An Eye For An Eye: Is It Time To Do Away With the Death Penalty?

The death penalty is one of the top most hotly debated topics in America. It’s discussed in law school, seminary, medical school as apart of medical ethics. It was discussed in my jurisprudence and philosophy classes while pursuing my undergraduate degree. The validity of the death penalty is just as likely to be discussed in a bar among friends as it is at home. 64% of Americans support it while 80% acknowledge a risk of executing someone innocent and 63% say that it doesn’t deter serious crimes.

Republicans and conservatives are more likely to support the death penalty than Democrats and liberals/progressives. 62% of those claiming a religious affiliation also support it, especially Protestants (66%) and among 75% of White evangelicals. 57% of Black Protestants favor the death penalty even thought the majority of those on death row are Black. 58% of Catholics also favor the death penalty, including 61% of Catholic Hispanics.

Oddly, almost more Atheists oppose the death penalty as Protestants who favor it (65% vs 66%). 57% of agnostics oppose the death penalty while those who affiliate with no religious faith at all are more apt to support it than oppose it by 63% to 37%.

Before we get into a discussion about the death penalty, I want to make it clear that I’m not an attorney, nor am I offering any legal advice. What follows is my personal opinions based on well-established sources and data which are linked below. Some of the information may vary by state. If you’re seeking legal advice, I recommend seeking out a licensed lawyer.

When it comes to the death penalty, as of 2025, it’s on the books of 55 countries. 144 others have abolished it (the latest of which being Sierra Leone and Kazakhstan).  Among those nations which still use death penalty are China, Iran, Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, though rare. In fact, a prisoner in South Korea is more likely to die from old age or illness. As of 2021, there were 60 individuals on their death row. Iran regularly executes gays and trans, women who refuse forced marriages, those attempting to educate women, and anyone else opposed to their brand of Shira law. 

In the United States, 23 states have done away with it, with Virginia being the most recent state to do so. Texas holds the dubious distinction of having carried out the most executions, 523, followed by Oklahoma with 116. It’s worth nothing the Virginia was third with 113. Still, that means that 27 states still use the death penalty, in addition to the federal government, which still uses it under certain circumstances.

It also bears mentioning that the United States has the highest incarceration of any nation in the world with a rate of 629 per 100,000 individuals or roughly about two million men and women behind bars. That’s more than Russia (which has suspended its death penalty), China, or Iran. Of those two million, 2,463 are currently on death row.

42% of those on death row are White, which is proportional with the overall prison population. 40% are Black and about 15% are Hispanics. Asians make up just 1.8%. Their average is about 54 years old. Most have been waiting for the sentence to be carried out for between 19 and 24 years.  The number one reason to land on death row? Premediated murder involving aggravated circumstances such as kidnapping, rape, or the use of a firearm.

Since 1976, there have been five forms of capital punishment carried out. The majority are done by lethal injection with a great deal of care taken to ensure that the injection is as painless as possible and every step is taken to ensure the prisoner’s anxiety is kept to a minimum (such as the use of valium, nitrous oxide, numbing solution at the injection site, dimming the lights, and blocking the injection itself from view).

The electric chair (once billed as being the most “humane”) is still used in some states, along with the gas chamber. Kentucky, Oklahoma, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee are among those state which carry out executions. Gas is still used in seven states. Among them are Wyoming, Missouri, Arizona, and Alabama.  Nitrogen gas is the most commonly used although Alabama and Louisiana have opted for nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative to lethal injection.

Hanging and a firing squad are (surprisingly) still used in executions. As of 2018, only New Hampshire still allows hanging. Note that while New Hampshire did away with capital punishment in 2009, those on death row at the time were excluded. Washington State abolished hanging as recently as 2018.

As for the firing squad, Utah has used it most often. The last time was 2010. However, the firing squad is on the books in South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. The victim is typically hooded and strapped to a chair. The shooters, approximately three to five,  are given rifles which randomly carry live or blank rounds so no one knows whether they fired the fatal shot and are positioned between 15 and 20 feet away. Their identity is protected, with the shooters firing from behind a wall or curtain. The bullets are specially designed to fragment and cause maximum injury (duh). 

It bears mentioning that there has been historically around 166 individuals executed in the United States whose, subsequent deaths to their death, have proven to have been innocent. So, it is still worth it? The alternative is life in prison and thus forcing the public to provide for their upkeep, including medical care, which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars (if not more in some circumstances).

In case you’re wondering, for someone to be sentenced to death, they must first be convicted of an especially heinous crime, which usually involves the planning and intentional murder of someone. Quite often, there are secondary crimes, often just as horrendous, involved.

The individual must be convicted unanimously by a jury. The usual criteria is that their guilt must be “beyond all reasonable doubt”. That is, there can be absolutely no question that they are guilty of the crime(s) for which they are charged. If, on the other hand, they are found guilty but based only on the preponderance of the evidence (meaning the insufficient weight of the evidence, leaving the possibility of some doubt) or if the verdict is not unanimous, the death penalty is no longer an option.  

In addition, the death penalty must also be on the table, that is, the option was made available to them by the presiding judge. Lastly, the judge must also agree with the jury’s decision. In many jurisdictions, an appeal or review is automatically granted to insure that the defendant’s rights were properly and adequately protected.  Otherwise, the defendant’s attorney will typically file upon the request of their client.

 While primarily an administrative procedure,  this is often when we hear of “new evidence” or witnesses suddenly coming to light for some reason. If it’s compelling enough to have a direct impact the case, a new trial could be granted or reexamining proposed sentencing and potentially modified (generally speaking, the sentence may only be reduced downward).  

Nevertheless, the defendant is still afforded another bite at the proverbial “I’m innocent” apple. In fact, they have virtually unlimited bites at the apple, and all at the taxpayer’s expense, which brings us to the first issue. Should someone convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, be afforded an unlimited number of appeals? Some are emphatically say “no”. They believe that an individual should have a set number of appeals or at least a cut off date (although new evidence can be introduced by their attorney at any time).

