Some Thoughts on Reparations and Equality

As I stated in my previous article, the concept of "reparations" presupposes some injury or harm incurred as a result of inappropriate action taken by another party. In recent decades, the descendents of American slaves have been asking and demanding that they be compensated for the enslavement and treatment of their distant ancestors.

There's no question that the institution of slavery was and remains inhuman and barbaric, even though it continues today; mainly by Muslim terrorist groups who capture and sell mostly young Assyrian or Coptic Christian or Yazidi girls from Africa or the Middle East as sex slaves yet few react.

However, the Civil War in America ended in 1865, which ended 155 years ago. For most, that would be their 2x or 3x great grandparents. At what point is it simply too far back to matter? How would this be imposed? After all, not every black in America at the time was a slave. In fact, a few even owned slaves themselves. What about those who were slaves, but not in the United States or who came here after 1865? Then, what about children of mixed racial ancestry, are they entitled to some share of reparations? Does it matter if it happened 200 years ago or just last year?

What about Native Americans? They were not only held as slaves, but would often take captives as slaves---white, black, Hispanic, and even Asian. Should they receive compensated or is it a wash? We mustn't forget that some whites were enslaved as well. I'm not talking about indentured servitude which was a form type of slavery but one of limited duration with some type of compensation at the end of it, which was something slaves didn't get.

There was a small class of Europeans who were enslaved in America, often due to their inability to speak the language or understand the laws. Many remained that way for their entire lives, or for a few, until they could escape. Should they receive some reparation as well? Then there are Hispanics who also owned slaves (notably mostly Native Americans, but blacks and even Asians as well). Are they exempt, not because of the injustice was similar but because their skin is wrong color?

To muddy up the waters even more, what about those slaves who left no direct descendents? How are they to be remembered? What about those who were enslaved for a period, and then freed (often given land and livestock), are their descendents entitled to something for the time of their enslavement or does their freedom and land offset that?

Finally, how do we prove that someone is descended from an actual slave? Just being black for instance is not proof in itself that one is a descendant of African slaves. We also need to decide at what point culpability should begin in order to decide the degree of financial responsibility. We obviously want to make sure those responsible for slavery are the ones who ultimately pay for it right? That would be both the legal and moral thing to do.

In what would become the United States, the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and English all had settlements here, and all were engaged in the slave trade (especially the Spanish who enslaved just about anyone who wasn't Spanish). Therefore, should those whose slave ancestry extended back to before the founding of the U.S. in 1776 look to one of those countries for compensation or should the U.S. Government do so on their behalf? Perhaps since so many countries are involved it should be taken up by the United Nations.

Of course, that brings up a technicality. For those whose ancestors were before 1776 and remained enslaved after that date, who would be primarily responsible? Those under whose jurisdiction they were originally enslaved or whose jurisdiction they became after the founding of the United States? Perhaps it should be split, but at what percentage? Anyway, the U.S. forbid the importation of slaves after 1807. So, if the ancestor came here between 1776 and 1807, the U.S. would obviously be solely responsible.

Since we're interested in culpability, let's not stop there. African slaves acquired by the slave traders obviously from Africa, but how? African tribes were in near constant war with neighboring tribes. Anyone captured was usually enslaved, either for use by the victor or sold off to another tribe (on some occasions, the chief would enslave some local troublemaker or someone who had something he wanted).

With the arrival of Europeans, a new customer was added to the mix. The tribal chief would bring captured individuals to a port where they would be inspected and purchased, which turned into a highly profitable business. In addition, Arab merchants were active purveyors of slaves; buying and selling not just Africans, but Asians, and even any Europeans they managed to capture off ships. Among some the practice still continues. Muslim Arabs have been taking Africans as slaves since at least 652 AD.

Of those brought to America, practically all came from just two regions. The first was Senegambia, which is the area between the Senegal and Gambia rivers which comprises today's Senegal, Gambia, Mali, and Guinea-Bissau. This area alone counted for just half of all slaves brought to this country. The second area was in the west-central Africa making up the countries of Angola, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and areas around the Congo River.

Finally, the rest came from the "Slave Coast" of today's Ghana and Ivory Coast. A small percentage originated from an inlet called the "Bight of Biafra" on the Nigeria and Cameroon coast. It should be pointed out that according to most historians, only 3.5% of all slaves sold were brought to North America. The bulk went the Caribbean (notably Jamaica and the Lesser Antilles), central and south America to work alongside native populations.

