portugal got into the act in 1520 with the appointment of a "Grand Inquisitor" by Pope Paul III. Not only were and Moors, it extended to "witchcraft" or form divination (including playing cards) and bigamy. The purpose was to exert political, social, economic, and religious control over the population.

One of the most notorious Inquisitions was requested by the Jesuit priest Francis Xavier in 1540 which became known as the "Goa Inquisition", which was applied almost exclusively on "New Christians" (Jews who had been forcibly converted) reverted back to Judaism, however, it also included Muslims and even Hindus!

There's no existing data telling us how many individuals died during the pogroms or Inquisitions nor the financial loss which resulted. No doubt the loss of lives must have been in the tens of thousands at the very least. We have a general idea that when it came to the various Gnostic Christian sects or other that the Church referred to as "heretical" (such as the Cathars, Arianians, Merovingians, Pelagianism, or orders like the Knights Templars) suffered in the millions.

In terms of financial loss, one can only guess but it was likely in the billions by today's standards, not mentioning the historical artifacts which have been destroyed or hidden away in the caverns of the Vatican's archives. However, to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, no price was too high to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.

Fascist Spain, Italy, and Argentina, with its close Catholic traditions, continued to tie itself to this absolutist orthodoxy while they reigned. Nazi Germany tried to replace it with more vulgar version harkening back to a mix of mythical past and pseudoscience with Hitler as the "New Martin Luther". Communism equally sought to replace organized religion with a purely secular faith where ideology of Marxism, the party and the state served as the three prong godhead. Politicalized Christianly and Critical Race Theory each offer the same possibility today as does radical Islam does.   

Faith, in the form of spiritualism, has been with this from the beginning whereas religion with its dogma, pageantry, and sacrifices sprung in unison with government as means of awe and control. One temporal and the other eternal. We must be aware of all things created by Man for no matter how noble their intent, they inherently contain at least a kernel of vanity and greed, which given time, will block out all light of freedom and poison the soil of enlightenment.

 

   If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 Anti-Semitism in America is Nothing New. Don't Deny Jewish Culture or Culture by Calling Us "White"

Anti-Semitism

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

 

List of Crusades

Inquisition

Religion in Nazi Germany

Communism and Religion

Marxism and Religion

 

 

 

 

 

The Changing Face of Latinos in America

In case you've been on a long retreat in Himalayas or living "off the radar" for the past several years, you should know that Hispanics are the second largest population in America right now, although their rate of growth have slacked off in recent years. That position had long been held by blacks, who have fallen to third and may drop to fourth over the next few decades as Asians, the fastest growing demographic in America are starting to catch up (in Canada, they are already the second largest group in terms of population).

Meanwhile, whites, who've long been the largest population since the country's conception, have been in steady decline, despite the surge in births following WWII (the Babyboomers) in terms of overall population. The result of all this is that within the decade or so, the US will be a nation of minorities, with no single group being dominate. How that will play out politically and economically remains to be seen.

Of course, this is pretty much old news as alluded to at the beginning of this article. What I would like to discuss is a new phenomena which has been happening within the Hispanic Community and its possible affects on society. Hispanics have historically been Catholic (Roman Catholic to be more precise), and typically very devout at that. In fact, the Catholic Church as had an impact on Latin America from the moment Columbus planted the Imperial Spanish flag in the sand in what is now the Bahamas side by side with Friar Juan Perez, a Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order (the "Minorites").

The Catholic Church has exerted a powerful impact over the population in Latin America for centuries, some of it for good such as basic education and medical care and some---perhaps much of it---for ill such as working hand-in-glove with the wealthy landowners and government to keep the peasants mostly ignorant, poor, and on the farms (the result, as we've seen in Latin America, has been the slow growth of a educated middle class. Latin America still suffers from a two tier stratification between the very wealthy and the very poor). Attempts to reform society have often meet with violent opposition by the wealthy, and usually with the support of the Church's entrenched hierarchy.