 What do you think? Should someone on death row be capped in the number of appeals they can file, at least on the taxpayer’s dime? Some argue that they’re simply trying to delay the inevitable (which is likely quite true. Who wouldn’t? After all, even the most hardcore criminal isn’t in any hurry to die). But, how long or for how much of our tax dollars should you and I be on the hook for? You would think that after the, let's say, tenth failed attempt it’s unlikely anything is going to change. But then, we’re also talking about a human life here (even though they've allegedly already deprived someone else of theirs).

There have been some pretty convincing arguments about the use of certain drugs like Sodium Pentothal, Sodium Amytal, or Scopolamine (so-called “truth serums”) which suppresses the nervous system and reduces one’s inhibitions which encourages them to talk more openly without filters. Should these be employed? 

These drugs could be used under the supervision and direction of a license psychologist. Naturally, their attorney would be present along with the prosecuting attorney and other witnesses with very specific questions. The session would obviously be recorded for future reference. What could go wrong?

Well, in theory, this would benefit all parties concerned, especially those who insist they’re innocent despite a preponderance of evidence against them for instance.  It would allow both sides to question the defendant about the crime and perhaps helps the police to redirect their investigation while allowing the District Attorney to focus their attention elsewhere.

Ideally, the DA could offer one of the drugs in exchange for a reduced sentence, a dropping the possibility of a death sentence, or even a dismissal of the charges. At that time the defendant can alter their previous statement before proceeding. But, if it is revealed that they were lying, there’s no going back. They can’t suddenly decide afterwards to come clean or try and make a deal. It’s a one time offer only. Maybe the threat (or promise) of a truth serum would be incentive enough to get to bottom of what they know. 

However, the main problem is that while under the influence of one of these “truth serums”, an individual becomes highly susceptible to suggestion, false memories, and unless new actionable details are revealed, their statements are difficult to verify. Nevertheless, it would seem that if you’re truly innocent, it would be worth the risk as well as time and would save a lot of time.  

 In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 (“Townsend vs. Satin”) that the use of truth serums were unconstitutional since they could be used to self-incriminate, despite that fact that the CIA, the nation’s top spy agency, made use of these (and other) types of drugs through, at least the 1970’s. I wouldn’t doubt that thanks to the Patriot Act and FISA courts, they aren’t still used in one form or another.

Given the current selection of execution methods being used, which many call unethical and inhumane, what if there was another choice made available? What if the defendant was offered a deal like this---they agree to five or some other fixed number of taxpayer based appeals and no more. It would save huge amounts of taxpayer money and reduce wasted court time (courts are already highly congested). 

Then, in exchange for dropping the possibility of lethal injection, the gas chamber, or “Old Sparky” and the long wait on death row, they agree to a life sentence in isolation with no further contact with anyone except their lawyer, the prison doctor and a single guard to check up on them and bring them their meals, etc. However, there can be no conversations. Unlike being in the "hole" where the prisoner is thrown into small cell with no light or anything else, the prisoner would be permitted books, TV, magazines, and receive some limited outside time (again, in isolation) but nothing else.  

It sounds cruel, and I suppose in some ways, it is. As far as society would be concerned, they’re dead as if the execution had been carried out. It wouldn't prevent others from attempting to find evidence on their behalf.  The chief downside is that some would consider it to be  “cruel and unusual”, but then if they’re  willingly agreed to, is it? Currently, the average inmate spends just shy of 20 years on death row awaiting their sentence to be carried out. Talk about the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over your head!

Also unlike the "hole", the prisoner can opt out at any time and agree to an execution within 24 hours. Another variation on this idea would be to execute prisoners on death row within five or so years of their convictions absent any new evidence.  As it is, many die of old age or some illness while waiting to be executed. How fair is that, especially the prisoner?  To me, lingering for 20+ years would be “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Finally, the alternative would be do away with the death penalty altogether. After all, we are the only nation in the Americas still using the death penalty and one of the very few major industrial nations to use it. What if their sentences are converted to life in solitary confinement as suggested above or would it be better that they just spend their life in prison without any restrictions while we continue to pick up the tab?

It should be noted that studies have shown that sentencing someone to death is significantly more expensive than being sentenced to life. In Maryland, a single death sentence case can costs as much as $3 million dollars. In Texas, a death sentence case can be as much as three times that of a life sentence, and so on. What do you think? Should we, in the 21^st Century, still be using a death penalty? Do you think it’s fair or just?

Finally, just as a reminder, although I do have around 25 years of legal experience as the senior legal manager for a receivables firm, I am not an attorney and I’m certainly not offering legal advice. I’m just providing my opinion based on existing data and history. However, there’s no question that our legal system needs serious reforming, and there’s no better place to start than with death row. The lost of 166 innocent lives in 166 lives too many.

  Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Death Row Overview

Hanging Legal States 2025

Execution by firing squad

 

Death Penalty Cost

Kentucky Government: Notes on the Costs of Death Penalty

Death Penalty Information Center: Costs

 

Pew Research: 10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

  

 

Examining Racial and Ethnic Reality Part 2: Employment, Politics, Crime, Poverty, Home Ownership, Conclusion and Future

 

In part two of our look at race and ethnic reality, we'll take a look at employment and unemployment, Affirmative Action and quotas, racial equality in politics, crime  and prison sentencing, poverty, welfare, housing, and who really benefits the most? Finally, we’ll address the issues of reparations, the future of race relations, and what does all this mean, if anything?

Employment

When it comes to labor force participation, 63.1% of Blacks are in the work force. 65% of Asians are actively involved as are 62.3% of White and 66.9% of Hispanics. Meanwhile, 65.3% of those who claim to be mixed race participate in the work force.

Whites and Asians occupy the majority of professional and managerial jobs with Asians holding most of the STEM and healthcare professions while Blacks fill most of the community and social services occupations (Black males work the majority of transportation and utility jobs while Hispanics dominate the construction and hospitality industries per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).  

Examining income levels by race (based on 2023 data), we find that the median household income for Whites nationally is $89,050. For Hispanics, it’s $65,450. The median income for Black households is $56,490. Native Americans earn $57,270.  The highest household income belongs to Asians which averages $108,700.

