SCOTUS End-of-Term Review

The typical SCOTUS term ends on June 30 annually. So I’m behind schedule in doing a review. However, there have been additional emergency rulings coming up every few days, so maybe that’s for the best.

The emergency rulings are mostly related to this administration’s immigration policies, those before the end of term and after. So we’ll take a brief look at some other cases first, and then look at some of the immigration-related cases.

US Supreme Court Building, from a visit in 2015

To read the full article, follow this link to my Substack.

Small Things Are Bigger Than They Appear

There are so many big things going on in the world, it’s hard to focus on a small-ish issue. But because of all that it means, I think this is something to pay attention to.

There’s a German family, the Romeike family, that I’ve written about several times. They came here seeking asylum 15 years ago, based on persecution in Germany. They were not allowed to homeschool there. This was based on a law from the late 1930s, during which time the Nazi regime did not tolerate any child being out of the control of their indoctrination. The law continues for reasons the German people will have to answer to. But the Romeikes report that the schools were changing their children in ways they didn’t like. The schools, by the way, while not still pro-Nazi, are atheist, and the family is evangelical Christian. They considered private schools, but those schools are required to use the same curriculum, and they found the environment there even worse. So the parents pulled the children out of school for their safety and best interests. But the state had other ideas. They threatened fines and imprisonment. Ultimately they would threaten to take the children from the parents. It was untenable, so the family sought asylum here, in 2008.

The Romeike family, homeschooling in Tennessee in 2010
photo from NY Times article March 1, 2010

In 2010 a US circuit judge granted their asylum, along with a strong statement about parents having a right to make decisions regarding education and religion for their own children. This was during the Obama administration. Out of the blue (no apparent request from Germany), the DOJ insisted on overturning the ruling and kicking this law-abiding family out of the country.

I wrote about the family in 2011, and updated a couple of times in 2013. The links are below. I hadn’t heard much in a long time. The family was staying as long as appeals were making their way through the courts. HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association), their legal counsel, show on their timeline that, in 2013, the 6^th Circuit heard oral arguments and then didn’t grant a rehearing. So there was an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Again, the Court didn’t grant a rehearing. That final word came down March 2014. The very next day DHS, under public pressure, decided to let Romeikes stay under order of supervision and "indefinite deferred action status."

Although nothing changed on the Romeike’s part, the Biden administration—the very ones determined to let anyone, criminal or not, flood in at the southern border—now use their ICE discretion to pluck out this family. In September the Romeikes were given four weeks to vacate the country, but October 11 they were given a delay of one year.

Why target this family? They have been in no trouble during the 15 years they have lived here. They have supported themselves (i.e., no government aide; some of their court costs, I believe, have been helped with donations). They have been contributing community members. They have not violated any agreements. They aren’t terrorists or drug dealers. So, again, it is out of the blue that the administration decides to target this family—and the family has not been told the reason.

The Romeike family in 2008 when they came here, and a recent family photo.
Photos are screenshots from their interview on the Glenn Beck program.

What happens with a family over 15 years? They have two more children—born here as Americans, according to current law. (I believe they had five when they came here.) Their children have grown up. Two are married to American citizens, and one has an American-born citizen baby, just a month old.

The administration nevertheless wants the Romeike parents to return to Germany, where they face both hefty fines and imprisonment. They have no home there and no means to make a living—which means they will be imprisoned, and the state will take custody of the minor children. The American-born children can stay in the US, but without parents or family or means of support, so that’s not going to happen. The married adults are expected to return to Germany without spouses and children (or they can all immigrate and subject themselves to German laws), and that’s not going to happen either. The minor children, except the American-born ones, are expected to return to Germany and submit themselves to state custody. Some of them may not even remember the language or recall ever living in Germany.

In an interview with Glenn Beck, the parents aren’t sure what to do. As law-abiding people, they are willing to leave the US if ordered. But they are not willing to return to Germany and lose their freedom and their family. They may be searching for another place to land, but at this point they say they don’t know where to go.

Why is this a bigger issue than it appears? It is a travesty. It is wrong. But it also shows the risk to all of us. The ruling power goes out of its way to wield power against regular people—like us. This appears to be persecution because of religious belief, possibly also simply the assertion that we the people—not government—have certain inalienable rights, which include the parental right and responsibility to direct the care and upbringing of our own children.

As Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” Tyrants want control over the ideas being taught to children, to perpetuate their control over the next generations.

There’s a point I remember Jordan Peterson making (I don’t have the reference right now) where he talks about a question people ask him, about what a person should say to a Nazi official who asks if you’re hiding Jews in your home. Do you lie, when telling the truth would lead to their death? He says a better question is, how many times did you—and the rest of the community—fail to tell the truth or speak up prior to the Nazis coming to your door to find the Jews you have to hide? Why did you let it get to this point?

So, with this one family’s case, is there something we can do? Yes, some small things:

·        Contact your representative to support H.R. 5423, a bill proposed in September to give relief to the Romeike family. (Info about the bill here.)

·        We’re past an October 11 deadline, but still, there is a petition at HSLDA where you can sign your name in support of the Romeike family. (Pressure from the public is what led the Obama administration to give them “indefinitely deferred action status” back in 2014.)

·        Donate, if you’re able, to the defense fund for the Romeike family at HSLDA.

·        Let your friends know about this family. Let it be part of your conversation about school board races and parental rights. While there are people of both parties who don’t care much about homeschooling, only one side's administration is persecuting them.

Maybe, if we do whatever we feel capable of doing in a small issue like this—along with a whole lot of other people stepping up and speaking up—maybe the bigger issues will also get solved. Whether that outcome happens or not, at least we will have placed ourselves on the side of good and right.

 

Where I’ve Written about the Romeike Family

·        Parental Rights, October 26, 2011 

·        The Parental Right to Educate, March 22, 2013 

·        You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If... Part II, May 17, 2013 

 

Other Resources

·        “Judge Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers,” New York Times, March 1, 2010. 

·        “Meet One Family Biden Wants to Deport,” Glenn Beck Special, episode 309, October 4, 2023. (This may be behind a paywall; I wasn't able to also find it on YouTube.)  

·        “Romeike Case: History and Timeline,” HSLDA, September 18, 2023. 

Emotion Doesn't Equal Caring

Emotion is part of being human. It tells us something about our environment, about what we’re experiencing. But it isn’t truth.

You can be angry for someone slighting you when that person had no intention to slight, wouldn’t have intentionally done such a thing, and in fact did nothing wrong, but you emotionally interpreted the slight based on some previous experience in your life or even someone else’s story.

Emotion is no basis for problem solving.

Problem solving happens another way:

·         You identify a problem.

·         You identify cause(s) for the problem.

·         You address the cause(s).

o   This will be based on whether the problem is within your circle of influence.

o   And will be based on whether the problem is solvable within your time frame (lifetime, possibly),

o   Or whether the problem is likely to resolve itself regardless of actions you (or others) take.

What will certainly not solve the problem:

·         Hysteria.

·         Haranguing others for not already having solved the problem.

·         Claiming righteousness based on your hyper-emotionalism about the issue.

I came across this post on a friend’s Facebook (a good friend, whose relationship I value and want to continue; she didn’t write this but only reposted). I’m not responding to that friend; I’m responding to the original poster, who is anonymous to me. This kind of thing is usually not worth the energy of a response. But I think it is a useful example of why emotion is standing between us and solutions to problems.

shared on a friend's Facebook page

So that you can see them clearly, here are the hysterical accusations in bullet-point format:

·       I don’t want concertgoers and schoolchildren to be routinely slaughtered in hailstorms of bullets. You don’t care.

·       I don’t want some kid’s first memory to be that of a jackbooted deportation force kicking down their door and ripping their father from them. You don’t care.

·       I don’t want a mother to bury her child solely because she couldn’t swing $600 for a two-pack of epipens. You don’t care.

·       Every day you wake up and deflect, but-what-about, twist, bend, contort, and echo whatever vile, clubfooted rationalization keeps you from having to admit that you’re, not just complicit in, but in fact actively facilitating this nightmare of a reality so many people are experiencing.

·       I care about other people. You do not.

Let me start with the first issue.

Violence

It is not routine for concertgoers or schoolchildren to attend those places and be “slaughtered in hailstorms of bullets.” There was one concert event, in Las Vegas in 2017, when a single deranged gunman set up a gun with a bump stock to shoot many bullets indiscriminately into the crowd. The perpetrator was killed. No such event has been repeated. That incident was an outlier, not routine.

There are more school shootings than any of us would like. We would ALL like that number to be zero. But routine bullet hailstorms?

