CNN is Egregiously Corrosive

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #CNNsucks

Here we go again! On 21 Feb 2018, a spectacle of madness (“Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action”) was sold and consumed under the moniker of reason and truth telling.^[i] As with other spectacles of madness, this one was arranged by a trusted agent and fueled by tragedy. This particular spectacle was no different: the trusted agent was CNN; the tragedy was the massacre of 14 Feb 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fl.

While I am troubled about what unfolded during the town hall, I am angered by the blatant disrespect demonstrated by CNN and its supporting actors towards the dead and the aggrieved.

CNN is Egregiously Corrosive

Bottom Line Up Front: CNN severely abused their position within the public trust. While hidden in plain sight, CNN presented itself as a power application mechanism for the deliberate adjustment of American political discourse.

During this spectacle, CNN, a protected and empowered member of the Press, failed to execute its primary duty: to advance truth, science, morality, and the arts.[ii] Immediately from the start, CNN made it clear that their intention was not to seek virtue; it was about causing an emotionally-charged response. It was not to promote “amazing and eloquent” youth; it was to demonize a narrative. It was not to promote a civic platform; it was to cause risk to seated political actors.

CNN is Reprehensible

In my view, in order to mask CNN in virtue one must be completely tone deaf to human suffering and its affects. The motives of human action are emotions: rivalry, envy, jealousy, revenge, pride, and demand for recognition;[iii] and during a time of acute anger and pain, CNN elected to exploit these emotions for their own gain.

Prior to the spectacle, CNN was finishing third among its competitive peers, and was experiencing a “year-over-year ratings decline.”[iv] During the spectacle, it drew 2.91 million total viewers (this does not include data from FL affiliates).[v] – “CNN’s gun violence town hall was a ratings goldmine for the network, clocking 3M viewers, to top the timeslot. An average of 1.1M of those 3M CNN viewers fell in the 25-54 news demo, trouncing FNC’s 533K  viewers in the age bracket, and MSNBC”s 490K.”[vi]

CNN is Vile

I am angered by CNN’s choice to exploit the memory of the dead and the anguish of the living.

Consider that CNN designed the event to showcase the victims of a horrific act of pure evil: a “group of students with various opinions talk about what they feel needs to change.” – “In this arena are thousands of people whose lives were changed forever, one week ago today, when a gunman opened fire inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 students and teachers. Four victims remain hospitalized.”

CNN is Wicked

I am angered by CNN’s choice to cause further hostility and unrest.

• -       Consider that CNN’s host clearly stated the purpose of the event: “We're here tonight to facilitate your desire to speak directly to your leaders, students, and family members, and faculty will get to ask questions to Florida's two US senators, Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Bill Nelson, as well as their Congressman, Democrat Ted Deutch.” “And later tonight these students and their families will get to ask questions of the road County Sheriff, Scott Israel, and a national spokesperson for the NRA.”
• -       Consider that CNN deliberately disparaged specific politicians: “We should note that President Trump declined an invitation to be here tonight, either in person or from the White House, as did the governor of Florida, Rick Scott who declined to be here in person or from Tallahassee.”

CNN is Culpable

I am angered by CNN’s choice to deliberately set conditions necessary to cause an increase in tensions.

• -       Consider that CNN selected an inflammatory title: “Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action”.
• -       Consider that CNN promoted the meeting as a “special” event. Let that sink in. CNN branded the event as extraordinary and exceptional; exclusive and elite.
• -       Consider that CNN introduced these children as the standard of righteousness and reason. Consider that the parents agreed to the arrangement.
• -       Consider that CNN rigged the underlying conditions of the event: questions, interactions, seating, venue, audience, camera coverage, security, tone, and order of events, all of it.

 “If it bleeds; it leads.” – Seeing Through the Ugliness

CNN is a for-profit global media operator. – CNN exists to manufacture consumable content for the purpose of generating revenue. – CNN is a business and, as with any business, their primary objective is to make money.

NEVER FORGET that media companies are just that: companies. Therefore, their first duty is to make money in order to stay in business. Otherwise, their duty is to maximize revenues. In order to accomplish either, the company must provoke traffic across its modes of media (print, video, television, internet, etc.). In turn, this traffic prompts revenues via advertising and/or market value.