The national unemployment rate is 4%. Among Whites, it’s 3.6% and 3.5% for Asians. In the Hispanic community, the unemployment rate is 4.6% (4.9% for Mexicans and 5.9% for Puerto Ricans). However, the highest percentage of unemployment belongs to Black Americans with an average of 6%.

Affirmative Action and Quotas

Affirmative Action came into being through two separate measures. First in 1961 when President John Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 which required government contractors ensured equal employment opportunities  for all applicants. Second was in 1965 when President Lyndon Johson signed into law Executive Order 11246 prohibiting employment discrimination by federal contractors and requiring them to adopt a plan to employ minorities. By the 1980’s, this had been expanded to include gender and religion. It was also expanded to include education and other areas. Basically, it federal dollars touched it, there had to be an affirmative action plan in place.

Some institutions used this as a de facto “quota” system, rather than as intended. Thus, individuals were hired or accepted based not on their skills, experience, or test scores, but on skin color and gender. The overall result was a drop in performance which affected productivity and employability. Fortunately, that was done away with by the Supreme Court  in a 2023 ruling against Harvard College. At long last, ability returned to the forefront.    

Politics

What about politics? Whites make up about 59.3% of the population. Hispanics are 18.9%. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Asians are about 5.9%. When we look at the make up of Congress, of the 431 members, 301 identify as White. 61 are Black, 46 are Hispanic, 18 are Asian, and 5 say they are racially mixed.

 Of the 99 Senate members, 83 are White. 7 are Hispanic, while 5 are Black and 3 are Asian with 1 Native American (not including Elizabeth Warren), and of course, there was Barack Obama who was bi-racial although popularly identified as Black.

When it comes to federal judges, the majority (65.80%) are white. 14.44% are black. 9.11% are Hispanics. 6.63% are Asian, 2.84% are mixed race, and an embarrassing 0.47% are Native American. Additionally, 52.7% of federal judges are male. Currently, there is one Black governor, one Native American, and one Hispanic.

Crime and Punishment

When it comes to crimes, Black Americans were 50% more likely to be victims of non-lethal violent crimes than Whites according to a report by the Council for Criminal Justice (CCJ). In both instances, the assailant was more likely to be a black male than not. In comparing Hispanics and Blacks, Blacks were 40% more likely to be the victim than Hispanics.

There was no difference in non-lethal victimization between Hispanics and whites although Hispanics were 2x more likely to be robbed than Whites whereas Black females were twice as likely as Hispanic females to be the victim of rape or sexual assault. In short, Blacks were more likely than other races or ethic groups to be a victim of crime while at the same time, most likely to have been the perpetrator of the crime.

An FBI Uniform Crime Report from 2019 seemed to back up the CCJ data. According the UCR, Black Americans accounted for 55.9% of all murders committed. Whites accounted for 44.1%. When it came to the race of the victim, 54.7% were Black while 42.3% were White, and roughly 3% were “other”. The pre-capita “offending rate” was eight times that of whites as were their victim rate meaning that statistically, Blacks (especially males) were more likely to commit violent crime than any other race and that Blacks in general were more often than not to be the victim of a violent crime.

According to a victimization report conducted in 2004, blacks were 56% more likely to be the offenders when it came to carjackings compared to 21% for Whites and 16% for Asians. Blacks were 12% more likely than any other races to commit an armed robbery. Hispanics, on the other hand, comprised 40% of those sentenced for federal crimes.

Per a report by The Sentencing Project, Blacks are the most incarcerated group in America. Black offenders are 5 times more likely than Whites to be sentenced to prison. Hispanics will go to prison almost 2.5 times more often than White offenders. Native Americans will be incarcerated more often than Whites but less than Hispanics.

Blacks are also more likely to be jailed on misdemeanor charges than any other group, but they are also more likely to violate probation. Hispanics are more likely than not to serve time in a federal prison. Asians are least likely to be jailed for any reason.

Black women are more likely than White or Hispanic women to do time. Asian women behind bars are virtually a statistically null category. The Sentencing Project also reports that while there has been a decline in incarceration rates overall, the Black prison population has declined the most.

Echoing the above, the Prison Policy Initiative pointed out that while Blacks are roughly 13% of the U.S. population, they make up 37% of those behind bars. However, based on percentage of population, a discorporate number of Native Americans are incarcerated compared to any other race or ethnic group. Lastly, it should be noted that the U.S. imprisons more of its population than any other country on the planet bar none.

So, with legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Affirmative Action, federal incentives for Historical Black colleges, and various federal and state programs, not to mention academic courses and majors, why isn’t the situation better?

Black, Hispanic, and Asian enterprises have been extremely successful. The Federal Office of Advocacy reported in 2022 that there were 5 million Hispanic owned businesses employing some 3 million individuals. Latinos are also the largest entrepreneurial demographic in the U.S.. There are 3.4 million Asian and Pacific Islander owned businesses in America, employing 5.3 million, and generating earnings of $1.2 trillion dollars annually.

Native American owned businesses, of which there are over 340,000, have earnings of some $46 billion annually despite representing roughly 7% of the total population.  As for Blacks businesses, there are approximately 3.12 million according to the Census Bureau. They provide 3.56 million jobs while producing $206 billion in annual revenue.  Of course that doesn’t include cable channels, print media, radio stations, music and movie genres, events, pageants, business associations, advocacy groups, and so forth which are dedicated to a specific racial or ethnic group.

Lastly, White owned businesses. Currently about 82% of all businesses in the United States are White owned, including 85% of all small businesses. Together, they generate about $1.3 trillion dollars while employing around 21.9 million workers. Given that Whites are by far still the largest demographic, that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Poverty

The highest poverty rate in the U.S. belongs to Native Americans with 22% living at or below the poverty line. Black Americans are next with 17.9% in poverty. Hispanics have a poverty rate of 16.9%. The poverty rate for Asian Americans was 9.1%.  Whites had the lowest poverty rate at 7.7%.

When we look at those who receive the most government assistance such as Welfare, WIC, energy or rent assistance, or SNAP, Whites are the greatest beneficiaries at 43% (this is also due to their largest percentage of the population). They are also the group mostly likely to leave the poverty rolls and drop government assistance programs.