So, since these are now nations, who were actively and willingly engaged in the slave trade business (in fact, they were pivotal to its success), shouldn't they be responsible for the lion's share of any reparations? What about the Muslim terrorists who continue the practice? How do we deal with that? And surely we mustn't forget all the institutional churches or their religious orders who owned slaves. They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind their altars.

Now we need to give some thought to individual responsibility. Since many people (erroneously) believe the Civil War was all about the issue of slavery, how are we going to treat those who fought for the North and the South? Are those whose ancestors were Confederates to pay a higher percentage while those whose ancestors served in the Union to pay less? What if the Confederate ancestor owned no slaves as the vast majority did (just under 4% of all Southerners at the time owned any slaves whatsoever), are they equally responsible? What if a Union ancestor did own slaves, as many from the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri did?

What compensation or offset should anyone whose ancestor died for the North receive? After all, "if" the war was all about slavery and they gave their life or was wounded, shouldn't that count for something? What about Quakers? Many of my ancestors were Quakers, and they were the most staunch of Abolitionists and who made up most of the Underground Railroad. Without their influence, slavery may never have ended.

Should some consideration be given to those whose more recent ancestors were involved in the education of former slaves or who, in defiance of local norms, risked their livelihoods and even their lives to employ blacks, Native Americans, Asians, or migrant Hispanic sharecroppers? What about those who participated in the Civil Rights Movement such as the "Freedom Riders", or worked to bring about equal housing, equal employment, ending poll taxes (all of which affected poor whites as well)? Several of the Freedom Riders were beaten up and at least three were murdered.

My questions aren't intended to be taken totally as sarcasm or rhetorical. They are intended to point out that this is a highly complex issue with numerous factors to consider. 75% of blacks believe they are entitled to reparations while 85% of whiles strongly oppose it. 42% of Hispanics said they would support some type of reparations. Of course, those on the Left tend to support some form of reparation while those on the Right oppose it, and many on both sides oppose any form of cash compensation.

So, how much are we talking about anyway? At this point, no one really knows, but estimates have put the figure as high as $15 billion up to $5 trillion dollars. In a time where the federal government is $26 trillion dollars in debt (which takes about 81% of our GDP), and with most states as well as local governments broke, that seems unlikely. So, what other solutions are there? Tax credits? The government needs every tax dollar it can get. Some have proposed grants for higher education.

However, we need to consider the fact that there are already numerous scholarships and grants which are race based (whites are excluded). The United Negro College Fund is one such organization along with the Congressional Black Caucus Fund, while hundreds of colleges and universities offer race based programs, including reduced tuition. In fact, there are literally dozens of such programs making millions of dollars available. There are also 37 black only colleges and universities. Something no other race is afforded.

There have been countless government programs since 1865 which have empowered not just former black slaves, but all minorities and those of low income. The same goes for housing, medical care, daycare, employment, and so forth across the social network. The opportunities are there for those willing to take advantage of them.

What neither the government nor society can do, however, is force individuals to take advantage of the opportunities given to them. They can't keep individuals from destroying property or neighborhoods, especially when they don't have a vested interested in it; the taxpayers do. They can't make people learn, especially when high academic achievement is disparaged as "acting white".

They can't make people take jobs, even though they are given preference due to their race and not their qualifications, and they certainly can't make them either do their job, let alone excel at it since they assume that race or some other qualifier provides a form of disciplinary insulation. In lieu of that, shouldn't everyone be treated and measured according to their abilities and performance instead?

Reparations are about compensation for an injury. When that injury is as old as Mankind, what is just? How do we balance that with the fact that at one time or another, every people on the planet has been slave and slave owner. No one is without guilt. I think the best form of reparation is equality and insuring that it will never happen again to anyone or any group. In America, and in much of the world, that's been done. It's not perfect. Nothing usually is, but it's a good start, and it will take all of us working together to make it better.



What part of Africa did most slaves come from?

Where Did African Slaves Come From And Where Did They Go?

2020 Democrats have started to clash over slavery reparations, but new poll shows most liberal support the idea

Most oppose reparations for slavery: poll

400 Years of Slavery in the New World

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ" Ephesians 6:5

2019 marks 400 years of slavery in the New World. An event worthy of remembrance. However, to read the articles and hear the speeches, you would be inclined to think that slavery sprung into existence as a result of some nefarious plot concocted by the twisted mind of an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Portuguese, or perhaps a Dutchman to enslave his fellow man solely for profit; a scheme to enslave one and only one group of people by one and only group of another people. Obviously this couldn't be further from the truth.

