Patriotism is not a contest:

All too often when events like going to war, 9-11, holidays, or controversial issues like school prayer or flag burning comes to the front of the national stage, Patriotism all of a sudden becomes a “contest”. A chest thumping, foot stomping, in your face, holier than thou, "if you disagree with me you must not be patriotic", contest.

Unfortunately, as the extremist churn out their one-sided messages many of us get caught up in the ‘Patriotism as a contest syndrome’, falling in line behind over-simplified slogans and catchphrases that galvanize us more to that slogan’s single issue than to our real, more well-rounded beliefs. This ‘patriotism as a contest syndrome’ only serves to divide us and prevent us from having educated discussions, solutions, or compromise.  This form of “sunshine patriotism” is just as damaging now as it was during the early days of our American Revolution.

A common argument that is put forth by the extremist, and picked up by the moderates, is that soldiers served, fought, or died for the right to protest as if this meant that protesters were doing a disservice to those soldiers. This is a prime example of single-issue rhetoric being used to distort the argument. Yes, soldiers served, fought, or died for the anti-war protestors right to demonstrate, and the pro-war protesters right to demonstrate, and for all our rights, the right to vote, and the right to bear arms, the right to representation, and many more rights.  Not all soldiers who have served were of a single mind, political belief or religious persuasion.  Many were not volunteers and some served reluctantly.

        Because they served, fought, or died for our rights, those rights are now our responsibilities. We have a responsibility to vote, to bear arms in times of conflict, to participate in the process of representation. We also have a responsibility to exercise our freedom of speech in its many forms and when our conscience dictates that we must speak out for or against something, it is our responsibility to do so. These rights and responsibilities are not limited to those who only fall on a certain side of an issue.

When the framers of the constitution defined some of these rights, they could not foresee what the future might hold for these rights and responsibilities. They could not have seen the developments in firearms that would make assault weapons capable of discharging hundreds of rounds a minute, nor could they foresee technological advances that would make pornography so easily available. When they framed the Constitution, however, they were aware of the potentially deadly and criminal use of firearms, and pornography did exist in their times.

Well aware of potential abuse or misuse of our many rights, they saw these rights as inalienable, and they weighed these inalienable rights against the consequences and defined those consequences as tyranny.

They included the rights to free speech and assembly knowing full well that it could lead to criticism of the government. They included them because they had seen and exercised these rights in their fight for freedom by a demonstration against the government through speech, flag burning, demonstration, and armed insurrection and through prayer to their god. They spoke for the separation of church and state not because they were atheist or unreligious, but because they were religious men and had seen first hand the evils of allowing one to influence the other.

They chose the acknowledgment of these inalienable rights over the choice of tyranny because the extreme use of one is favorable over the slightest existence of the other. When we disagree with the actions or anticipated decisions of our government, it is our obligation as a matter of conscience to express that disagreement; it is our right and responsibility. Legal discord and assembly are as American as apple pie. 

‘Patriotism as a contest’ is a despicable display of ignorance and disrespect for our constitution and those who died for it. Patriotism is not flag waving and chest beating and shouting down those who disagree with us. Patriotism is the defense and preservation of our Constitution and should be preceded by service, civic involvement, and conviction to our responsibilities and our neighbor’s rights. The willingness to defend to the death the rights of our neighbors in spite of our differences, that is an example of Patriotism

An Immoral and Failing Policy of Zero Tolerance:

by Glenn D. Littrell indianaglenn@gmail.com

Today I have let myself get caught up in (or carried away by) a Facebook debate surrounding the "Zero tolerance immigration policy" of the current administration. Like many politically charged Facebook issues, the debate while often civil is very often contentious, emotional and nasty. If I have behaved in the latter behavior I apologize for whenever I crossed the line. I will not, however, apologize for my point of view.

I would like to point out that, as often is the case today, most issue debates continually and quickly transform from an issue debate into a political debate… which is unproductive and to a large degree senseless.

Immigration Reform, the issue: The irony of the debate is that regardless of which side everyone falls on the overwhelming majority of us agree that we need immigration reform, and we need it now. For many of us the difference is what reforms we want and what concession do we accept or make, not who wins or loses politically.

Immigration Reform, the politics: For far too many of us, probably most of us, we are waging this argument solely on the bases of who we support politically, party or person, and not on the merit of the issue itself. Specifically, how do we treat people crossing our border illegally? Do we treat them humanely while enforcing the law or do we treat them punitively?

I for one say that we enforce our laws with consistency and compassion. I say that we acknowledge the suffering and hard choices these people faced in getting here, even if in the end we have to send them back or relocate them. I say that we recognize that those who have lived their life here after being brought here as minors, younger than the age of consent and responsibility, those that have never known another home, be afforded a path to citizenship. Most importantly that we seek to do as little harm as possible.