There are 50.8 million school students this year in the US. I don’t know how many school campuses. Size varies. But if we generically say 500 per school, that’s 101,600 schools. What is the risk per child?

In 2018, there were 24 school shootings, resulting in 35 deaths, which included 28 students and 7 adults (teachers or other adult employees). Of those, all but 8 happened at the Parkland, Florida, shooting or  the Santa Fe, Texas, high school—just two incidents. That means the other 22 incidents resulted in a total of 8 deaths (not all of whom were students).

Of the remaining 101,576 schools, students remained safe from any shooting incident. And of 50.8 million students, 50,799,972 remained alive. An additional 72 students were injured but not killed, so that means 50,799,900 remained both alive and uninjured. As a percentage, that means 99.99980315% remained safe. 

graphic from here

Safe enough? Probably not. Let’s make our schools safer. (And consider homeschooling.)

There was an incident at a local high school—the school son Political Sphere attended before we withdrew him to homeschool. The kids in my Sunday School class experienced the lockdown and told us what they experienced. A student had been expelled, they thought for drug dealing or something similar. Someone had ratted him out, they said. He came to the school angry, with a gun. But someone had reported him to the police. I heard elsewhere later that it was the boy’s mother. The news said it was a parent, but was unclear whether it was his own parent. 

Officers were on the lookout for him when he showed up at the school. They chased him down, apprehended him, with no shots fired. That means even that young man was uninjured.

Twitter post from KHOU 11,
found here

Children and students had been somewhat traumatized. They had followed lockdown protocol—locked classroom doors, covered door windows, blocked doors with furniture, hid in somewhat barricaded area behind the teacher’s desk.  Within 45 minutes the lockdown was lifted. But students had texted their parents about what was happening, and a thousand parents showed up in cars within the hour to reunite with their children, so school had to be dispensed with for the rest of the day.

This kind of incident doesn’t show up in reports. Kids (and teachers, and parents) were upset, but the security system worked—including, and maybe especially, the parent sounding the alarm.

It may be that the perpetrator was seeking only a particular person—whoever he thought was the person who “ratted him out.” There might have been no plan to rain down a “hailstorm of bullets” on the rest of the students. Because he’s alive, maybe officials will be able to find out. (Not to minimize, but a "hailstorm" implies an automatic weapon. Those have been essentially illegal for decades and one has never been used in one of these mass shootings in my lifetime.)

I don’t know how he obtained the firearm—he wasn’t old enough to purchase one. But if he was a drug dealer, chances are high that he was also a gang member—an outlaw. He would not have been thwarted by a gun law that would have confiscated guns from all law-abiding persons. He had to be stopped from using the gun he was unlawfully wielding. Fortunately, others—good guys who had guns but didn’t end up using them—were able to stop him in time.

If the many times the Parkland perpetrator had stepped over the line had been noted, and followed up on, he might have been stopped in time.

I could turn things around on the emotion-laden accuser and say, “You want people more vulnerable, unable to defend themselves. And you want to do nothing about those who have shown a clear danger to society but are ignored, time and again, until they strike. You don’t care.”

But what I really want to say is, “If you’ll stop being hysterical long enough, and dispense with the name-calling, you might find out that cooler heads not only care, but are better at finding the solutions to the problems you claim to care about.”

Doing something might seem to an emotional non-thinker to mean making guns illegal. But people who really care look deeper, at things like mental illness, fatherless homes, and other evils of a savage society.

What does making guns illegal do? It leaves guns only in the hands of lawbreakers. It does nothing to address stopping lawbreakers from using guns; it only limits the law-abiding, making us defenseless.

People who really care do what it takes to restore civilization.

Immigration

Briefly to address the other accusations, what is a “jackboot,” anyway? According to George Orwell:

"I am still without any clear information as to what a jackboot is. It is a kind of boot that you put on when you want to behave tyrannically: that is as much as anyone seems to know."

So you’re using that language only to inflame, not to inform. When ICE targets illegals for deportation, they target violent offenders, although non-violent offenders are not exempt. They knock on the door. The occupant of the house can ask to see the warrant by having it slipped under the door. Refusal to open the door would not result in a kicked-down door unless there were other circumstances warranting quick action in order to secure the safety of people.

In other words, no jackbooted tyrants kick down doors and tear innocent illegals from the arms of their wailing children. Doesn’t happen. It’s just an image used to stir up hysteria.