Furthermore, modern news media is a conglomeration of competing businesses, an industry, which garners patrons to consume their products. The industry is competition-based and consumption-driven. Additionally, the competition/consumption relationship across the industry drives a demand for new content. Therefore, companies are highly incentivized to be first and provide often. As a result, media companies are willing to engage is a form of soft violence, hostility, and unrest across a spectrum of the marketplace in order to achieve a more favorable arrangement of resources.

So What?

For the United States to exist as a functioning republic of self-governing individuals, the public must be enlightened to the facts of a matter as they are understood. The Press plays a critical role in this area of functioning. This is why the Press is specifically protected and empowered by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is also why failures of the Press are seen as egregious.

Because CNN elected to make use of a human tragedy in order to push a political narrative ahead of advancing truth, science, morality, and the arts, CNN is guilty of severely abusing the public trust.

Going Forward

Given the evil forced upon on the 14^th, Valentine’s Day, now is a time for reflection, not emotion.

The matters of liberty, protection, property, self-responsibility, the role of government, and the failings of human nature have a direct bearing and influence on the American way of life. Therefore, this is the time for us, as a People, to demonstrate our capability to establish good governance from reflection and choice, not impose sufferable government according to emotion, accident, or the use of power or force.

The matters of humanity also have a direct bearing and influence on the American way of life. – It is an unavoidable truth that every picture, of every fallen loved one, reflects a human story; and every story reflects a human conscience; and every conscience reflects a human essence; and, every essence reflects a human existence.

Now is a time of mourning for those deeply broken. All affected, regardless of the depth, should approach this time with respect, with honor, with calmness, and with empathy. We should seek to understand that, on 14 Feb 2018, Americans did what they did, suffered as they suffered, and died as they died. And in doing so, preserve the dignity of those loved and lost.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[i] CNN-Politics. “Transcript: Stoneman students’ questions to lawmackers and the NRA at the CNN town hall”. 22 Feb 2018. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html (accessed 180224)

[ii] Paraphrased from the First Continental Congress in 1774; Discussion of the role of the Press

[iii] John Patrick Diggins, “John Adams”, Times Books, 2003, ISBN: 0-8050-6937-3

[iv] A.J. Katz. “January 2018 Ratings: CNN Has Third Best January In Network History, But Finishes No. 3 in Prime Time”. TV Newser. 30 jan 2018. http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/january-2018-ratings-cnn-has-third-best-january-in-network-history-but-finishes-no-3-in-prime-time/356291 (accessed 180224)

[v] Joe Otterson. “CNN Gun Control Town Hall Draws 2.9 Million Viewers”. Variety. 22 Feb 2018. http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/cnn-gun-control-town-hall-ratings-1202707792/ (accessed 180224)

[vi] Lisa de Moraes. “CNN Gun Violence Town Hall Trounces Competition In Early Ratings”. Deadline Hollywood. http://deadline.com/2018/02/cnn-gun-violence-town-hall-beats-fox-news-msnbc-tv-ratings-1202299778/ (accessed 180224)

Resentment, Entitlement, and the Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation Privilege

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #Dreamers #DACA

Have you ever felt slighted by circumstance? Of course, we all have at some point. In fact, there are only three groups of people in this world: those that have not been slighted; those who have been slighted; and those who will be slighted again. The feeling is as old as mankind itself.

The framework is as follows: “You” and “Not-You” want a privilege; the same privilege; a prized privilege. “You” and “Not-You” agree that both are deserving of the privilege. However, due to a circumstance beyond their control, “Not-You” received the privilege and “You” was denied. – It’s the classic contest between the “Haves” and the “Have Nots” that ends with a demand for the restoration of fairness.

The Current Contest – “You” and “Not-You” are residing in the United States. “You” and “Not-You” want the same prize; it’s called the Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation privilege. Both “You” and “Not-You” agree both parties should receive the Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation privilege. Unfortunately, due to a circumstance controlled by the government, “Not-You” is entitled to the prize and “You” are denied.