In regards to questionable, false, or immoral defense of this policy:

• Immigration Law: It has long been a MISDEMEANOR federal offense to be caught illegally entering the US, punishable by up to six months in prison, but past administrations have not always referred everyone caught for prosecution. Those apprehended were swiftly put into immigration proceedings and, unless they met the threshold to pursue a valid asylum claim, can be quickly deported from the country.
  The Law mentioned (The Flores Settlement Agreement) and cited by Trump only applies to unaccompanied children.
  There are more humane and cost-efficient alternatives that have proven effective. The Family Case Management Program which President Trump TERMINATED, allows families to be released together and monitored by caseworkers. Despite claims that families won’t show up for court, the program has a 99% success rate of court attendance.
• A zero tolerance policy: Zero tolerance policy is the tool of the authoritarian, the dictator, and on a smaller scale the unimaginative, repressive, insecure person. It reeks of injustice and takes us back to a time and practice that could see a starving man go to prison for 20 years for simply stealing a loaf of bread.
• The Flores Settlement Agreement (the so-called 1997 law): The law did not dictate the separation of families. It has been litigated and amended repeatedly. IT ONLY applies to UNACCOMPANIED children and victims of child trafficking.
  Its application has always been the exception to defined practice (rule).
  It is now the 'rule' not the exception applied in special circumstances and is being applied to children with their family, not just unaccompanied children. Its present application is the result of Trump and Sessions zero tolerance policy.
• Who passed the law? The Flores Settlement Agreement (the so-called 1997 law): And for the record, it was a Republican Congress that passed the law and Clinton who signed it, so there's plenty of blame for the law that was passed, but that isn't the law being applied today... it's the Trump zero policy. It has been applied in a more human manner before now and should be going forward.
• False comparison of immigrants to current criminals in prison: The premise is faulty! Current criminals (hopefully) had a trial, representation, and opportunity for bail. They were arrested, charged, tried and SENTENCED to jail, not held in a detention center. Comparing misdemeanors to felonies is apples to oranges, asylum seekers are not breaking the law, asking for help, refuge, or sanctuary is not criminal. So if you get pulled over for a broken taillight you're fine with your children being confiscated? Misdemeanors! Not felonies! In many cases, presence in this country is just a violation, not criminal, and not a felony. In any case, we have laws and procedure, and rights. These rights like it or not are "inalienable' and endowed by our creator. The document that declares this also says "ALL MEN". It doesn't say only Americans or only native-born... it declared these truths to be for ALL as well as being self-evident.
• Blame Obama defense: So that's the limit of your indignation and outrage? A sarcastic, pointless and trivial dig at Obama?
• Blame Hillary Defense:  Quit stretching for Hillary and some sanctimonious justification. Your children, maybe not you, would be traumatized by being taken from you suddenly under suspicion, even legally justified. If you can't see that, or that this could be done more humanely, or that some provisions could be made, I'm at a loss.
  The only people who seem to still be upset over Hillary losing are some Democrats, most Republicans, and all Trumps supporters. The rest of us try to roll with the punches.
• Comparisons to children being dropped off at daycare: That is ridiculous! Daycare versus days, weeks, or months of detention. It is just plain hypocrisy to suggest they are the same… what would you do if you were told you couldn't pick them up for weeks?!?!?!
• Kids in cages better off than they were in Mexico(or wherever): ...if you can acknowledge that having their kids taken is better than their life back in Mexico, then why can't you recognize the desperation that leads them here seeking help. Have some mercy for their situation.
• Comparison to family separation for military families: Come on. I'm sure they were not suddenly placed in foster care, I know most of them are still with family, in the majority of these the separation was voluntary, and most of them had time to prepare, adjust and think about the separation, and virtually all got an unhurried hug at separation. If you can acknowledge the difficulty of military separations why can't you empathize with these children?
  All these things are being denied these people who come here seeking help and an opportunity. As a former military parent and child in a military family, this comparison is so off base it is offensive!
  Stop seeking moral justification for supporting a terrible policy that could be changed easily. Better yet just admit that as long as it's not your kids your fine with it... family values defined!
• The legality of our ancestor immigrants: I've researched family histories for 30 years and can assure you that most Americans are surprised to find that some if not all their ancestors either came here under no legal authority (just the cost of passage) or they came here as criminals.
  If you have a record of your ancestor's arrival then send me a copy or quote it completely and I will point out the one word in the document that had a completely different legal meaning back then.
  If you don't have such a reference then tell me the migratory movements of your ancestors from arrival to the present and I can probably find where they, like so many ancestors, illegally entered French, Spanish or Native American lands. Better yet, did they own slaves? Legal but immoral. Or did they fight in support of treason against King George or later as a traitors act of succession and rebellion?
  Whether you know your family's history or not it is a fact that this country was built by immigrants, some were expelled from other countries, some fleeing from other countries seeking sanctuary, some being enslaved. Our founding fathers were lawbreakers in the simplest and the most technical sense of the word. Lawbreakers in the service of illegal but moral acts. Our legal system was inequitable and immoral to some while providing preferential treatment to others in defiance of the letter and intent of our legal founding documents.
  We have falsely imprisoned many, interred others and committed genocide in the cause of sanctimonious expansion, protectionism, and security... only to condemn these errors decades later, but we grow and move forward by making some attempt at being better.

In summation, we would be better served by discussing solutions to problems, to debating the issues without seeking justification for immoral or unnecessary acts, and with an eye towards practicality with empathy and compassion.

Seek solutions from your critical mind and an open heart instead of your loyalty to a specific person or ideology.

---