If you care about the children of illegals, then you ought to care about enforcing laws that would discourage people from illegally bringing children into the country. Also, as with all countries, illegals with children are welcome to take those children with them back to their home countries.

What you really need to understand is what sovereignty is, and why countries have borders—all countries in the entire history of countries, not just ours. And then you need to see the video “Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs,” which demonstrates why it’s impossible to allow in enough immigrants to solve the world’s problems.

screenshot from "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs"

We need to help people solve their problems in their home countries—by teaching them the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization, while giving charitably as we feel able. Or don’t you actually care?

Medical Costs

About epipens. That price is accurate—but not. As with many things medical in a non-transparent non-free-market sector of the economy, things are not always as first quoted. You can pay the full price, but almost no one does. Insurance drops the price down around $100, and depending on your plan could cost you nothing. For those without insurance that covers prescriptions, you can get a discount card that saves you more than 50%. And if you make less than $100,000 as a family, you can apply for assistance that might leave you paying zero. If you’re on Medicaid (low income, can’t afford coverage, so government pays it for you), you pay zero. 

So there isn’t a mother out there who has to bury her child solely because “she couldn’t swing $600 for a two-pack of epipens.” That’s a lie you tell to raise hysteria.

If what you’re saying is that we all should pay for each other’s medical care, and the only way you can persuade people to do that is to get them hysterical enough—ah, then we understand each other.

But if you actually want to lower costs and improve service in the medical sector, then get government out of the way and implement free-market solutions. For anything that doesn’t get solved that way, we have voluntary charity and philanthropy.

We have less charitable problem-solving than we need because of government interference in healthcare. And because you "caring people" and your government keep coercively taking from people while calling them cold-hearted—using their money while calling yourself charitable. I could say, “Why don’t you donate $600 a year for one stranger’s epipens? Don’t you care?” But that doesn’t get us very far.

You’ve said I, and people like me, deflect, “but-what-about” (which is not a verb that I understand), twist, bend, contort, and echo vile, clubfooted rationalizations (can rationalizations be vile and/or clubfooted, or are you using a vile metaphor that belittles actual people with a real physical condition?) And you’ve said I am complicit in—and not only that, I’m actively participating in—the nightmares so many people are experiencing.

Or, it could be that I’m not. But those accusations might actually apply to you. Because you think government is god, and the more power that god has, the more virtuous you feel in appeasing it. It’s not about caring at all; it’s about power.

But government isn’t god. It’s just a tool for us free people to use to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property. As we say here often:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

Any time we allow more power to fall into the hands of government than it should have, we are causing harm, rather than solving problems. If you were less hysterical, I could show you how to read and understand the Constitution, which lays out the best way in history for a people—any people—to deal with the “nightmares so many people are experiencing.”

The rules for freedom, prosperity, and civilization work every time they’re tried. Not instantaneously. And life in a fallen world still happens. But they work. And they include thoughts and prayers, which you obscenely shoved. 

When you calm down and get over the hysteria, maybe you can ask and find real answers from people who actually do care.

Immigration vs. Invasion

We had a guest come for dinner the other night, from Kuwait. She is an electrical engineer working for an oil company, over here for training with Mr. Spherical Model’s company. And while she’s here, she wants to experience American culture. So we let her experience Halloween, including answering the door to little people in costumes, getting candy handed to them.

And we had time for conversation, between doorbell ringing. I will call her Ginn.

It’s always interesting to get the perspective of people visiting America. Kuwait is a friend to the US, since well before the Gulf War. And yet it is in the Middle East, where people, customs, and cultures are quite different—and their news sources are not necessarily friendly toward us.

Kuwait has an elected parliament. In theory this seems like a good thing. But in reality, it hasn’t led to more freedom, Ginn told us. Kuwait used to be a liberal Muslim country. Note: liberal in this context means less rule dominated, more open to variety in dress and lifestyle and belief. They allow women to drive (at least since the Gulf War). Women attended university classes with men—now they are separated. They are still allowed to shop at malls with men and women present, which isn’t allowed in Saudi Arabia generally, at least without male family members escorting any shopping women. They have a full variety of women’s dress, from all Western clothing, to Western clothing with hijab (head scarf)—which was our friend’s way of dressing—to full-length Eastern clothing, to full black burka. But pressure is growing toward more limitation.