The Current Demand – “You” feels slighted. “Not-You” feels elated. “You” demands fairness. “Not-You” shrugs. “You” takes offense. “Not-You” shrugs again. “You” feels resentment towards “Not-You.” “Not-You” feels guilty and shrinks further “You.” Meanwhile, while “You” and “Not-You” are at each other, the government is coming to collect their rightfully owned Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation privilege.

This time, the Contest/Demand show is being played out under the headlines of news media outlets, local and nation-wide.

Backdrop

On 18 Feb 2018, the San Diego Union Tribune published a chronicle of the Dreamer/DACA dilemma faced by illegal immigrants residing in the United States.^[1] Based on the content of the article, it appears that the piece was intended to showcase the dilemma through a feelings lens and from multiple perspectives; to put a human face on the dilemma. Assuming my deduction is correct, I view the piece to be well written.

The leading claim is that the focus on Dreamers has caused tension between those in the community who can qualify for DACA and those who cannot. Supports include a sense of entitlement exhibited by “DACA kids,” factions among affected persons, and disapproval of changes between campaign promises and current offerings. Warrants include sentiments of betrayal, desperate hoping, and fears of being left-out of the solution. The views expressed are emotive and described as bitter, freaking out, and guilt ridden. The authors made strong use of direct quotes and testimony.

However, there is a greater depth exists within the dilemma that was not addressed by the design of this piece.

Getting Started

While the article did present opinions and feelings concerning the dilemma, it also presented a set of facts. Assuming the article is good, true, and accurate, those opinions, feelings, and facts can serve a deeper analysis of the dilemma by bring forth multiple cases for consideration. – Simply stated, I do not understand how to have a feelings-based discussion of the dilemma without also acknowledging the corresponding facts-based discussion.

Bias Acknowledgement – I am horizontally opposed to benefiting illegal aliens located within the United States. Those that ignore, condone, excuse, deny, or encourage their unlawful behavior are equally unacceptable. Let the natural consequence of their choices deter the future misconduct of others.

The article claims that Sam Paredes (age 39) is an illegal immigrant currently residing in New York. While he describes his feelings on the dilemma as bitter; he also offers enough detail to build the following allegations.

#1 – During the 1988 period, Paredes illegally entered the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325. He was nine years of age.

#2 – During the 1987-today period, Paredes illegally failed to depart the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325 because he was hoping for an immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship.

#3 – During an unknown period, Paredes was illegally employed within the United States in violation of 8 USC 1253 because he was following “a simple philosophy of keeping his head down and trying to stay out of trouble.”

#4 – During an unknown period, an employer was illegally employing Paredes as an office manager for a clothing retailer.

The article claims that Alessandro Negrete (age 35) is an illegal immigrant currently residing in Los Angeles, CA. While he describes his feelings on the dilemma as resentful; he also offers enough detail to build the following.

#1 – During the 1982 period, Negrete illegally entered the United States from Mexico in violation of 8 USC 1325 as a victim of human trafficking.

#2 – During the 1982 period, human smugglers illegally imported Negrete to the United States in violation of 8 USC 1328 under a human trafficking arrangement.

#3 – During the 2000-today period, Nagrete failed to depart the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325 because he was hoping for an immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship as Negrete is “too old to apply to become a Dreamer.”

#4 – During an unknown period of time, Negrete was illegally employed within the United States in violation of 8 USC 1253 because he was attempting to avoid being served an order or removal.

#5 – During an unknown period of time, an employer was illegally employing Negrete as a public relations worker.

#6 – During an unknown period of time, the mother of Negrete illegally entered the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325.

#7 – During an unknown period of time, Nagrete knew of multiple persons illegally residing within the United States and failed to report that wrongdoing to authorities. – “You think you have it hard?” Negrete angrily said to his friends. “You at least have legal status. For some people like me, my mom and some of my neighbors, we don’t have [that].”

While I agree that living in fear is stressful, anxious, and undesirable; I also agree that Paredes and Negrete chose to set and accept the conditions necessary to cause that stress, anxiety, and adversity. Each of them made their own bed. It’s time to make them lie in it.