So, it's this mix of admiration and fear of their faith, as well as the government, including its military and police, which has dictated the order of society in Latin America for generations, and it continues as Hispanics have crossed into the United States, legally or illegally. But, there's a subtle change taking place that we should be aware of. Assimilation among Hispanics has largely been slow; perhaps slower than among any other group which has immigrated in mass to the US. That's not to say there hasn't been assimilation, there has, especially among Cubans, Panamanians, and Puerto Ricans. However, among other groups, such as Mexicans and those from Central and South America, it's been slow at best.

Among certain segments, there's actually been a strong resistance; insisting that they not learn or speak English, the historical and de facto "official" national language of the US, as well as a refusal to adopt many of our national traditions. Nevertheless, change has still taken place, among which has been the adoption of other religious faiths. This is particularly true of younger immigrants (regardless of their legal status). 68% of Hispanics identify as Roman Catholic. At present, approximately one-third of all Catholics in the US are Hispanic or of Hispanic origin, with two-thirds of those attending services in Spanish. However, some 18% now identify at Protestant while 8% don't identify with any religion; some that would have been unheard in their grandparent's generation.

Of the 18% who've converted, the majority of them have become members of Evangelical congregations such as Pentecostal, Baptist and Church of Christ. Interestingly still is that many of these churches have started offering services and/or religious classes (like Bible Study) in Spanish. As an aside, many of these converts have also changed their political allegiances a well. While most Hispanics in the US have tended to lean heavily Democrat or politically Left (with the except of Cubans, who've historically been Republican), these converts have increasingly become Republican or vote along conservative lines.

Just for clarification, membership in both corporate controlled political parties has been and continues to be on the decline while Independents, who are now the nation's majority at 44%, continues to rise. Third parties, such as Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists are also showing signs of growth too. So, while these Hispanics have left the Democratic Party, their political switch doesn't necessarily mean they've joined the Republican Party. It means that they've have become more conservative in their political outlook. Thus their change to religious denominations which tend to more conservative, so has their political outlook.

Meanwhile, it's important to note that while Hispanics are showing more willingness to leave their traditional Roman Catholic roots, and while the trend is slowly increasing, Hispanics still make a much smaller percentage of overall membership in Protestant, and specifically Evangelical congregations than whites or blacks (Asians are the smallest group making up Protestant membership). Now, as for the 6% who describe themselves as secular, it's interesting to note that 66% are recent post-high school graduates, meaning that they are still fairly young adults. 63% say that English is the primary language, even if they come from bilingual households.

Almost half were born in the United States, and 41% come from households which bring in $30,000 annually or less. So, this 6% then are native born and assimilated, fairly young, have a basic education and come from relatively poor, likely lower level blue collar homes (there's another Pew Survey which I came across which demonstrates that Latino identity appears to be diminishing over generations, starting with native born children. I'll include a link to that survey as well below). Perhaps that's not too surprising. I think the identification with our ancestral homelands tend to fade across all racial and ethnic groups as individuals become increasingly assimilated. Maybe the last bonding tie will be artificial identifier of the "hyphenated American" such as "Asian-American' which identifies the individual as being racially Asian as well as having Asian ancestry while now being American, which is not a racial description. Hispanic-American is quite different however.

To clarify as briefly as possible, the Federal government defines "Hispanic" as a ethnic group rather than a race, since Hispanics tend to be an admixture of various races. Thus, a "Hispanic-American" may be racially more a central African origin or Native American origin, or even mainly Spanish or Portuguese origin, yet be from a Latin American culture. Black Americans are generally referred to as "African-Americans" although neither "African" or "American" are racial descriptions. The use of the term "African" can include the predominantly northern Arab populations (who are categorized racially as "Caucasians"), the more central Negro populations (which is a race), or the white South African Boars and Afrikaners (who are obviously white). Again, "American" doesn't describe a race, but rather a country and/or culture. Of course, whites are typically referred to by their racial indicator, "Caucasians" rather than as "Euro-Americans" which would be more accurate using the above logic of hyphenation.