The Parliament has been changing over the few decades it has existed, because of immigration. People from Saudi Arabia, whom she referred to as Bedouins, tent dwellers, have been invited to come in and get citizenship. These were much more religiously conservative (opposite of liberal) than the rest of the country.

There are two main branches of Islam: Shia and Sunni. She is a Shiite. The incoming immigrants were Sunni. This schism has existed since almost immediately after Mohammed’s death. I do not know the details, or really all the locations. But at least nowadays, much of Saudi Arabia is Sunni, much of Iraq is Sunni. Iran is Shia. Kuwait was more Shia, but it is now about equal, and trending toward Sunni with more immigration. In the world at large, I think she said about 2/3 of Muslims are Sunni, and 1/3 are Shiite.

She believes the Shiites are more reasonable, more modern, and more open. I don’t know how to generalize that. I remember a conversation with a young Sunni woman living here in Houston, who said Sunnis are open to any Muslim to come to their mosque, but Shiites won’t allow Sunnis to come to theirs, which made finding a place to attend more difficult for her. I think I have found that orientation more often than Ginn’s point of view. But I’m an outsider; I really don’t know.

Among the two types, there are also variations. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabis are the more controlling version, and that is spreading wherever they migrate to.

What Ginn described was a concerted effort to bring in immigrants who would be expected to vote a certain way—the Wahhabi way—so that their way would gain influence in Parliament. She thought that was worse than having a monarchy, which could at least be expected to maintain their previous freedoms.

We could see the parallel in our own country. Any country that wants to maintain its culture, and its freedoms, expects immigrants to become assimilated to that country’s culture. So encouraging an influx of low-income, uneducated, desperate aliens who can quickly gain citizenship and voting rights is a danger to the existing country and its culture. That seems obvious. It’s what our friend Ginn is seeing in her home country. It is what we see as a looming reality here in America.

In both cases, it looks like an actual plan of those who encourage the influx to do so with the intention of altering the culture and gaining power for a particular voting party—so that they can transform the existing country into something other than what it was.

A country that cares about its culture and survival wants its immigrants to be educated, skilled, and law abiding, with a desire to adopt the laws and culture of the country. They can bring their foods, crafts, and personality with them. But they shouldn’t be invaders overtaking a country; they should be willing to change, to adapt, and to adopt the new country as their own.

Conservatives in this country—those of us who want to conserve our Constitution, and the rights it protects—aren’t against immigrants. We welcome immigrants. We’re against invaders.

Texas Talk--Part III

This is the next part of my report on the Texas Republican Convention, from June 5-7. Part I covered Ted Cruz’s speech (which maybe was a preliminary to running for president). Part II covered some of the other big speeches: Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and Rand Paul. The theme of the speeches, put together, was to speak the conservative message—Constitutional freedom and prosperity—and speak it with a welcoming but bold clarity.

Now we’re covering some of the nitty-gritty business of the convention: the platform. The platform ought to be the bold, clear message those speeches suggested that we share. Hmm.

It’s going to take two more posts. Today gets us through what was actually debated—mainly concerning immigration. And part IV will cover the rest of the platform—most of which was not debated.

First, a little background on the making of the platform.

·        Step 1 is probably to start with what’s in the previous platform, instead of simply from scratch.

·        Step 2 happens at precinct caucus meetings. Individuals meet together, after the polls close on primary election day, and elect delegates to the next level convention and propose items for the platform. Those that the precinct supports get sent to the platform committee at the state senate district level.

·        Step 3: Proposals from the precinct are read, sorted, categorized, combined, and reworded by the platform committee, made up of precinct chair volunteers in the senate district. They do some of their work prior to the one-day district convention, and then they take public testimony at the convention.

·        Step 4: This committee presents its draft, and then the floor is opened up for debate. More proposals can be offered from the floor. Amendments can be offered. Depending on the size of the district (mine is maybe the biggest in the state, with multiple delegates from 700+ precincts), this can be unwieldy, but Roberts Rules of Order are in place to protect and frustrate the process.

·        Step 5: The draft of propositions from each senate district across the state (there are 31) get sent to the Temporary Platform and Resolutions Committee (TPARC) of the Republican Party of Texas. This committee of appointees starts meeting on Monday of state convention week, weeding through the 3000 or so resolutions. They go through the process of weeding through, combining similar statements, seeing what is widely believed across the state, and trying to come up with a draft platform.