In terms of SNAP or “food stamps” alone, White make up 62.7% of recipients. Hispanics are 39.8%. Black Americans make up 27% while just 3.8% are of Asian origin. 6.6% are of other races including Native American. It’s bears mentioning that 87.8% are native born.

Hispanics are the second largest users of government assistance at 26%. They are followed by Black Americans at 23%. Finally, Asian Americans. They are just 8% users of taxpayer based services.

Home Ownership

Lastly, let’s look at home ownership. According to the National Association of Home Builders, 65.7% of Americans owned their own home as of 2023. When broken down by race, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans were 73.8% of all homeowners. Asian Americans were 63%. Hispanics were 49.8% while Black Americans were slightly behind at 45.9%.

Hispanics also saw the greatest increase of homeownership or any group. Black home ownership has also increased while slowing for Whites and Asians (one explanation it that the aging White population is shifting to low maintenance residences like apartments, condominiums, or assisted living facilities).  

Conclusion

According to the numbers, Whites remain the largest racial demographic, and as such, dominate in most of the categories, including use of government services and prison population, as one would expect based on the population size (note too that there are large pockets White communities, such as in Appalachia or the Ozarks, which resemble more of a third world nation than a top tier one).

In looking at education, Asian Americans, the smallest demographic, outperforms every other racial group relative their size in terms of education, labor market participation, income, own a home, or hold a managerial or professional position.  At the same time, they are least likely to be a criminal offender, got to jail/prison, or use government assistance.  

Hispanics, the second largest demographic, is most likely to use some form of taxpayer based serves, hold service or construction jobs. They are growing most rapidly of any other group in terms of home ownership. They also make up the majority of the labor market while having the third highest unemployment rate.  They have the third highest graduation rates behind Asian Americans and Whites. In terms of politics, they hold the second most number of seats in Congress.

On the downside, Hispanics (especially males) are more likely than other groups to be convicted of a felony and sentenced to a federal prison (usually on immigration or drug related charges). They are ranked third in terms of poverty. Lastly, they are the second highest racial minority  over all to be a victim of a non-lethal crime.

From being  statistically insignificant just 50 years ago, Hispanics have become a powerful force in American culture. Within the next 50 years, they will be on par with Whites in terms of population and likely a powerful player in politics, perhaps having the largest racially based caucus.  There’s no question they’ll regularly hold the Oval Office.

Black Americans, for various reasons, haven’t been able to gain any significant traction socially. They do well when if comes to the number of live births but also lead in terms of illegitimate children. They also have the highest divorce rates while, despite the myth to the contrary, Black fathers are the most active in the lives of their children.

They have an impressive graduation rate yet hold the least number of top level jobs. Black females are also most likely to outperform Black males, but also most likely to be harassed by them as well. They also have the third largest number of individuals in the labor market with the lowest income level or any group. When it comes to poverty, they’re the second highest. However, they are not the “Welfare Queens” they are portrayed as.

In terms of politics, they’ve had decent success, though it’s come in waves, with success in Congress, judgeships, mayoral offices, and even the presidency.  However, these gains are often negated by charges of corruption, drug and alcohol abuse.

When it comes to crimes, Blacks (particularly males) lead the pack, most notably when the victims are also black. They are also most likely to be sentenced to prison, skip bail, or violate probation. Thus, they don’t seem to get the break other groups get.

However, Blacks aren’t the worse off. That goes to Native Americans. They have some of the lowest birth rates, the poorest schools, least number of job opportunities, highest poverty and homeless levels of any racial or ethnic demographic. They also experience the highest school drop out rates. Their overall income levels have improved (thanks largely to legalized gaming). Nevertheless, their representation in politics is and has been negligible.

In the end, each race can boost of a certain measure of success and bemoan its failures. Is there any justification for “reparations”? If we mean as a result of self-inflicted failure, then no. That’s on them, not society. The opportunities are there.  The problem is not taking responsibilities for outcomes. It’s not demanding quality and rewarding success, be it in education, job ownership, or self-care.

They must self-police neighborhoods and create acceptable role models. If they don’t care, why should society? Case in point, look at Asian neighborhoods and schools.  If, on the other hand,  we mean reparations because of governmental abuse or apathy, then yes, and Native Americans would be that group.

They’ve been the subject of land theft, blatant lies, attempted genocide through starvation and disease, and enforced poverty.  They’ve had their culture stripped away. They’ve been denied the opportunities others have taken for granted. Where they’ve succeeded, it’s where they’ve stepped up and took charge…and responsibility…for their situation, handling their own affairs, and keeping the government at arm’s length as much as possible.  

If we continue along the same path, America will slowly, but assuredly, balkanize. For Whites, most everything will remain largely the same despite a slow decline into pockets here and there. Hispanics will settle into their position of co-parity with Whites. Their language and culture will be common place. Parts of the U.S. will be de facto “El Norte” (or “Aztlan” as it’s called”). Asians will dominate the West Coast while a shrinking Black population will occupy some of the larger cities, especially in the Rust belt, looking like they belong more to some dystopian movie or third world country than to the United States. 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Louisiana Law Review: Race Quotas as a Form of AffirmativeAction

Race and crime in the United States

A Brief History of Affirmative Action

U.S. Poverty Statistics

Fact Check: Are Black people the majority of those onwelfare?

What the data says about food stamps in the U.S.

Homeownership by race and ethnicity

 

Examining Racial and Ethnic Reality Part 1: Introduction, Home and Hearth, and Education

 

Growing up in the United States in the 1960’s and 1970's, we were often told that “polite society” doesn’t publicly discuss religious, political, or sexual preferences.  Race was another such topic. Today, things have changed and it seems that everything is on the table.  There are those who seem to expect some sort of positive reinforcement for wearing their political, religious, racial, or sexual allegiance on their sleeve.

They feel entitled to an obligatory pat on the back, a celebratory ice cream cone, or handout, and when that reward isn’t forthcoming, they become offended, indignant, or defensive. They become upset that their life choices or fluke of genetics aren’t being rewarded or as impressive as they think they should be to others. 