Slavery has been part of the human condition almost from the beginning of civilization some 6000 years ago (if not longer). It has destroyed civilizations and communities as much as it has individual families. The ancient Sumerians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians all talked about taking slaves (usually the result of war). Greece and Rome, upon whose foundations the West was built, were depended on slaves, as were the ancient Indian, Muslim, and Chinese empires. Not only are the ancient texts full of references, but even the sacred writings of most all modern religions are full of references to slavery (not to mention religious institutions themselves direct involvement with slavery). Most refer to the treatment of slaves or under what conditions they could be sold and so forth. Rarely was there a reference about the depravity of the institution. So much for religious infallibility.

There is hardly a group or tribe on this planet who haven't, at some time or another, hasn't been subjugated. While most has resulted from conquests, some have voluntarily sold themselves into a form of slavery called indentured servitude. Typically these individuals had no choice if they were to survive their living conditions. Many were recruited out of the slums of cities, especially poor houses and other places of destitution. Others, however, were simply individuals looking to leaving for the New World and a chance to start over but were to poor to pay their passage or to buy the land they needed to get started.

Either way, they willingly (some would say coerced) sold their labor to someone willing to pay their fare and provide work, food, and shelter in exchange for a set number of years of often backbreaking work. Many of these individuals didn't survive the voyage while others died during their servitude. It wasn't uncommon that owners would work these individuals beyond their prescribed term since the indentured worker had little ways of determining how long they had actually worked.

At the end of the their service, if they survived, they were to be rewarded with their freedom and typically some previously agreed to payment of sorts, usually a specified amount of land and/or cash along with seed and perhaps a few rudimentary pieces of equipment to get started. It was a very tough existence and not all were successful.

While indentured servitude is most closely associated with early European settlers, especially the Irish, Welsh, and Scots, it existed well back into antiquity. The Bible mentions, for instance, in Exodus 22. 2-6: "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever". Thus six years was considered an acceptable term of servitude, which we would associate with being indentured.

However, this appears to have more of an exception than a rule. Slavery was, for the vast majority, a fact of life and it was often brutal. While some speak of a "bond" between slave and master as a form of informal agreement, it was clearly to the benefit of the owner. Nevertheless, a slave could not be compelled to do what they refused to do. However, the result was usually beatings and/or death. Yet for the master, that represented a loss of investment and labor, which had to be protected.

Slaves from Africa for instance, didn't simply appear at the ports, ready for iron chains. They were typically prisoners; the result of tribal wars where one side fought and captured another. The losers were quartered and then sold to roving coastal slave traders from Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. From there they were shipped to various ports and resold several times before reaching their final destination. Some Europeans too found themselves sold into slavery, often as a result of some unscrupulous sea captain tricking immigrants who didn't speak the language or know anything about where they were.

Such was the case of some of my ancestors coming from Germany to escape religious persecution. Not speaking any English and trusting the ship's captain, they thought they were headed to Maryland but ended up in Virginia where they were sold to the Virginia Colonial Governor by the ship's captain who unable to afford his docking tax (he blew it on booze and prostitutes before leaving port in England). Fortunately, two of my ancestors managed to escaped and were latter able to help free their fellow passengers.

"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior". Titus 2:9-10

As with the empires of the past, modern empires continued in the slave traded through the early part of the 19th century when slave trade effectively ended in the West. The empires of Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Portugal, and Italy all stopped dealing in human flesh. However, slavery continued in Africa, especially through the efforts of Arab and Asians slave traders (the slave trade remained alive and well in Asia too). Of course, this isn't to say that slave-like conditions didn't continue to exist. As an aside, the Ottoman Empire, continued with the dealing in slavery well into the 20th century.

The colonial powers, which now included Imperial Germany (until 1918), continued to treat native populations, mostly in Africa and the Pacific Rim, as little more than ignorant children. While they were employed and received a wage, working conditions were often horrific, yet competition for the limited jobs (often in mines or factories) which included housing and basic medical care, was stiff. Nevertheless, the colonial powers did employ native populations in their military, police, local administration, office managers, and so forth.