So, while Hispanics seem to slowly assimilating despite the efforts of some to stop to reverse this trend, it's likely that in time Hispanics will eventually simply become a mixed bag like the majority of other Americans. Meanwhile, it's probable that Catholicism will remain the dominate religion among Hispanics, its hold will lessen as more chose to explore other faiths (and political allegiances), there is another trend taking place among Hispanics which seems to be often overlooked.

79% of black Americans tend to be primarily Protestants; 14% align with Evangelical churches, like the Baptists, while 53% follow traditional "Black Protestant" faiths such as the United Church of Christ and the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) churches. 5% belong to the Catholic Church while 4% are members of Mainstream Protestant churches such as Lutheran, Methodists, or Presbyterian. An estimated 18% are unaffiliated with any organized religion. However, 2% of blacks in the US are Muslims; mainly followers of the controversial Nation of Islam which has somewhere around 35,000 -45,000 members, which brings me back to Hispanics and religion.

One often ignored trend among Hispanics is that they are the fast growing group converting to Islam, which, given their numbers, could play a serious issue down the road. As present, the numbers are relatively small; approximately 150,000 within the Latino community, but there are signs those numbers may be growing. One reason is that the principal recruiting ground of Islam, especially radical Islam, has long been in US prisons, of which Hispanics represent approximately 33% of all inmates.

According to US Federal Bureau of Prisons, 80% of religious conversions in prison are to Islam, with the majority being blacks, the number among Hispanics has been increasing rapidly. Muslims make up 9% of the total prison population, compared to presenting around 1% to 2% of the general population (in New York's prison system, Islam makes up nearly 20% of the inmates). Combine this with the number of gang members in prison, this could have potentially devastating consequences if this spills over to the drug cartels who adopt Islam in conjunction with their criminal activities (for statistical purposes, blacks comprise 37% of the prison population, compared with 2.2% of Native Americans and 1.6% of Asians, while whites, which includes a portion of Hispanics, make up 58.5%). Terrorists groups like ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and Al Qaeda could look like a bunch of kindergarteners by comparison next to criminal gangs like MS-13, Mexican Mafia, or the Sinaloa Cartel.

America has the largest incarcerated population of any country in the world, 724 per 100,000 people compared to "evil" Russia which has just 581 per 100,000; not a notable distinction for a country which prides itself on being "enlightened" or "advanced" (as an aside, half of the world's incarcerated population are in just three countries---the US, China, and Russia). Given the changes in US demographics, incarcerating the second and third largest populations, can't be good. Meanwhile, we're seeing changes in the political and religious alignment of Hispanics, as well as the increasing assimilation among the younger generations, yet there still runs the potential backlash the mass imprisonment of a specific group brings (generations ago, it was the Irish and Italians as well as the Poles and other Eastern Europeans).

This doesn't excuse the criminal activity of gangs any more than it did the Irish, Jewish, or Italian gangs of the 1920's and 30's, not does it excuse in any way individuals illegally entering the US (which is frowned upon by those of the same group who entered legally). However, we must address the problem we obviously have with incarceration and immigration. As the Roman Emperor Tiberius said of his nephew and future emperor, Caligula, "I'm nursing a viper for the Roman people", so are we laying the groundwork for a potential disaster.



Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion

Hispanic Identity Fades Across Generations as Immigrant Connections Fall Away


Is being Hispanic a matter of race, ethnicity, or both?

Muslims in America: Latinos Converting to Islam As US Population Grows


Federal Bureau of Prisons: Statistics

America's Achilles Heel: Stopping Illegal Immigration

There's been a lot of talk---perhaps far too much--- of late about the recent influx of illegal immigrants and the "alleged" separation of children from their parents. Most of this "outrage" has emanated from the political Left and has been directed at President Trump. Perhaps that's because of the continuation of the anger and disbelief of Trump's victory of the Presidency and the denial of the obvious coronation of Hillary Clinton.