You’re expected to embrace their world view or face being ostracized (aka “cancelled”), shouted down, physically attacked, or worse yet, being called a name and incredibly, they become indignant when they are the ones called out.  Race and ethnicity are such topics, and ones which warrant critical examination.  

Introduction

For example, when we examine race, we find something similar in the reaction. Individuals, almost two centuries removed, want not just sympathy for what some ancestor may or may not have endured, but they want to be compensated for what they never experienced. Those who look beyond color and (to quote Dr. Martin Luther King), judge people by the “content of their character” are often considered the worst offenders.

They behave as if this was a one off historical phenomena. Just one group--- white Europeans---were somehow solely responsible for the institution of slavery, forgetting that the most prolific dealers of human flesh weren’t Europeans, but the Arabs of Northern Africa (who put a premium on white flesh).

They give no thought to the historical fact that forced servitude has existed since Mankind existed. Every people and every race has at one time or another been slave and master. It’s a chain we all wear. They have also conveniently ignored the fact that it was these same white Europeans who all but put an end to this hateful institution or that they implemented legislation and taxpayer supported programs balance the scale that has existed since we roamed the African savannahs.

Equally, they’ve chosen to disavow the historical fact that it was their brethren who betrayed them and sold them into slavery, which sadly still continues to this day in Africa as well as parts of Asia. Perhaps the ancestors of the person on the street they randomly call “brother” or “sister” may been responsible for the plight of their ancestor, only to have later been caught up in the net? Such twists of fate aren’t as uncommon as one might think. It’s well documented that blacks owned black slaves in the U.S. or that native Americans had slaves of all races.

Nevertheless, for some reason, they “demand” to be compensated for what they aren’t entitled to (and arguably have already been given). They “demand” that the people who freed their distant ancestors from bondage must also assume some form of self-imposed “guilt” for doing so. Why is that? Is this anger at the people who delivered them from slavery justified or is it anger at themselves for not taking the initiative to free themselves and their refusal to place the blame where it truly belongs?

Shouldn’t their anger be more accurately directed to those who ensured their bondage in the first place, or is that just a little too close to home? If there is some sort of guilt to be had, perhaps it should be their failure to take responsibility for their own future, trading a “master” on a plantation for a politician or bureaucrat? What of the millions of immigrants who’ve come here from a different culture and customs, not speaking the language, and with next to nothing in their pockets, but have adapted very quickly?

They took advantage of the opportunities available, and as a people, kept their independence, and succeeded while the so-called “freed” people who’ve had the advantage of time, language and integration remain in a state of self-imposed bondage, blaming others for their poverty, broken homes, crime, high unemployment, alcoholism and drug abuse. If it was systematic, there should be few or no exceptions, but there are many.

In their anger at themselves, they lash out at others, such as in Cincinnati a few weeks ago, violently attacking individuals who were of no threat to them or looting the businesses of immigrants who’ve succeeded. Is this self-loathing, reversed racialism, opportunism or a combination? Let’s set aside emotions, pre-conceived ideas, and bias in order to examine the data and see what it can tell us.

Home and Hearth

According to the U.S Census Bureau, Whites have 50.5% of all live births while Blacks have 13.9%. Asians and Pacific Islanders are responsible for 6.2%. Native Americans have 0.7% of all live births, and Hispanics make up 25%. Nevertheless, the overall percentage of White and Black fertility rates have been in decline over the past several decades as has Native Americans.

 However, Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders on the other hand have seen their fertility rates increase, meaning that Asian and Hispanic populations are growing relatively faster than that of whites and blacks. By 2050, the U.S. is expected to reach a near racial parity with no dominate race. How that will work out remains a guess but often cited as a key factor for an eventual (and likely) balkanization of the United States.

A key factor in predicting the eventual success of a child is whether or not they are born in a dual or single parent homes. According to the Center for Equal Opportunity, Black Americans have the highest rate of illegitimate children. According to the Center, nearly 70% of Black children---69.3%-- are born out of wedlock. Compare that to 41.6% of Hispanics and 21.9% of Whites. It’s 59.3% for Native Americans. For Asians of Chinese origin, that number is 6.4% while Japanese Americans it’s 9.7%.

Two interesting asides worth mentioning are these. 45% of Black professionals (including managers) have had at least one illegitimate child compared to just 3% of White professionals.73% of Black high school students admit to having sex. That compares to 52% of Hispanic students and 44% of White students. Also, Black adults have the highest divorce rates while Asians have the lowest. Native Americans have the second highest and Hispanics have the second lowest.

When it comes to preschool care, Hispanic children are most likely to receive home centered care from a parent.  Black children are most likely to receive some form of home based care from a non-parent relative (like grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.). White kids are most likely to receive home based care from a non-parent or relative such as a nanny or babysitter. Children of mixed race were most likely to receive preschool care from some sort of center (such as a daycare). When it came to subsidized care, Hispanic and black children were most often the beneficiaries.

The National Library of Medicine reported that Black infants tended to have lower birth weights than other groups. They also reported than less than 1/3 of children living at or under the national poverty rate took advantage of programs such as Head Start, and while Head Start tends to provide higher quality care than other centers, Black children receive poorer quality care compared to children of other races. The reasons cited were the birth weight (including high nutritional foods, as well a poor educational levels Black as well as Hispanic ethnicity, especially in family care centers.

 Interestingly, a 2013 study by the Centers for Disease and Prevention reported that 70% of Black fathers who live with their kids were active in their lives compared to 60% of Whites and 45% of Hispanics. 78% of Black fathers tended to have dinner with their children every day while 74% of White fathers and 64% of Hispanic fathers did. Additionally, 27% of Black fathers took their children to and from activities. By contrast, just 20% of White fathers did.  When it came to the all important homework and childcare, 41% of Black fathers stepped up. Meanwhile, only 29% of Hispanic fathers and 28% of White fathers helped out.  