As a result, a professional middle class was created which afford their children with the opportunity to attend leading schools. For some, this meant entree in to places like Cambridge, Oxford, the Sorbonne, or the universities of Madrid, Heidelberg, or Berlin. For the less well off, schools were created which at least provided a medicorum of education; a bit more than basic reading, writing, grammar, science, history, and mathematics. It should be pointed out that many of these schools were tied to churches and social reform groups and less so directly connected with the colonial government who incorporated their own agenda.

In time, this colonial system created lawyers, doctors, engineers, and other well educated professionals along with professional soldiers, journalists, police officers and a bustling class of small businessmen and entrepreneurs (this was especially the case in India, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa). Thus, colonialism brought with it an end to the slave trade and a great of economic and social opportunities, it also included a strong measure of exploitation as well as discrimination against the native populations.

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your master, not only those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh". 1 Peter 2:18

In the American colonies, religion was viewed as the foremost moral authority, and with it, basis for slavery as an institution. Men such as the famous Puritan minister, Cotton Mather, spoke in favor of it as did Judge John Saffin. Nevertheless, the importation of slaves in America ended in 1808. Slavery gradually ended in the more industrial northern states, though it continued in the primarily agricultural south (it should be pointed out the industrial north heavily benefited from the cheap products produced by the south's slave based economy). However, the common stereotype of a land chock full of plantations with their gentlemen owners sipping their mint juleps on the front porch and the all the Southern Belles busily chirping away about the latest cotillion is purely myth.

In truth, out of a population of 5.2 million whites in 1860, only approximately 6% owned any slaves at all (the average was just three), while plantations, the homes of the very wealthy, comprised just under 3% or about 150,000 individuals. Most owners typically worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves; ate the same food, and shared many of the same hardships. Among the wealthy plantation owners, the vast majority didn't employ white "taskmasters" with whips to beat or brutalize the slaves into submission. We should also note that there were examples of blacks owning black slaves or of having never been slaves.

Such treatment would have likely had the opposite effect as you can imagine. The field supervisors as they were called were almost always trusted slaves who understood the nature of the work involved, be it planting cotton or other crops, chopping lumber, or working in small factories, but I'm getting a little ahead of myself. As for the relationship between slave and master (or for that matter, between the white and black populations), commentators at the time stated that the relationship was typically one of respect, even to the point of taking on a paternalistic quality in some cases.

The general attitude toward slavery in the South was typically threefold. The first was its immediate end. Men like General Robert E Lee held this position which stated that slavery was an outdated and inhumane system which no longer served its purpose. The future of the South lay in its industrialization as quickly as possible. The second position, shared by individuals like President Jefferson Davis, was that slavery was a doomed institution and industrialization of the South was the future.

However, slaves lacked, in many cases, a basic education as well as lack of understanding of laws and general business dealings. Therefore, they believed that slaves should be educated to the point where they could be freed and would be able to adequately function in society. Davis and others had instituted as series of reforms on their plantations to do just this. It was Davis' intent to implement this throughout the Confederacy as quickly as the war permitted. Later, after the war, Davis stated that had been able to implement these reforms, slavery in the South would have ended within ten years and without any bloodshed.

The third perspective was that the institution of slavery was just. Why? Because the Bible held it to be so, and it was their belief that the Bible was the literal truth as pronounced by God. While America was at that time considered a rather devout nation where organized religion held preeminence, it was especially so in the South which had been settled mainly by Northern English, Scots, Irish, and the Welsh who were predominately fundamentalist Protestants (Jefferson Davis declared, in 1861, that the Confederacy was a Christian nation and would forever remain so, and was included as such in the Confederate Constitution which was ratified on March 11, 1861).

Following the war, things changed unimaginably. Gone was the entire social order, and with it starvation, disease, and new found poverty. Northern influence, be it good or bad, was everywhere. It didn't take long for resentment, anger, and violence to surface. Recovery for the nation was going to be a slow process, but especially so for the South which had been nearly leveled. For whites, it would be starting over from virtually nothing. For the newly freed slaves, they were going to have to adjust to a world they knew little about; some preferred to remain with their former owners while others were able to quickly adapt.

Since 1865, numerous laws have been enacted to create a level playing field, be it in terms of voting, employment, housing, and general integration into society. It's not been easy for anyone, but perhaps more so for these former slaves and their descendants. However, by the 1960's, much of this had been overcome. Pockets of discrimination still existed (as it did for other groups such as Jews, Catholics, or even Asians), but we seemed to have finally come together as Americans by the close of the 1960's. Racism had, in fact, become the subject of ridicule and comedy by the early 1970's (as illustrated by the comedy of Mel Brooks, Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, and others). But sadly this wasn't to last.