Certainly there can be no denying that the Left has been on a bender of sorts since the election. it seems every news broadcast, every headline or lead story, and every talk radio or TV show starts and ends with some alleged wrong doing by the Trump Administration. They've even tried to tag the enforcement of immigration laws, which call for the temporary separation of children from their parents "Trump's Policy" when they know good an well that it has been in effect for decades.

I've even heard a few commentators point out the attempts to discredit Trump's White House via alleged bribery charges, Russian collusion, vote buying, and just about everything else you can think of allegation just simply hasn't stuck no matter how much the Left wishes it to. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's known criminal behavior has been completely ignored. Do you think that perhaps the two are connected somehow?

Just recently, the corporate media, still trumpeting its "anti-Trump" tune, has been claiming that these individuals were there to "seek asylum", which may...or may not be true. The reason I say that is that it's not logical that people would bring their families (including young children and teenagers) hundreds of miles just to illegally cross into the US and then, after being arrested by the Border Patrol, saying they intended to enter the US in order to seek amnesty. "Why" you ask? Because the US maintains consulates and embassies literally everywhere in the world. But since these individuals are coming from Latin America and Mexico, let's stay focused on them for the sake of argument.

Mexico has a US embassy in Mexico City, which is the country's largest urban center. In addition, there are nine consulates scattered all through Mexico. Colombia, which isn't a very large country, has an embassy in Bogotá, the nation's capital. Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panamá, El Salvador, and the rest of the countries which make up Central America all an American Embassy in their capital city as well. As for South America, Brazil (which has the fewest number of illegal immigrants attempting to enter the US), has an embassy in Brasilia and three consulates; Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Recife.

Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, and all the rest in South America also have one US embassy each, which are all located in their respective country's capital city. So, again I ask---why could you tote your entire family hundreds, if not thousands of miles along dangerous roads full of all sorts of bad guys (especially those working for the drug cartel), illegally crossing borders and risking the loss of everything they have, including their lives, just to knowingly and willingly break US federal law to enter the US and ask for asylum when they simply just needed to go to their country's capital city and apply? Even initially, US officials will mail out the paperwork to get them started! Thus, I have to wonder if their actions make any logical sense? For me, the answer is clearly "no".

Of course, the next obvious question is why these individuals are seeking asylum in the first place? None of the countries south of the border are engaged in any ongoing military action. Each has a relatively stable government, at least as far as our State Department is concerned since the US doesn't officially provide aid to any "terrorist" or "terrorist sponsoring" state (of course, "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder as we all well know), but let's look at that too for just a moment. Given that the majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, we'll start there.

According to USAID, Mexico, with a population of 131 million, receives $87 million dollars from US taxpayers. Next is Honduras, with a population of about 50 million, takes in $325 million. El Salvador gets $75 million while Costa Rica and Nicaragua receive $15 million and $31 million respectively. Paraguay cashes in with $22 million dollars of our money. Uruguay gets a paltry $837,000 (obviously they need a better lobbyists). Brazil cashes our check for $15 million each year as Argentina, which has one of the worst economies in Latin America as a result decades long poor economic policies, gets $2.1 million of our tax dollars, and the list goes on. In short, each of these countries benefit mightily for US taxpayers to help prop up their governments. Of course, none of these figures include the peripheral benefits of US trade or military bases.

If we look at the their economics, we find that most are doing ok; nothing to write home about (though sending money back home seems to be acceptable). As I said earlier, Argentina has perhaps the worse economy due to decades of pursing poor economic policies which has resulted in hyperinflation, severe unemployment, and, naturally, a lot of civil unrest. Nicaragua too has had some major economic troubles, especially since the death President Manuel Noriega. Brazil, on the other hand has done well economically, however, that prosperity hasn't been equally spread out. The ruling 3% or 4% elites have made a great deal of money off of the country's developing economy while the remaining majority live at or below poverty level.