·        Step 6: This drafting process includes dividing into several subcommittees, taking public testimony over two days, and then coming together with about 300 draft platform planks by Wednesday evening, followed by more public testimony Thursday morning.

·        Step 6: Senate districts caucus and elect permanent platform/resolutions committee representatives. Often this is a formality in which the appointed temporary platform person gets elected to the permanent committee. However, this year there were a number of temporary committee people who were replaced in their caucuses. More on that in a minute.

·        Step 7: The Permanent Platform and Resolutions Committee (PPARC) meets Thursday evening, after the district caucuses. They take additional brief public testimony. Then they vote on what goes into the platform.

·        Step 8: By Friday afternoon the Report of the Permanent Platform Committee is printed and provided to the full body of delegates. Amendments to this platform can be submitted, in writing, up to 6:00 PM Friday. There were some 200 such amendments filed.

·        Step 9: On Saturday, the final business of the convention is to debate and vote on the final platform. This is an open floor debate with some 7000 or so opinionated people, discussing their various views. Roberts Rules of Order are followed, with a parliamentarian helping the state party chair keep the chaos to a minimum.

So it is this final step we’re looking at.

In that Thursday evening debate, with a significant change in the makeup of the PPARC from the TPARC, a couple of issues came to the top: medical marijuana and immigration. These became minority reports in the report. A minority report is a suggested amendment, signed by at least 7 members of the permanent committee, filed immediately after the close of the committee meeting—and they get handled as amendments prior to other amendments handled from the floor.

In the floor debate, the two minority reports related to medical marijuana were handled first, because they were simplest.

One was to include this language: “We believe that Texans should have legal access to medical cannabis as a controlled narcotic prescribed by a physician.” There was respectful testimony, from physicians and others, on both sides. Some on the “pro” side tried to convince the body that this referred not to cannabis in the form that can be smoked, but only to essential oil forms, which can be used for children suffering from seizures. Touching—but the wording is not limiting; it is open to pretty much any “physician’s” definition of medical use—which has led to a lot of abuse in states where it has been tried. The body rejected this.

The other minority report (suggested amendment) concerned studies of cannabis. The minority suggested removing this line from the platform: “We urge the Texas Legislature to allow, encourage, and facilitate the study at our Texas medical schools the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.” Now, this is in a plank related to allowing citizens to choose their nutritional products and alternative health care choices. The rest of the plank allows freedom to choose. But this wording isn’t simply the typical libertarian “allow choice to use drugs” plank; it is putting the power of the Texas legislature into the business of encouraging and facilitating (i.e., provide funding for) these studies of a specific substance—that has been studied out the wazoo already elsewhere, so there’s plenty of testimony without further funding. Nor is there a prohibition of studies if the Texas legislature doesn’t get behind them.

The body agreed to remove this phrase. But this was a closer vote, and people next to each other could respectfully disagree. There was some perception that it was a good thing to just “be” in favor of research.

I have to say, this is the first year I have sensed anything like a significant presence in favor of medical (or recreational) marijuana. There’s a larger libertarian presence in the GOP than there used to be. On some things, that’s good, but on vice, including mind-altering “recreational” drug use, it’s a bad thing. [See "Why I’m Not Quite a Libertarian"  and "Libertarians on the Sphere"].

Mark Ramsey

The other minority report concerned immigration. Mark Ramsey, my district’s temporary and permanent resolutions committee representative, explains:

By far the most controversial topic was what to do with the immigration plank that in 2012 was consolidated into a single comprehensive one called “The Texas Solution” by its supporters (2012TS). By the time the full TPARC met Wednesday, it was already unrecognizable compared to 2012. MAJOR changes had been made to it, undoubtedly influenced by the huge popularity and recent election landslide mandate by Sen. Dan Patrick in the race for Lt. Governor.

Major differences in the immigration planks’ details include whether the border is secured “first,” who determines that it is secure (states or federal government), and whether any visa or guest worker program must wait until the border is secured. Other variables include insisting applicants speak English, preventing visa applicants from obtaining public assistance, specifying those here illegally cannot participate in legalization (visa/citizenship/etc.), whether to address “mass deportation,” penalties and back taxes, and building a fence.

The minority report failed in committee in a 15-15 vote (the committee chair, by tradition, does not vote, and a tie is a fail). Unfortunately, the full Immigration plank and the full Minority Report are both too long to include here, so I’ll just summarize as best I can.