"One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich---both come to poverty". Proverbs 22:16

By the late 1990's, racism (or what passed for "racism", whether real or not) was rekindled. Today, anyone who disagrees with someone of color, particularly if they're white--the only way racism seems to work---is automatically accused of being a "racist". The corporate media, through its marketing and advertising, has begun to impose certain stereotypes and standards on society. Whites are now suppose to feel "guilty" for so-called "white privilege" although no legislation has awarded them any such honor. In fact, whites alone among all racial groups, are actually denied the same social benefits as other racial groups. Naturally this isn't meant to imply that pockets of actual racism doesn't exist, nor that racism is all one sided. Any racially different group can be guilty of racism. It's just that the media downplays or ignores this fact.

We hear of "reparations" for what occurred over 150 years ago. Paid to whom I wonder? Not all blacks in America descend from slaves or whose ancestors were slaves in America. In fact, many actually owned slaves and/or were never slaves themselves. But if reparations were to be paid, would it include European slaves? How about Asian? What about Native Americans? After all, they were sometimes held as slaves and at other times, owned slaves. Who would pay these "reparations"? Just America? Why not England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, and Holland too? They were just as involved. Of course, we can't forget the African tribes who started the process can we? Nor should we forget the Arab or Asian slave traders who were directly involved. Seems like a lot of blame to go around.

The fact of the matter is that slavery has been a disease which has affected Mankind from the beginning, and unfortunately it still continues in places today. Muslim extremists like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Harem and others still engage in slavery, mostly of Yazidi and Christian women and young girls, but also of boys and men too. Slavery among some Africa tribes also exists, and yet the world has done little to put an end to this savage practice. Until we do, there's plenty of blame to go around. We should look at this 400 year anniversary as a warning. Like any disease, it will grow and metastasize until we muster the courage to eradicated it once and for all from the planet. Perhaps that's the best form of reparation.

Some Thoughts on Illegal Immigration and What We Can Do to Stop It

America. It's been the beacon of hope to millions since its discovery and colonization starting with Jamestown in 1607. Of course, what many don't realize is that America was settled not just by the British, but also by the Dutch, the French, Swedes, and the Spanish. While everyone came here for their own very personal reasons, the vast majority risked all to make the dangerous six week journey to start over (it could take as long to two to three months depending on the weather and currents).

Many wanted to escape the stifling economic conditions which condemned an individual to whatever their economic and social class status happened to be with little hope for improvement (the only ones whose financial status seemed to improved was those who were already wealthy and have the political, social, religious, and financial connections). The "New World" as it was called offered an opportunity to start over for those willing to work...work hard...and suffer the incredible hardships it took.

Along the same lines, others came to this country to escape their past, whatever that was. Some were convicted criminals; felons or those convicted of minor crimes such as theft (especially of food to feed themselves or their family) or in some cases, prostitution or similar crimes . There were those trying to escape crushing debt or other obligations typically forced on them by the social circumstances.

There were many who willingly sold themselves...or their children... into a form of limited slavery called indentured servitude. There were those of financial means more than willing to take advantage of the poverty of others to work long hours, seven days a week over years on end in exchange for payment of the passage to this New World and the promise of some reward at the end of their service; often a piece of land and/or some form of payment. However, the trip, working conditions, and lack of health care was often so arduous that many died long before the tenure ended.

As an aside, occasionally these individuals would find their servitude altered. Instead of, for instance, working seven years, their owner would work them eight or nine years without them knowing. It also occurred that individuals and their families were actually enslaved (as happened to some of my ancestors who came from Germany to avoid religious persecution. They intended to settle in modern Maryland but ended up in Virginia where they, and the community which came with them, were sold).

This brings me to the other key reasons early settlers came here. One of the most important was for religious freedom; to avoid a State imposed religion or at the very least, a State imposed tax supporting the "official" religion as well as a tax on their religion. Going hand-in-hand with this was political freedom. In many of these countries, political freedom was strictly restricted. No voting for those not belonging to the official church; no political participation for those who didn't own land; no role in politics for those of certain classes or financial means, and obviously women were excluded altogether.