Of course, the same thing can be said of most of Latin America countries, Mexico included. The problem goes back centuries where wealthy clans bought up huge tracts of land, which they, in turn, used to invest in various industries. Naturally, their wealth allowed them to control the various governments which have come and gone and ride out the periodic "People's revolutions", either through bribery, extortion, and old fashion murder. A middle class never really got a chance to take hold. Peasants were kept largely uneducated and ignorant, mostly with the active support of the Catholic Church, which received large kickbacks from the wealthy elites. In fact, it wasn't until relatively recently (post 20th Century), that any assemblance of a middle class has started to develop. Nevertheless, the elites remain in control of the government and more importantly, the military.

About two decades ago, there was a brief attempt to change the social and economic face of Latin America through a reinterpretation of the Catholic/Christian message called "Liberation Theology" which provided a more "socialist" take. The message was highly popular among the poor, especially in underdeveloped rural portions of the various countries, especially sense it promoted social justice. The message was promulgated primarily by individual priests and lay leaders, who spread the message primarily by word of mouth as they ventured from village to village (the best known of these was Gustavo Gutierrez).

It wasn't long before the ruling elites and the Catholic Church officials clamped down hard on this modern day "heresy". Anyone promoting "Liberation Theology" face dismissal from their parish and even excommunication! Thus, it too was consigned to the "dustbin of history" as Trotsky once said of the opposing Mensheviks. What's of interest, however, is that out of this there seems to have developed movement to bring individuals from these poor South American countries to the United States regardless of whether they broke US immigration laws or not.

These groups, which tend to be liberal and religiously oriented, as well as highly organized. They tend to hide behind their traditional "untouchable" status to secretly transport, house, feed, and support these families. They are also actively engaged in helping these individuals navigate or actually circumvent US laws to obtain taxpayer based social services such as healthcare, housing, and even jobs through various programs and church based connections, and when necessary, to even evade immigration officials.

The other group directly involved with smuggling illegal immigrants are (not surprisingly), drug cartels who are often paid up to $10,000 per person. These cartels often make use of corrupt politicians and individual in the police force and military. In some cases, such as we're now experiencing, these cartels will "borrow" children from those working for them or who may owe them money, and randomly pair them with an adult to create a "family", which is then used to aid these individuals in crossing the border illegally, believing that families get preference. Of course, the media loves a good "family drama", which gets overdramatized and politicians can't keep away from anything which smacks of good "PR" (the same thing can be said of Hollywood Liberals, who are always looking for the latest social "fad").

As we're now seeing, many of these kids are spilling the beans once they're interviewed separately by immigration agents, but that's not all of the story. In some cases, parents are legitimately sending their children north in order to link up with relatives already in the US. However, authorities from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have reported that, when contacted, these relatives often seen to vanish, leaving the kids abandoned, which creates a whole other problem---what to do with these children? At present, HHS officials are trying to place these kids with foster families while they continue to find either their actual families (who also don't want to be found for fear of prosecution) or an actual close relative willing to take the child.

Lastly, perhaps the worst offender in my opinion, are those who encourage these individuals to illegally enter the country with the promise of jobs. In reality, these are typically dirty, unclean, underpaid, unstable, and often unsafe jobs (obviously with no benefits). They are subject to whatever treatment the employer wants to dish out without recourse. What's worse, there's no one for these individuals to complain to. Some say these individuals will do the work US citizens won't, which is untrue. American's will work these jobs, but only if working conditions are improved and they're paid a realistic salary. No more paying pennies and pocketing dollars!