Education

When it comes to graduation, Asian and White students have the highest rates with Asians leading the way. Among Asians and Pacific Islanders, the graduation rate is 94%. For Whites it’s 90%. Hispanic graduation rates are 83% while for Black students it’s 81% and 74% for Native Americans.  

Some additional statistics along the same lines that I found was that 68% of Asians have a bachelor’s degree or higher. That compares to just 25% of Hispanics and 44% of Whites.  On the other side of spectrum, just 4% of Asian had less than a high school diploma. Only 5% of Blacks didn’t have a high school degree along just 7% of whites. However, just over 20% of Hispanics lacked a high school diploma.

It bears mentioning the Black females graduate at a higher percentage than Black males. 64.1% go on to college and graduate. Of those, 71.5% earn a master’s degree, and out of those, an impressive 65.9% obtain a doctorate although more Black males  overall have a doctorate or professional degrees such as a law  or medical degree. It bears mentioning that Black female students face a unique hurdle their counterparts don’t.

For those that tend to be “overachievers”, they are often harassed or treated as social outcasts for their academic performance, often being accused as “acting White”, coming most often from their Black male peers. There have been instances reported where Black students have asked that they not be singled out publicly for some achievement or award to avoid being bullied.

 Some actively try to downplay their academic performance, and even join in with the “bad crowd” in order to blend in. Some have reported being coerced into skipping assignments or school, drinking, drugs, violence, crime, and sex in order no to stand out. The result is that they usually end up holding the proverbial  “bag” and sidetracking their lives.

Finally, it bears mentioning that there are 180 “Black Only” academic scholarships and over 25 “Hispanic Only” scholarships and about 12 scholarship programs directed toward Asian-Americans. Native Americans can apply for approximately 150 “Native American Only” scholarships plus individual tribal scholarships. As for Whites, there are none. The reason, it's argued, is that Whites aren't a minority (the U.S. Census Bureau would disagree. White males are in fact a minority). 

Nevertheless, as the counter argument runs, scholarships should not be based on racial or other quotas, but rather on financial need based on their social-economic situation. It’s also worth noting that prior to 2023, ranked racial quotas were used by many colleges and universities in order to increase  on campus “diversity”, even bypassing higher qualified candidates.

In part two of our look at race, we'll take a look at employment and unemployment, Affirmative Action and quotas, racial equality in politics, crime  and prison sentencing. Finally, we’ll address the issues of reparations, the future of race relations, and what does all this mean, if anything?

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Trans-Saharan slave trade

Barbary slave trade

Barbary Pirates and English Slaves

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women

Study: Black dads more involved in activities with theirchildren than other groups

Quality Disparities in Child Care for At-Risk Children:Comparing Head Start and Non-Head Start Settings

Fast Facts: Women of Color in Higher Ed

Race and Intelligence

First Divorce Rate by Age and Race/Ethnicity  

The National Divorce: Trust in the Government

When Donald Trump was first elected President, his campaign mantra was “make America great again”. Now that he’s back, it’s once again the mantra of his followers, but did you know the phrase didn’t originate with “The Donald”? It was actually first used by President Ronald Reagan in his 1980 presidential campaign. It was also included in his acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican National Convention.

The expression seemed to catch on and was later adopted by President Bill Clinton during his 1992 Presidential campaign, and again used in a radio commercial for Hillary Clinton during her run in the 2008 Democratic Primary. Ironically, we now hear from the Left asking, “what’s so great about America?” and “when was America ever great?”

Both Trump’s and Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase was to intentionally harken back to the popular myth of “the Gipper” who emerged from the anger and apathy of the preceding years like a candle leading the nation out of darkness.  America was still recovering from the hangover of 60's and 70's, the Watergate scandal, the defeat in Vietnam, stagflation, the OPEC oil crisis, the Iranian hostage crisis, and what was widely view as governmental incompetence.

Under President Eisenhower’s two terms, 73% of Americans said they trusted their government. Going along partisan lines, the trust level of government was 79% among Republicans. Even Democrats were happy (yes—actual “happy” Democrats. They did once exist). 71% said they trusted in the government.

The overall trust level had jumped to 77% by the time Lyndon Johnson took office. But as the war raged on and the causality rates rose (as well as lies by the military and government became public), those numbers started to drop. Still, they would be regarded as high by today’s standards with 66% confidence level by Democrats and a 60% by Republicans.  By the time Johnson left office, and Richard Nixon took over, public trust had dropped but still remained strong at an overall 68%.

Following Nixon’s resignation and the advent of Gerald Ford’s “caretaker” administration, public trust was floundering at 36%. Among Republicans, just 38% had any confidence in the government. The Democrats weren’t far off with 36%. Jimmy Carter was elected as the “anti-insider” in 1976. The American People had had enough of Washington insiders and Carter took office with a new high---40%---before falling to 28% by the time he left office.

Despite Reagan’s perceived popularity over his eight years as president, trust in the government never did any better than 46%, a pale reflection of the Eisenhower days which he often recalled in his speeches. By 1994, during the Clinton Administration, the public’s trust in the government hit a record low of 19% before rising to 49% by the end of his second term.

President Reagan was well known for his often quips. One involved his switching parties. When asked why he left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican, he famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me”. I guess this was the time when the American People could say the same thing about both parties and the government in general. Government had left the American People. The national divorce had begun.

Sadly, it took a tragic event like 9/11 to rekindle America’s faith in their government, and it came shortly after George W. Bush (aka “Dubya”) took office. Poll numbers vary slightly, but trust in government ranged between 55% and as much as 60% according to some polls. Since then, confidence in the government by the American People has been on a downward trajectory ever since. As some have said, “we're on a roller coaster ride in a handbag to Hell and no one is driving”

The best Trump did in his first term was 27%. Under President Biden, levels of trust in the government again repeated lows of 19%. Even among Democrats, the trust factor never rose above 35%  while for Republicans, it remained at levels one could only call abyssal---11%. Today, Americans barely tolerate each other. We tend to live in our collective bubbles and regurgitate what we see and hear without bothering to question or investigate.

Even when we break down trust in government by race, we don’t see much of change. Using the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations as the starting point, Blacks and whites intersected in October 1964 with a 77% each having an overall government trust.