However, as America it developed, more domestic laws evolved which reflected the ideals of the colonists and less of their imperial masters across the pond. Following the American Revolution, laws were quickly developed which restricted immigration along with establishing the sovereignty of this new nation, including its borders, and why not? Every nation has laws designed to protect its citizens and its sovereignty.

Over the seceding decades and centuries, these laws changed as our boundaries expanded---rightly or wrongly---and the nation set about establishing its own unique national identity. Some of the laws concerning immigration were contradictory; some were outright racist in the legitimate use of the term. For instance, at one point the Chinese were encouraged to come (they were seen as a cheap source of manual labor). Then, their immigration was strictly prohibited. The same was true of the Irish (along with the Scots and Welsh). At other times, while the laws allowed immigration of certain groups, they were ostracized by some of those already here. These "Know-Nothings" aimed their wrath at Germans from the East, Italians, Poles, Jews, Catholics, Russians, among others.

Eventually, they came to be accepted, but not without hardship; often severe, suffered at the hands of those who rejected them. One of the chief reasons for their rejection was the belief that they could never become "true Americans". This helped to inspire as sense of desperation among the new arrivals to become more "American" than the Americans living here.

These immigrants prided themselves on becoming Americans. Many were all to glad to leave their past behind. Those who didn't speak English tried to learn what they could before leaving or on the way over as well as learn as much as they could about their new homeland (small classes were held aboard ship which also helped pass the time). It wasn't uncommon for them to encourage their children to become fluent in English and adapt to their new homeland. A few even went as far as to change their names or religions. They worked hard difficult jobs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

While remnants of their homeland were present, the ancestral ties tended to fade over the generations (the Asians, however, have retained the strongest tie to their ancestral and racial culture). America had become, essentially, a "melting pot" of cultures, races, ethnic groups, classes, and political as well as religious beliefs. President Teddy Roosevelt summed up the attitude of the times the best when he said, "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people". And so it remained for decades.

There are those who, today, would call President Roosevelt a "racist" for that statement, but then again they would be trying to judge our 26th President by their standard of today. In his day, his remark was the sentiment of just about every American, be they newly arrived or having deep roots in this country. But something began to change. It's hard to pinpoint when or how it occurred. I suspect it was after World War I. Returning troops had been exposed to European traditions and culture, and for many, it was eye opening. It created a real sense of "American Exceptionalism". They had come to believe that that the "American Experiment" as it has been called was truly a success.

At some point, perhaps during the 1950's and 60's. we began trying to impose our values---political and economic---on other nations. We had come to expect that everyone wanted to be just like us, and if not, we had the military and economic might to impose ourselves on whomever and wherever we wanted.

We thought nothing about overthrowing governments who refused to cooperate with us. Worse, we even helped install brutal military juntas or corrupt political dictators in order to ensure their cooperation, not to mention unfettered access to their national resources and assets. We did it in places like Cuba, Paraguay, Argentine, Vietnam, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Laos, Mexico, Iran, among many---many--- others. Is it any wonder we became known as the "Ugly Americans" to most of the world?

To add insult to injury, part of our "Americanization" of the world, known euphemistically as "nation building", resulted in US taxpayers shelling out billions upon billions of dollar (without our approval by the way), largely on behalf of corporations seeking to profit from the new world order. Yet, despite the numerous countries which benefited from our largess, not a single country modeled itself after the US model. Not. A. Single. One. Nevertheless, corporations profited handsomely.

Today, we face an invasion of our own. It comes mainly from the very countries which we helped to destabilized through our "interventions", be it military/CIA or economic. The "pollo" have come home to roost so to speak. The situation had been a slow, but steady increase since the 1950's, however, it wasn't until 1986, when President Ronald Reagan (R-CA) granted amnesty to the estimated 3 million illegal immigrants living in the country, that the surge began in earnest.

Nowadays, the actual number of illegal immigrants living in America is anybody's guess; best estimates put the number at somewhere between 10 and 30 million, and all them are expecting, even demanding, that they too be given amnesty. Even the leaders of various Latin America countries, such as Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Costa Rica publicly stated that the United States had "no right" to prohibit their entry or to secure our borders, which was amazing given their strict immigration laws.