An Opposing View

The prevailing opposition to my view is that Dreamers are mischaracterized.^[2] During the 2010-2012 period, the vocabulary describing Dreamers transitioned from “illegal” to “unlawfully present” to “undocumented.” They support this view in a number of ways.

First, their analysis shows “undocumented” is more accurate than “illegal.” Their reasoning is that the “undocumented” umbrella covers all those who are unlawfully present in the United States and who have no lawful status. “Undocumented” is a far more accurate and inclusive term than “unlawfully present” or “illegal.”

Nonsense! This is an excuse made actionable when state and local authorities refused to support enforcement of federal immigration law and/or enforcement agencies.

Second, the use of “illegal immigrant” by journalists demonstrates that journalists nationwide refuse to conduct due diligence when using the term illegal immigrant. Therefore, journalists that the use “illegal” are woefully inaccurate in describing unlawfully present immigrants in the United States.

Nonsense! This is a straw man. The argument is about illegal aliens, not calling out journalists for being unethical.

Third, Deferred Action recipients will get an employment authorization document which in turn enables them to obtain a social security number and, in most states, a driver’s license; therefore, they are no longer “undocumented” or “illegal.”

Nonsense! Simply stated, they neglect to state the obvious: 1) an alien must be illegal before benefiting from Deferred Action; otherwise, there would be no action that could be deferred; 2) if DACA did not exist, then Deferred Action would not exist. Bottom Line: This is an ends justifies the means argument; another straw man.

Fourth, minors brought to the United States do not make an affirmative entrance. Built within a criminal statute such as entry without inspection, there is a mens rea requirement. Minors do not have the requisite intentional mens rea to violate 8 USC 1325. – NOTE: “mens rea” means the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Legit! This is an excellent point. Given the cases above, it seems reasonable that Paredes and Negrete, at the moment of their illegal entry, had no idea their actions were illegal. Therefore, there was no mens rea at that point in time. – HOWEVER, their testimonies clearly demonstrate mens rea was satisfied between then and now for all allegations thereafter.

So What? – What are we being asked to accept?

Simply stated, sympathetic actors are seeking approval to subsidize the social, cultural, and legal standing of a specific, relatively small, people-group from “illegal,” to “legal,” and then to “American citizen” regardless of their prior behaviors because it feels good.

Fallacy-1: The Problem is Small & Will Remain Small

When the government subsidizes the solution to a problem,
then more of that problem will develop.

There is a glaring assumption within the currently proposed solutions: the population of illegal immigrants is small and will remain small. Unfortunately, because the nature of any government is to secure and expand its power, the assumption does not hold true to fact. Therefore, the underlying assumption is a fallacy. Thus, the proposed solution is actually a mechanism for the expansion of political power.

Fact: The fallacy is already demonstrating itself.

• -       12 Jan 2018 – Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) claims 700,000 “Dreamers” reside in the US 
• -       18 Jan 2018 – News media reports 3.6M “Dreamers” are in the United States 
• -       22 Jan 2018 – Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) is paraphrased, “…the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.”
• -       14 Feb 2018 – Sen. Sanders (I-CT) stated a desire to legalize 11M unauthorized workers already in the US and provide them a pathway to citizenship.

Fallacy-2: Oppressing Lawbreakers is Immoral

Ask yourself: Why do our politicians continue to advocate that Americans should adapt our laws to meet the needs, wants, and desires of illegal actors; versus advocating that those illegal actors should adapt to meet the needs, wants, and desires of American laws? – How is Part-1 more acceptable than Part-2?

Ask yourself: Why do our politicians appeal to American goodwill in order to stop oppressing illegal families; versus appealing to illegal families in order to stop oppressing American goodwill? – How is Part-1 more acceptable than Part-2?

Fact: Behavior rewarded becomes behavior repeated. – Rewarding bad behavior incentivizes the continuance of that bad behavior. For this dilemma, there are two sets of bad behaviors: 1) the illegal behavior of aliens; 2) the ignoring, condoning, excusing, denying, or encouraging of illegal behavior by politicians and other actors.