Staring in 1968, that trust among blacks plummeted. The next time it peaked was in 1993, corresponding with Clinton’s inauguration, when it hit 43%. Even under Obama, it didn’t do any better than 39% in February 2013. Biden got close in April 2021 with 37%.  Trust levels hit rock bottom in March 2019  during Trump’s administration when they dropped to 9%. 67% of blacks said they believed the political system as it exits is designed to hold them back. 

Among whites, their highest trust level in government following October 1964 wasn’t until October 2001 under George W. when it reached 61% (this was just a few weeks after the 9/11 attacked).   For whites, their low point was 8% in October 2011 under Obama.

According to this Pew poll, Hispanics weren’t tracked until December 1990 while “Dubya” was the president. Their initial start point was 39%. They quickly reached their highest level of trust of 57% in December 1998, late into Clinton’s tenure as President before rapidly dropping off. Their next high point came in January 2013 when it reached 44% under President Obama.  Interesting, their lowest level of trust in the government came near the end of Biden’s term when it hit 23%.

Lastly, Asians. Apparently, they didn’t reach ample numbers to poll until first appearing in August 2020 when they were polled with a trust level of 27%. They peaked in May 2022 at 37% under Biden and bottomed out a month later at 23%. Native Americans and Independents weren't included in the poll.

Now, President Trump promises to make us “great” once more. That would mean taking us politically, socially, and economically back to the       post World War II years of Harry Truman and Ike. The American economy was booming and we had taken center stage as empires of old, England, France, and Germany faded from the limelight. We had become a “superpower”.

Barely a month into office and Trump has already begun implementing many of campaign promises (a rarity in itself). He has started deporting illegal residents by the thousands (many of whom had previously just laughed at the usual empty rhetoric about deportation). He has started purging the government of useless and redundant bureaucrats, saving taxpayers millions in the process, and having an eye towards shutting down unneeded agencies. President Trump is, as promised, “draining the swamp”.

Of course, in his zeal, he needs to be careful of not overreaching into areas vital to ordinary citizens such as Social Security, unemployment, or WIC, while ensuring that those who actually need government services receive it. Often reformist zeal can turn into blind zealotry. 

Politics is a delicate balancing act between achieving results, which isn't popular with the vested interest, but necessary to the public at large, and being "Mister or Mistress Popularity". However, trust in the government is something altogether different. It’s based the public’s confidence in the government’s ability to get things done fairly and honestly irrespective of any other factor.

 For too long, the bulk of American citizens have seen government as inept and corrupt. Over 65% of Americans are unhappy with our position in the world. 72% of America agree with the statement that "America was once a good example of democracy, but no longer".  Among the OECD nations, the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to trust in government at 31%. Only Columbia and Chile rank lower. Switzerland ranks the highest with 83.78%. 

We’ve watched the government slide from a Republic responsible to its citizens to a neo-fascist corporatocracy which serves Wall Street. Much of what President Trump has done so far bears that out. The question is, or will shortly become, “what now?” How do we keep the Status Quo in check? Can we root our the "Deep State"? How will other nations, especially the rising BRICS nations, react as the U.S. tries to reassert its global dominance?  

America has become so deeply divided between those who want to keep the size of government at a minimum…and at arm’s length…and those who want expand the “nanny” or “welfare” state. That means reform if not an all-out overhaul of government and maintaining the corporate-government status quo. Those who would seek balance---the Center---have been largely purged from both parties, yet comprise the nation's largest voting bloc as Independents. Who will prevail remains to be seen.

 Perhaps, like empires of the past, we are destined go our way separate ways. We are, as our Founding Fathers often said, a “grand experiment”. Our future was not pre-ordained. I suspect that we’ve already exceeded their expectations. One thing is for sure though. If we are to “make America great again”, we cannot continue to limp along as we have been and hope to maintain what remains of the Republic. Extremism and intolerance has no place among a free people. 

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Pew Research: Public Trust in Government: 1958 - 2024

72% of American say the US used to be a good example ofdemocracy but isn’t anymore

WEF: Trust in Government by Country 2024

Make America Great Again

The American Experiment

 

Gallup: A Third of Americans Satisfied With Global Position

Black Americans mistrust the US political system

Our Never Ending War on Illegal Immigration: A Brief History

Immigration has been an important issue in the United States since at least the middle 19^th century when the U.S. began considering the creation of immigration laws. During the post-Civil War period, the United States experienced an economic boom, and we were expanding westward at breakneck speed. We needed people able and willing to meet this boom head on. Men and women were needed to fill the ranks in factories, lay railroad tracks, bend rivers to our will, level mountains, build cities, work farms, raise cattle and sheep, and provide back breaking labor. The war had laid bare our "Manifest Destiny".

Starting in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the first immigration law. The law included a literacy test, established a tax to be paid by new immigrants, and allowed officials a wide berth in deciding who could be admitted or excluded. The law also contained a “Asiatic Barred Zone”, which was a quota system to limit individuals from certain country entrance into the U.S.

Nevertheless, it paved the way for the Immigration Act of 1924. Originally, the laws were created with the purpose of keeping track of and limiting who was entering the country, their skill level or occupation, level of education, did they have the means provide for themselves until they got established, and country of origin. Eventually other statistics came along and asked questions about age, religion, overall health, or ethnic group to gain a more complete picture of our changing national demographics. America was, after all, a melting pot.

Today, we continue to regulate and monitor who comes and goes from our country, as does every other nation on the planet. Governments worldwide have a duty to secure their borders and an obligation to protect their citizens. It’s the central component to the legal concept of national sovereignty. Without a defined and secure border, it's not truly a nation. It's merely a territory.

America is facing a national crisis. Some even refer to it as a non-violent “invasion" similar to what Europe is currently experiencing (although that situation has become more violent due to an increase in physical assaults, murders, robberies, and rape gangs). While illegal entry into this nation (mainly along our southern border) has been going on in drips and drabs for decades, it’s been since the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that it has evolved into the serious problem is it is now. 