When the State of Arizona attempted to help enforce current federal immigration laws, President Obama (D-IL) ordered his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to sue the state for enforcing existing federal immigration laws! To make matters worse, he even allowed Mexico, a sovereign foreign countries, to join in the lawsuit; something no other president had not only never done, but would have never even considered! As an aside, Holder would later be involved in illegally selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels ("Operation Fast and Furious") which resulted in the deaths of US federal and Mexican law enforcement agents as well as civilians, and individuals were still being murdered with these weapons as recently as 2019.

Some businesses, especially in the restaurant, apparel, construction, farm, yard care, and horseracing industries, also engage in hiring illegal workers, who typically work for pennies with no protection from unsafe and unhealthy working conditions or limits to hours worked, not to mention any form of legal protection. To further complicate the situation is that American labor unions are encouraging individuals to illegally cross the border in the hopes they will obtain many of the low paying menial jobs typically found in hotels or horse racing, and join the local unions. The reason? Dues. Unions have long since lost their political clout and can't begin to compete with corporations which defacto own both major political parties. Besides, it's not cheap for unions bosses to keep up appearances.

Churches and religious institutions have also been active in promoting the violation of US immigration laws, using their religious status and influence to avoid typically searches and arrests. They've even been involved in actively providing shelter, evading arrest, finding permanent jobs, residence, and how to circumvent laws to obtain taxpayer based services. Even some universities (many the beneficiary of taxpayer dollars) have begun offering reduced tuition rates for illegal immigrants or their children.

However, this all pales to the fact many politicians, especially within the Democratic Party, have openly allowed their towns, cities, and even state to adopt a so-called "sanctuary" status, in clear and flagrant violation of US Federal Law (and even then, demanding more federal money to cover the costs!). Now, we have candidates running for president in the Democrat Primary promising amnesty for all illegal immigrants in this country and even for a open border policy. Can you imagine what that would do to the US economy (and especially US taxpayers)? At present, illegal immigrants already cost taxpayers approximately $130 billion dollars annually. I don't know about you, but I can't afford any more tax or rate increases!

Needless to say, their promises, like all the others, is to win the election. Frankly, I don't care that these promises are coming from Democrats or even Republicans. Neither of these two corporate owned parties represent my interests (nor that of the majority of Americans given that most Americans are registered Independent; a number which continues to grow). The fact is that we are a nation of laws and those laws need to be enforced. Those who violate them should be severely punished, including the arrest of their leadership be it a mayor, governor, corporate president, HR manager, local priest or minister. They should also be heavily fined and stripped of their corporate or non-profit charter as well as their tax exempt status as applicable.

Meanwhile, we debate about building a wall or the cost of the wall, or how humane the presence of a wall would be, or for that matter, whether enforcing our immigration or sovereignty laws, just like every other country on the planet, are. Perhaps another factor we overlook is that these individuals aren't coming here to become Americans; to adopt to our laws, language, or values.

Few, if any, are coming here because of political or religious persecution, at least according to the US State Department and Homeland Security. They are coming here solely for economic reasons ("economic migrants"), which the United Nations has stated is NOT a legitimate reason to request sanctuary. As an aside, the UN also states that immigrants must move to the next closest stable country, not trek the length of a continent to find a better paying job or to seek any form of sanctuary. I'm sure there are a small few exceptions along the hordes trying to gain entry, and if so, those should be weeded out as soon as possible.

The United States, while no longer the representative Republic we were intended to be (we're a corporate dominated Oligarchy in case you didn't get the memo) is still the country of choice for those seeking freedom and a chance to start over just like our ancestors did. Nevertheless, we are first a nation of laws, and like every other nation, we have not just the right but the duty to enforce those laws, especially when it comes to our sovereignty.

As an aside, I have to say that much of the problems America faces, particularly regarding illegal immigration, has resulted from the government's tendency of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, especially on behalf its corporate masters, simply because we don't like the choice of government some other people have chosen or the policies of their governments. The US would be best served by our Founding Father's advice to avoid "foreign entanglements" unless it's a matter of dire humanitarian necessity, and then only in conjunction with other nations.

We welcome those who come here with the intent of bettering themselves and through their efforts, bettering this nation. All we ask is that you following the existing channels and laws for entering this country, learn the language of this nation---English--- respect the values and traditions of this country, and obey the laws of the land once here (ie: we are not and will never be a theocracy). This is nothing more or less what any other country would expect and demand. If you can't do that, you need to look elsewhere.



United States involvement in regime change in Latin America


United States involvement in regime change


The 2020 Democratic immigration debate, explained