For illegal immigrants, their bad behavior is rewarded with recognition, standing, and rights to power.

Think about it! – Is American justice better protected through legitimizing wrongdoing or by deterring potential wrongdoers?  

For politicians, their bad behavior is rewarded with the creation of a concentrated and sympathetic voting bloc. For other actors, they benefit from the creation of a precedent that can be used to adapt the problem and create new clients.

Think about it! – How does empowering a voting bloc, or establishing a protected class, filled with people that already demonstrated contempt for American law, benefit the American way of life?

Going Forward – A Solution

In my view, it’s time to protect the rule of law, demonstrate that no one is above the law, and demand our politicians account for their perversions. – It’s time to turn the table and press to them the questions that need answers.

• -       Do illegal immigrants demonstrate criminal behavior?
• -       Are children of illegal immigrants born in the US already citizens under the 14th Amendment?
• -       Are the children of illegal immigrants emancipated? If yes, then they are adults; why should their illegal kin be allowed to stay? If no, then why should minor children be used as the basis for condoning further illegal conduct?
• 
  
• -       Why should Americans accept the perversion of two good things, naturalization and civil rights, in favor of rewarding illegal behavior with citizenship, standing under the law, voting, property rights, and other common protections?
• -       Why should Americans accept that illegal aliens are not, in fact, law breakers?

-       Why should Americans accept that illegal aliens are good people for America?

• -       Why is it reasonable for Americans at large…to consent to another progressive solution…designed to fix a progressive problem…that was created to satisfy progressive ideology…that was continuously supported by progressive advocates…and is now being presented as the progressive “issue of our time”?
• -       Why should Americans believe or agree that a progressive solution is superior to enforcement of current law?
• -       Why should we accept that being against illegal behavior is racism in practice?

• -       If the lawful behavior of abiding citizens is not subsidized, then why should the unlawful behavior of illegal aliens be subsidized?
• -       Why does the desire of the Government to legalize and forgive illegal behavior supersede the legal demand that everyone else is to be law-abiding, regardless?

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Related Posts

Civil Rights for Illegal Criminals…Really?

Illegals – A Means to Shift Political Power

Illegal Immigrant Civil Rights – Really?

Dreamers – A Progressive Trap

---

[1] Cindy Carcamo, Brittny Mejia. “Focus on Dreamers breeds resentment from other immigrants here illegally”. San Diego Union Tribune. 18 Feb 2018. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-left-out-of-daca-2018021... (accessed 180219)

[2] Bryan Johnson. “‘Illegal’ is a woefully inaccurate word to describe the millions of unlawfully present immigrants in the United States.” 27 Sep 2012. https://amjolaw.com/2012/09/27/illegal-is-a-woefully-inaccurate-word-to-describe-the-millions-of-unlawfully-present-immigrants-in-the-united-states/ (accessed 180219)   //   Amoachi & Johnson, Attorneys at Law, PLLC focuses on U.S. Immigration Law; and is located on Long Island, New York.

https://amjolaw.com/ (accessed 180219)  NOTE: By design, A&J benefits from the existence of illegal aliens located on/near Long Island, NY. Therefore, they actively advocate in favor of illegal aliens.

USAFA – Micro-Aggressions are a Weapon System

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #microaggression #socialjustice #USAFA

Here it is again. The United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) is back in the news. This time it’s about a micro-aggression committed by a Senior Non-Commission Officer (SNCO).

The Incident

On 14 Feb 2018 at 0849, the USAFA First Sergeant published an e-mail to all USAFA Cadets (plus three other groups and individuals). Within this message the First Sergeant clearly stated that any willful disregard for violations of hair grooming and appearance was unacceptable; he testified about the adverse impact of slack grooming standards; he offered specific guidance for corrections and maintenance; he provided an example of excellence and the importance of a professional appearance; and finished with an invitation to depart the Academy should any particular Cadet be unwilling to embrace the prescribed standards.[i]