The platform plank has three paragraphs of introduction. Then it has sections on securing our borders first (with details of how), opposing amnesty, opposing mass deportation, modernizing immigrations laws (with some probably too detailed suggestions), and a provisional visa program.

The minority report claims it is taking its language from Dan Patrick’s website—but it did not coordinate with, nor get permission or approval from the senator, and there may be disagreements in content and intent. It covers increasing border security, ending in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, enhancing smuggling laws, prohibiting sanctuary cities, prohibiting employment of illegals, providing landowners with civil liability protections, and protecting law enforcement officers when they inquire concerning legal status of someone in custody.

Then it suggests various details ways to modernize current immigration laws.

Here’s the situation: immigration is in part a PR problem for the party. We agree we need to secure the border and enforce current immigration laws before anything else is even worth doing. And we agree that we approve of LEGAL immigration, and encourage that in many positive ways. But the perception is that, if you don’t handle “comprehensive reform,” regardless of the numerous failures of government regarding the border, then you get called “anti-immigrant.”

I took this photo from a distance; it seemed so
quintessentially Texan. I learned later this citizen is
Jack Finger from San Antonio.

Nationally, GOP leadership has dabbled in the idea that pushing for “comprehensive reform” (i.e., making a path for citizenship for illegals already here, while doing nothing about the porous border) would get us more Hispanic voters; if you want to see how that is going over, take a look at the recent loss by Eric Cantor.

Anyway, there’s probably a 60/40 split between those who want border security before any discussion of anything else (the 60%) and those who say we must be realistic about dealing with the long-term illegals already here.

Mark Ramsey, recognizing the considerable size of both sides, suggested an amendment to the original platform, which might preclude the need for the minority report. He suggested changing the “Provisional Visa Program” part of the immigration plank thus:

In order to deal with the current undocumented population, only after the borders are secured and verified by the states, we urge Congress to enact establish a provisional visa program with a term of five years that does not provide amnesty, does not cause mass deportation and does not provide a pathway to citizenship but does not preclude existing pathways.

The purpose was to put in a trigger, forcing the border to be secure before the other issues could be dealt with. The Ramsey Amendment, as it came to be called, passed.

But then we went back to the minority report, in the form of another amendment, including much but not all of the minority report. This amendment, if passed, would replace the full immigration plank, including the Ramsey Amendment.

There was a fair amount of debate. But debate was frequently—too frequently—interrupted by questions such as “So, if the minority report passes, it means the immigration plank, including the Ramsey Amendment, is replaced, and no more amendments can be put forward on immigration?” Answer: yes. Then another person would interrupt with practically the same question. Eventually the minority report passed.

So, the immigration plank is more hard-nosed than the body of Texas delegates would actually feel. Nevertheless, the message that border security must be accomplished—and verified by Texas—before anything else happens is the clear, bold message that we mostly agree on.

Is there an anti-immigration sentiment in Texas? No. But there is no longer any patience with the federal government ignoring laws and dumping the results of lawlessness on our state. And we believe, if spoken clearly and boldly, Hispanic Texans will agree with us. Because there aren’t Hispanic Texans and regular Texans—there are just Texans.

Then there’s the rest of the platform. We'll finish that in part IV.

Measuring Mitt Part IV

Here’s what we’ve covered while measuring Mitt Romney so far:

·        Part I identified the main general arguments against Romney (but didn’t actually cover them yet—the rest of the post briefly covered Huntsman).

·        Part II looked at the problem of believing the media and opponent stories, with examples of their inaccuracies.

·        Part III looked at character issues, where even enemies have to admit Romney is exemplary.

Today and tomorrow I’d like to cover two more topics: the flip-flopping accusation and Romneycare.

Flip-Flopping and Other Distortions

The flip-flopping argument itself got traction back in the 2004 election. It was used—accurately—on John Kerry, who proudly proclaimed, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." There was a long list of Kerry waffles. He tried to appeal to both sides of various issues, managing to appeal to neither side.

So when the flip-flopping charge was brought against Romney, people thought they knew what that meant—it meant an unprincipled politician who would say anything to any audience and not even bother to keep track of his viewpoints.