My solution to at least some of these problems is fairly simply. Illegals caught in the US should be deported ASAP by depositing them at the nearest home embassy or consulate; let them find a way to send their citizens back home. We should deduct the costs of handling these individuals from the millions of dollars in taxpayer aid being sent to their home country. We should, however, make it easier for those with a needed skilled to obtain a work permit and enter the country (with a mandatory minimum English fluency requirement). We should end the "anchor baby" provision; requiring that at least one parent to be a US citizen. No access to any taxpayer based services, including healthcare (unless it's deemed an medical emergency). All US taxpayer funded documents should be printed in English only, however, English language classes should be made available.

To reduce the supply, we must eliminate the demand. Any business or institution, including churches, aiding, employing, or assisting illegal immigrates should be subject to a substantial mandatory fine for the first offense; an increasing fine for the second offense including a 30 day suspension of their business license or tax exempt status along with a 30 day jail sentence (which includes the president/CEO and members of the board). For the third and additional offenses, a larger fine, permanent suspension of their business license or tax exempt status and up to one year in jail.

As mayors or governors who want to thumb their noses at federal laws, that's fine. However, they should also be willing to accept responsibility for their decisions and forego federal money to their state or community as well. You shouldn't be able to flip someone off with one hand and beg for money with the other. In short, we need to make it impossible and/or unprofitable to continue with this business as usual attitude and not expect consequences for their actions.

The US should and will continue to welcome immigrants to this country. It's what have made America the greatest country the world has ever known. But we can't continue to accept illegal behavior. We are a nation of laws, and we must not allow some to blatantly ignore the law just because it's convenient or makes us feel good. Maybe most importantly, it's not fair to those who have taken the time and made the effort to do the right thing; who are attempting to follow the law.





USAID: United States Agency for International Development

Three Easy Steps to Ending Illegal Immigration

As readers of Another Opinion are well aware, I write often about the issue of illegal immigration, of which there are approximately some 11 million currently in this country. Also, as readers of Another Opinion know, I have no issues with origin, ethnic groups, gender, race or even the religion (or lack thereof) of anyone, let alone immigrants. Frankly, I don't care. America is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are what built this nation; however, we are also a nation based on laws. Like the majority of Americans, I have an issue with those whose first act in coming to America is to break the law. I have to wonder what kind of person is this---someone who wants to come to America for whatever reason, but does not want to take the time or even interest in applying for the right to do so? So, I've come up with three easy steps to help eliminate our current problems with illegal immigration. Of course, more can and should be done, but these are a good start.

Illegal immigrants literally sneak in our country like the proverbial "thief in the night". Then, they prey on the sympathy (or gullibility) of others to provide shelter for them, and of course the eventual job--often in some low paying occupation without benefits or recourse in the event of poor working conditions or abuse (exactly as their employer intends). Many hide behind the shield of some church or religious institution, thinking that no Mayor, Chief of Police, or federal agency would dare come into and arrest them. After all, they are under the "protection of God" or are on "holy ground", and so forth. For the most part, they're right. If they can be smuggled into one of these religious shelters, they are for the most part "safe". Of course, going out or leaving is dangerous. Once they step foot outside (and especially off the property), they're fair game.

Many, if not the majority of these institutions, aid these individuals in finding ways around our various laws, be it how to get healthcare without paying for it, finding work, or getting the children registered and enrolled in school on the taxpayer's dollar. These individuals see no harm in what they're doing. They justify it by claiming that they are acting "humanly" or doing this "for God" or "for Jesus" or some imagined highly moralistic goal decided on behalf of everyone by a few...or the one.

As religious institutions, churches and so forth are tax exempt. They are exempt for no particular legalistic or professional reason. They are exempt because our society has a certain level of respect for religion and accords these institutions the privilege---not the right---to be exempt from paying taxes. At the same time, these religious organizations demand that government stay out of their business, which is fair enough. The government shouldn't be involved in religious issues.