Then, on 14 Feb 2018 at 1420 (just over six hour later), the USAFA Vice Commandant of Cadets for Culture and Climate published an e-mail to all USAFA Cadets (plus 15 other groups and individuals). In this message, the Vice Commandant apologized for the conduct of the First Sergeant, and described his conduct as disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional. Additionally, the apology carried forth the name of the Commandant’s office and Senior Leadership.[ii]

Both exchanges were confirmed by the Academy media relations office.[iii]

The Complaint

According to the Vice Commandant’s message, I believe that the following allegation can be reasonably built: on 14 Feb 2018, the First Sergeant engaged in “very disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional” behavior against the Cadet Corps (at large) which was a violation of the Commandant’s micro-aggression views. The complaints seems to infer that the violation was reported by multiple persons on the “TO” and/or “CC” listings.

Side Note: While the actors named in the allegation do matter, I cannot find public information that is sufficient or suitable to support a discussion of the actors. Therefore, I’m going to constrain this discussion to the violated standard: the Commandant’s micro-aggression views.

So What?

What are the Commandant’s micro-aggression views? – Multiple web searches failed to return directly attributable information.  However, the Vice Commandant did describe micro-aggressions at the Academy as “blindspots/unintentional biases that are not often recognized, and if they are recognized they are not always addressed.”

So…what does that mean? – I have no idea.

Micro-Aggressions, an Air Force Definition

Bottom Line Up Front: An official, Air Force level definition or policy describing micro-aggressions does not exist. – Multiple open source searches, to include the Air Force ePubs site, provided no returns. That’s right…zero…zilch…nada…nothing.

Micro-Aggressions, an Academy Definition

Bottom Line Up Front: According to the Academy definition, and the evidence offered, the SNCO could not have committed a micro-aggression. The evidence presented is weak and fails to establish the facts of the case. Additionally, the standard in play fails to mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy making it impossible for an ombudsman to determine if a violation did, or not, occur. – A detailed analysis is located at the end of this article.

Micro-Aggressions, a Reflection of Ideology in Practice

Bottom Line Up Front: The SNCO is the victim of an ideological hit job condoned the Commandant.

In the ideological sense, a micro-aggression is any statement that disagrees with a narrative. – In this case, the SNCO held up Michael Jordan, a black man, as an ideal example of professional appearance and its value across various professions. Assuming the response of the Commandant’s office was proportional, the narrative seems to be as follows: regardless of any mitigating factor, all perceived instances of racial discrimination against Blacks shall not be tolerated.

In my view, at least the following are contributing circumstances:
1) micro-aggressions, as a term and a concept, are directly associated with racial discrimination in practice;
2) the SNCO’s message showcased a Black;
3) the angry reaction and resulting “get out” speech delivered by Lt Gen Jay Silveria in response to the racist slur event at the Academy Prep School in Nov 2017; and the later determination that the event was executed by a single actor, a Black Cadet; and

5) that Lt Gen Jay Silveria is the primary and secondary supervisor for the Commandant and the Senior Leadership, respectively.

An Academy in Trouble

When group justice is more important than individual justice, no one is safe from harm. In this case, because the narrative was more valuable than the objective truth of the event, the use of force against the SNCO was deemed acceptable.

What’s more troubling is the vocabulary that surrounds the case. The vocabulary of Commandant’s office required no clear definitions, logical arguments, or empirical verifications. Its role was to be a substitute for all these things. Its intention was to hyper-elevate the Commandant’s office to a superior level of concern and righteousness without engaging in any higher, principled thinking or due process whatsoever.

Bottom Line: Racism is alive and well at the USAFA.

Going Forward – A Watch, A Solution

The Watch: I’m especially interested in any harm experienced by the SCNO, now or at any time in the future. In my view, if the SNCO does experiences harm as a result of this event, then the SNCO will have a solid equal opportunity case that can be brought against multiple aggressors, the Academy, and the Air Force.

The Solution: First, relieve the Commandant and Vice Commandant of Cadets for Culture and Climate of their respective duties immediately. Second, launch a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) in order to determine how the “Commandant’s micro-aggression view” became a governing standard. Third, based on that CDI, relieve, reprimand, and/or charge all those involved accordingly.