The primary reason for the influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, at least initially, was the social and economic upheavals happening in Latin America (some at our instigation), such as militarily in places like El Salvador, Panama and Nicaragua, or were due to violent hurricanes and tropical storms  hitting nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic. President Ronald Reagan was the first post-Watergate president to address the issue of illegal immigration.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (aka "IRCA"). The law set new minimum guidelines for arriving immigrants and streamlined immigration policy.  It promised tighter border security and established strict penalties for employers who knowingly hired someone here illegally. In addition, Reagan granted amnesty to some 3 million, mostly Hispanic, individuals illegally residing in the U.S. 

In signing the bill, President Reagan made it clear that this was “one and done” and that the U.S. would crackdown hard on illegal immigrants and there would be no further amnesties offered or given. However, what would-be migrants apparently heard was that if they could illegally enter the U.S. and evade authorities long enough, they’d eventually be granted amnesty too. As a result, the flow of migrants crossing the border illegally increased over previous years.

During George H. W. Bush's administration in 1990, Congress modified and expanded the Immigration Act of 1965, which increased immigration levels by 40% and included a provision for allowing family members to join those already here. It also doubled the number of work-related visas and increased the number of applications available to “underrepresented” nations.

 In 1994, under Bill Clinton’s presidency, Congress also pardoned roughly 548,000 illegal immigrates living the U.S. while fining them $1000 (which was waived). This amnesty was renewed in 1997 and again in 2000. Also in 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) which give legal status to over one million illegal residents (most form Latin America) who had lived here since 1995. Facing claims of discrimination, NACARA was amended in 1998 to include an undisclosed number of Haitians illegally living here since 1995.

However, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRAIRA”). Critics thought the bill went too far.  Under the bill, immigrants, regardless of the legal status, could be deported if they were convicted of having committed a felony. The new law would also remove anyone who overstayed their vistas, by so much as a day, could be deported and would automatically be ineligible to apply for a new non-immigrant visa. From 1996 through early 2000, deportations went from 50,000 to more than 200,000.

In 2000, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (“LIFE”) was passed, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants attempting to obtain permits (aka “green cards”) to work here legally and had married legal or natural citizens. This allowed them to jump to the head of line, thus bypassing millions of other would-be immigrants waiting to gain legal entry into the United States. And who says crime doesn’t pay?

Despite promises to crack down on illegal immigration while running for office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). This allowed some allowed some 700,000 individuals who had come here illegally while under the age of 18, de facto U.S. citizenship in the form of renewable grants.

In 2013 and 2014 two efforts were made to allow illegal immigrants a path to remain in the U.S. The first was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The bill would also dramatically increase the number of work visa programs from 65,000 to 180,000. In 2014, President Obama attempted to get Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (“DARPA”) into law but failed. This was another efforts to provide a pathway for approximately 3.6 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

During this same period, dozens of American communities opted to ignore federal immigration laws by declaring “sanctuary” status. What this meant was that they would not cooperate with federal immigration officials is identifying, apprehending, or detaining any non-resident, illegal or otherwise. Not unexpectedly, there were massive increases in illegal migrants which brought huge jumps in demand for government services.

As a result, local taxes were dramatically increased along with demands for more state and federal money. Can you imagine refusing to cooperate with federal authorities while demanding they send more money to help them in breaking the law? Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Under President Donald Trump’s first term, there were several attempts made to curtail the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming from our southern border, but from Asia (including China), Africa, the Caribbean (many of whom were fleeing areas hard hit by storms and corrupt governments), and the Middle East, which included not just refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but unfortunately members of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorists as well.

Trump went so far as to try to contain the influx of migrants attempting to cross illegally by beginning to be a massive wall along the southern border. While nationally, many people supported the concept, which was also locally popular, Trump face widespread criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, various pro-immigration groups (many of whom had strong church ties), and even foreign governments.  In addition, Trump was urged to suspend all border crossings under Title 24 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Starting on day one, President Joe Biden sat about dismantling as much of Trump’s immigration policy as he could by signing the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. He ended Trump’s travel ban which prohibited unrestricted travel from known terrorist countries like Iran and Libya, started tearing down the border wall, and reaffirmed the legal status of DACA recipients. 

 In June 2024 he signed legislation to shut down the border in illegal crossings that surpassed 2500 a day.  Between January 2021 and January 2024, ICE encountered 7.2 million illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. In 2023, there were a record 2.5 million occurrences.  The bill also suspended protection from deportation to anyone unable to provide proof of need for asylum.

It's also worth mentioning that international law states individuals seeking asylum may do so if they are being persecuted due to their race, religion, gender, or ethnic status. Seeking asylum for economic purposes is not recognized as a legitimate reason to be granted asylum. Secondly, the individual seeking asylum must apply to the next closest country, not the country of their choice.

Now that Trump is again president, he has hit the ground running on the immigration issue as promised. With nearly 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and decades of bipartisan blunders to correct,  thousands of illegal immigrants have already been deported to their home country, despite a lot of gnashing of teeth by their respective leaders.  Apparently, they think that the United States is somehow obligated to accept and provide for these individuals. Ironically, if this happens there, the outcome wouldn’t be so amicable. Individuals caught in their country illegally face an automatic prison sentence as does anyone who aids them in any way.

Some leaders of foreign countries have been openly critical of the United States efforts to exercise this most basic of national rights, while at the same time exercising their right to secure their national borders and protect their national sovereignty.  The media makes sure you see migrants carrying signs which read "We're Human" and "No One is Illegal". No one is doubting their humanity or that people aren't illegal. However, sometimes their actions are. That's why we have laws and courts to enforce those laws. It's the price we pay for a civil society. 

Clearly there needs to be a single universal law regarding the disposition and repatriation of individuals seeking to enter a country illegally which protects the right of a country to secure national borders and maintain its national sovereignty.  It should also include guidelines for dealing with individuals, groups, or associations (and private or religious) who promote the breaking of international and national laws concerning immigration. It should be up to each nation to provide for any exceptions such as a natural or manmade disaster.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

 Historical Overview of Immigration Policy

The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)

 

Immigration and Immigrants: Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996

Immigration policy under the Joe Biden administration