However, how should government respond when a church or tax exempt religious organization involves itself in politics? What should it's response be? What should the government do when any non-exempt institution doesn't just encourages others to break the law, but actively aids in the breaking of the law, and then aids in the violation of other laws? Should the government do nothing; ignore it? That would just make the situation worse since it conveys a message that the law shouldn't be taken seriously and that there's no consequences in breaking the law by any of the parties. As a result, no action simply encourages more of the same, except in greater numbers.

Instead, perhaps it's time that the individuals behind these groups be treated as the adults they are and who should take full responsibility for their actions. Thus, any tax-exempt organization---be it a church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever should lose their tax-exempt status. Perhaps for the first offense, their tax-exempt status should be revoked for six months; 12 months for the second offense.

Finally, for the third offense, it should be permanently revoked. For any of these organizations which has a board of directors or steering committee, anyone associated with the offending organization that has had its tax-exempt status permit pulled, should be prohibited from serving on any other board of intuition with is tax-exempt for the same time frame. Yes, many of these organizations already have a tough time finding individuals (especially those with any experience) to serve on these boards, but shouldn't there also be a strong penalty imposed as well? After all, these board members likely approved the motion to engage in this illegal activity. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions too?

What about employers? If it wasn't for demand, there wouldn't be a ready supply. Many of these illegal immigrants find employment in low end jobs which typically don't have any benefits. Jobs for these individuals often include working on farms, racetracks (horse as well as dog), hotel/motel, laundry, sanitation, restaurants (especially ethnic), maid/cleaning services, construction labor, and landscaping. In some cases, the better jobs have unions, but in most cases they don't. A number of illegal immigrants find themselves working in sweatshops under near servitude-like conditions. The hours are long. The pay is poor, and often is piecework. Restroom breaks are strictly controlled...and limited. The work conditions are often unsanitary and unsafe, but what can they do? Report the employer to OSHEA or some other government authority? That would likely cause the employer to shut down (often to reopen somewhere else later) and the arrest of the employees, or leaving them unemployed again.

Of course, that's what the employer is counting on. The average individual is going to risk it. Besides, most of these individuals didn't bother to learn English, nor do they even a basic understanding of our laws, and even if they did, they have more to risk than the employer! It is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant, but it's often difficult to prove whether the employer knew they were doing so. Most claim that they never asked for proof of citizenship or that the nature of the job would make doing so impractical, which was usually a good argument until E-Verify was introduced several years ago. Now, it's quite easy to verify anyone's immigration status, so there's no real excuse anymore.

Secondly, if someone wants to work here, it's relatively easy to apply for and receive a temporary work permit (a "green card"). This is what most who are employed in farm do. Typically this is seasonal work to begin work (though not always), so those wanting to come to America to work apply ahead of time and simply enter the US legally to seek and obtain employment, which is as it should be. However, it's those too lazy to apply which makes it hard on those who actually do the right thing. It's also those who, after their card has expired, decide to remain in the country illegal, which, again, makes it tough on those trying to do the right thing.

So, although there's a financial fine for those businesses who hire illegal immigrants, it has little real effect. As I said earlier, often these businesses pop up somewhere else and business continues as before. The best solution would be immediately suspending their business license. As suggested previously, the first offense would be for six months. One year for the second offense, and permanent for the third offense. All those associated with the business, such as the owners and/or board members should be fined per illegal employee reported. The first offense should be $500 per individual, rising to $1000 per individual for the second occasion, and $1500 for the third offense. In addition, president or directing officer and the individual involved with hiring should face an additional year in jail with the third offense.

In addition, all officers and boards should be prohibited from serving on any other board for a period of five years and may not be employed by any company that does business with the federal or state government if that government receives any federal funds (which is pretty much all of them). The penalty is intentionally harsh. This is serious business, and not only are they breaking federal law, they are also potentially endangering the lives of their employees regardless of whether they're here illegally or not.