Enough is enough. It’s time to solve the leadership problem at the USAFA.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Related Posts

Racism – Hatred and Stupidity

Analysis: Micro-Aggressions, an Academy Definition

The Academy definition of a micro-aggression is multi-faceted with the following attributes: it’s a blindspot or unintentional bias; it’s not often recognized; if it is recognized, then it’s not always addressed; it’s characterized as disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional behavior; there is at least an aggressor; and there is at least a victim.

Because there is not an official definition, let’s look at each facet in common language.

-       Blindspot: an area where a person’s view is obstructed
-       Unintentional Bias: an inadvertent and unintended partiality or unfairness
-       Not Often Recognized: not habitually documented or established
-       Not Always Addressed: not dealt with each time detected
-       Disrespectful Behavior: rude (impolite, offensive, vulgar) conduct
-       Derogatory Behavior: disparaging (disapproving) or offensive conduct
-       Unprofessional Behavior: unethical, amateurish conduct
-       Aggressor: attacker, assailant, antagonist
-       Victim: injured party (the beholder of the offense)

Now, let’s use the above to build-up definitions and common attributes.

      -       Definition-1: A micro-aggression is an area where a person’s view is obstructed.
-       Definition-2: A micro-aggression is an inadvertent and unintended partiality or unfairness.
-       Common Attributes: Micro-aggressions…

o   …are not habitually documented or established; or dealt with each time detected.

o   …are associated with rude (impolite, offensive, vulgar) conduct; and disparaging (disapproving) or offensive conduct; and unethical, amateurish conduct.

o   …must have an attacker, assailant, or antagonist; and an injured party.

So what did the SNCO do that violated the Commandant’s micro-aggression view? Let’s start with the common attributes.

      -       The first attribute is worthless. Because cases may be documented or not, established or not, or dealt with or not, this attribute cannot mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy. Therefore, this attribute cannot assist in determining if a micro-aggression exists or not.
-       The second attribute is worthless. Because the attribute offers no definitive basis to mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy, this attribute cannot assist in determining if a micro-aggression exists or not.
-       The third attribute is useful. However, the evidence presented (e-mails only, no other exhibits are present) does not present the SNCO as an attacker, assailant, or antagonist; nor does the evidence identify any specific injured party. Therefore, the SNCO could not have committed a micro-aggression.

---

[i] MSgt Zachary Parish. E-mail. SUB: ACTION//: Hair Grooming Standards. 14 Feb 2018 / 0849 (downloaded from Facebook 180217)

[ii] Col Julian D. Stephens. E-mail. SUB: CW Response: Hair Grooming Standards. 14 Feb 2018 / 1420 (downloaded from Facebook 180217)

[iii] Ryan Pickrell. The Daily Caller. “Air Force Academy First Sergeant Reprimanded for Telling Cadets to Dress Properly”. 15 Feb 2018. http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/air-force-michael-jordan/ (accessed 180217)

Dreamers – A Progressive Trap

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #civilrights #DACA #Dreamers #BernieSanders

It’s not a secret that I am horizontally opposed to maintaining illegal aliens located within the United States. In my view, to ignore, condone, excuse, deny, or encourage their unlawful behavior is illegal, unethical, and immoral. Let the natural consequence of their choices serve as a deterrent against future misconduct.

On the other hand,…

-       I am in favor of legal aliens.

-       I am in favor of legal immigrants.

-       I am in favor of law abiding persons.

-       I am in favor of legislative changes (Constitution, Art-1, Sec-8, Para-4).

-       I am in favor of due process.

-       I am in favor of equity under the law.

-       I am in favor of guilt by standard and punishment by proportion.

And so, when I see and hear a United States Senator take the floor and offer demands and remarks to the contrary, I am drawn in for a look and listen.

Bottom Line Up Front

There is no reason to believe that you are required to subordinate your mind to the needs, wants, and desires of those in government. It’s up to each of us to look past the spectacle and see for ourselves what is known over what is felt, what can be proven over what is supposed.

The Honorable Senator from Vermont has the Floor [1]

SANDERS: Let me begin by congratulating Chloe Kim, a first generation American who won a gold medal for the United States in the women's half-pipe snowboarding event this week.