Romney and Kerry are from the same state, but they’re very different people. As far as I can tell, every flip-flopping charge, as well as other differences from conservatives, stems from the previous presidential race. No one claims any change from the conservative positions Romney took then. He has been consistently supporting and expressing conservative ideas since his last candidacy, and he was recognized as the conservative among top contenders McCain and Huckabee at that time. So let’s look at some of those specific accusations, made mainly by the McCain campaign in 2007, and what was true.

·        In 2005 Romney supported McCain’s immigration bill as “reasonable” but then opposed it in 2007. In actuality Romney clearly rejected the 2005 bill. Romney remained steadfast in his anti-immigration policy, even when various bills in Congress changed.

·        Governor Romney failed to support Bush’s tax cuts. In reality, at the time he was asked, he was involved in trying to pass a state budget through a liberal legislature that would cut taxes and spending to bring the state back into the black from drowning deficits; at that time, under those pressures, he said he was focusing on the state and staying out of the national political debate. It would be quite a stretch to suggest, however, that staying out meant he was against cutting taxes—the very thing he was accomplishing at the state level against all odds. He remains consistent on this issue, and now that he is involved in the national debate, he is very much in favor of extending those very same Bush tax cuts.

·        Taxes went up under Romney in Massachusetts. Not true. Romney cut state taxes; cities raised taxes, as is their prerogative, whether wise or stupid.

·        Fees went up, and fees are essentially taxes. Not really. Fees cover costs for a special good or service, so they affect only those using the good or service. Fees went up not because Romney raised them, but because he reduced taxpayer subsidies of fees, so that those costs would be borne by the beneficiaries of the goods or services.

·        Illegal aliens were given sanctuary under Romney’s governorship. Not exactly. Certain cities granted sanctuary status on a city level, outside Romney’s influence. A state legislature could act to punish cities for failing to uphold immigration laws, but Massachusetts’s legislature was 85% Democrat, so they had no intention of acting to correct cities on that issue.

·        Romney claimed to be for gay rights and then stood against gay marriage. Not exactly a flip flop. When asked in 1994 whether homosexuals should have the same rights as other citizens—to work, to have access to courts, to be as free from harassment and harm as any citizen—then he said yes, they should have those rights. When, during his tenure as governor, a rogue court decided to “find” a “right” to redefine marriage so that it no longer meant one man and one woman who would engage in the act that could result in procreation and who would commit to a permanent and exclusive bond (an interest of the state as a whole)—then he fought against giving homosexuals that special power over the rest of us. He remains firm on that issue and has testified of the need for a national solution (constitutional amendment and upholding the DOMA law) so that such contracts made in one state will not impose the change in marriage definition on all other states. While it is no longer possible to use the phrase “I support gay rights” to mean supporting their citizenship rights rather than their radical agenda, when he said it in 1994, people knew what he meant. And his stance hasn’t changed. It is essentially the same stance I hold.

·        Romney is against capital punishment. Not true. Massachusetts has no death penalty, but Romney pressed to institute it.

·        Romney was against the NRA and then joined. Hmm. Not exactly. Romney has always been in favor of 2^nd Amendment rights, and although he has never been in lock step with every NRA policy, he has signed on as a member. The main discrepancy is probably on waiting periods; he favored them and then opposed them. But that is because of a change in technology, not policy. Romney favors background checks, so that guns aren’t given to criminals and terrorists. It used to be that a background check took a few days—thus the waiting period. Now that technology makes them almost instantaneous, Romney is against the waiting period.

·        Romney lied about his father marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. Actually, George Romney did participate in King marches. And the elder Romney, former Governor of Michigan and one-time presidential candidate, personally led a march of 10,000. MLK, who was a Republican, spoke in favor of George Romney’s presidential run. It is possibly worth noting that it was Republicans who pushed for civil rights legislation in the 1960s; it was “conservative” Democrats (i.e., in favor of conserving their status quo) who opposed civil rights legislation.

·        Romney provided $50 co-pays for abortions in his Massachusetts healthcare bill. No. The abortion co-pay was not part of the bill, but was later court mandated. When Romney speaks of the importance of choosing strict constructionist judges, rather than activist judges, he speaks from experience with them.[1]

The point of today's post is that, now that it's 2011, maybe it's time to stop allowing the McCain campaign (or any other of Romney's enemies and opponents) to define Mitt Romney.

---

[1] I have paraphrased and added my commentary, but this list comes from a post by Ryan Larsen, January 31, 2008, 7:50 AM, from www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/01/california-debate-mccain-remin/, no longer available online.