Now we come to perhaps the most onerous of violators in my opinion---city, county, and state governments which have declared themselves to be "sanctuaries". These taxpayer funded governments have decided that they don't approve of the existing immigrant laws, and thus can simply ignore it; effectively exempting themselves. The majority have gone further and chosen not just to ignore the law, but actively aide the illegal immigrant in evading federal authorities and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities in any way.

Typically, these governments acted on self-appointed mandates and not on popular consent of the voters. Some governments---particularly cities---pull back from declaring themselves as "sanctuaries", and instead, declare that they are "open" , and thus order their taxpayer paid employees not cooperate with federal authorities and not to ask or take any information regarding an individual's legal status for any reason. Louisville Kentucky is one of those cities where employees have been instructed not to question anyone's legal status or accept any information regarding their legal status. They are also encouraged not to cooperate with federal authorities such as ICE.

I think what I find so reprehensible about these so-called "sanctuary" governments is that, on the one hand, they brazenly flaunt their refusal to follow federal law (which, by the way, supersedes local or state laws), and yet expect no repercussions for their actions. Frankly, I thought that issue concerning what states could and couldn't do vis-à-vis the federal government was resolved back in '65...1865 to be exact! Wasn't that what the Civil War was all about---the authority local and state governments versus that of the federal government? Judging by their actions, I guess not!

So, my recommendations are really quite simply and avoid the likelihood of another Civil War (at least for the time being). If the mayors and governors sincerely believe they have the right to ignore laws they disagree with, then so be. First, all federal funding to these locations should stop immediately. If they are unwilling to even cooperate with federal authorities, then they should not receive any federal funds. Period. They can't and shouldn't have it both ways. If these governments run short (and they will), then too bad. Let these mayors and governors explain to their residents, whose approval they failed to obtain in the first place, why they chose to endanger and/or inconvenience them in exchange for what? Another term? Perhaps then the people will give them their answer at the polls in the next election.

As for those governors who've taken the extra step to refuse to cooperate in allowing "their" national guard units to be called up for border duty, they need to remember that the President of the United States can require the national guard to attend to any duty they are so ordered to. Secondly, if a governor is going to defy the President on an issue such as this, then I think they automatically should lose all federal funding immediately as well as face a suspension of government contracts issued to companies in their state. Yes, it could hurt a lot of people, but maybe even just the threat of it might just be the type of pressure that needs to be put on any such self-righteous governor.

I think there's something else we need to consider as well. With the willingness of mayors and governors to defy sitting presidents anytime something comes up that they disagree with, what does that say about the United States itself? We are being divided on all fronts---politically, racially, gender, and even along religious lines. We have in this country a media network which are owned by just six corporations and are solely dedicated to deciding what is or isn't news, and then spinning or manipulating it in order create a certain impression or conclusion.

We have a "domestic" terrorist attack or mass shooting, followed by a call for restricting or removing guns from the public ownership almost on cue. We have an increasing surveillance state with ever closer ties between the public state and the corporate state. We've long been a country with a revolving door between the corporations and the government, except that now that revolving door has been replaced by an escalator. There already exists a "us vs. them" mentality in this country; a duality between the political/corporate class and those of us in "flyover country". Congress is not just a millionaire's club, it's a multi-millionaire's club. Laws passed Congress don't apply to them, just us.

Since the passage of Citizen's United, corporations can come out in the open and buy the government they want---be it Democrat or Republican---it doesn't matter, at least not to them. We get to choose from pre-vetted candidates; those who've proved their loyalty to the corporate state; the Oligarchy. They like illegal immigration. It increases the completion for a limited number of jobs. That drives down wages and the need to provide benefits.

With less jobs available and the weakening of unions, a declining quality of life, people are willing to do more for less! As for the "surplus" population of jobseekers, there's always a war or conflict or police action going on somewhere that the US is involved; that's just how an eternal "War on Terror" goes! Besides, both are great for business, and isn't that what matters---that corporate CEO, officers, and stockholders make more money?