SAM: This is an indication of an emotional appeal. From this point forward I’m expecting Sanders to use language that either expresses demonization (fear, guilt, anger, disgust, and empathy) or righteousness (pride, relief, and hope).  While some “facts” are likely to be true, and relative to the subject, minor; the majority of “facts” relevant to his case are likely to be false or misleading.

SANDERS: Her father John Jin Kim emigrated from South Korea to the United States in 1982; became a dishwasher at a fast food restaurant; studied engineering at El Camino College; after working at low skill jobs, and then became an engineer. He left his engineering job to support his daughter’s snowboarding ambitions so that he could drive her five and a half hours to the mountains for training. Congratulations to Chloe and to her entire family. You make the United States proud.

SAM: And…here it is; the emotional appeal of full display. Its purpose is to set the rhetorical stage in a way that suggests the following: greatness achieved by first generation Americans is caused by allowing immigrant parents into the United States.

SANDERS: Madam President, the whole debate that we are now on undertaking about immigration and the Dreamers…

SAM: Okay. Sanders is indicating political intent: to act on behalf of Dreamers. At this point, given his professional career and prior Presidential campaign, ideology becomes critically important. – Senator Sanders is a self-identified progressive and socialist. In my view, this means that he has two default positions: 1) every opposing view represents an evil straight out of the Right; and 2) government action is the only solution for curing the faults of human-kind. He is not interested in understanding the virtues of differing views (all discrimination is wrong); he is interested in pushing his position as a moral giver (only his discernment is righteous). He is not interested in enabling the People through self-governance; his is interested in fixing the People through state-governance.

SANDERS: …has become somewhat personal for me because it has reminded me, in a very strong way, that I and my brother are first generation Americans. We are the sons of an immigrant who came to this country at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. A young man who was a High School dropout, who did not know one word of English, and had no particular trade.

SAM: It’s back to the emotional appeal. In my view, Sanders is attempting to paint himself as a champion of hope by offering his family history as collateral for street-credit.

SANDERS: And a few years ago my brother and I and our families went to the small town that he came from; and it just stunned me the kind of courage that he showed, and millions of other people showed, leaving their homeland to come to a very different world. Without money, in many cases. Without knowledge of the language.

SAM: The emotional appeal continues. This installment is intended to couch Dreamers on par with the plights of the past, and those courageous enough to do something about it. – For the sake of moving forward, I’ll assume his claims are true. With that said, his facts are relatively minor and irrelevant when compared to the breadth and depth of protecting illegal aliens residing within the United States today.

SANDERS: No, my father immigrated to this country because the town that he lived in Poland was incredibly poor. There was no economic opportunity for him. People there struggled to provide food, put food on the table for their families. Hunger was a real issue in that area. My father came to this country to avoid the violence and bloodshed of WWI which came to his part of the world in a ferocious manner; and he came to this country to escape the religious bigotry that existed then because he was Jewish. My father lived in this country until his death in 1962. He never made a lot of money. He was a paint salesman.

SAM: And, more emotional appeal. In my view, Sanders is attempting to identify Dreamers as an oppressed people-group that must be saved by the United States. Therefore, Sanders is invoking identify politics: a set of political positions (legalization) based on the interests and perspectives of a particular people group (Dreamers seeking to avoid harm).

SANDERS: My father was not a political person. But it turned out, that without talking much about it, he was the proudest American that you ever saw. And he was so proud of this country because he was deeply grateful that the United States had welcomed him in, and allowed him opportunities that would have been absolutely unthinkable from where he came.

SAM: I believe this claim is important. If true, then it’s likely that his father fully assimilated into the American culture and embraced its way of life as a law abiding citizen. Whereas, Dreamers are illegal aliens.

SANDERS: But the truth is that immigration is not just my story. It's not just the story of one young man coming from Poland who managed to see two kids go to college and one of his sons become a United States Senator. It's not just my family's story. It is of the story of my wife's family who came from Ireland. And it’s the story of tens of millions of American families who came from every single part of this world.

SAM: Agreed, but when weighed relative to legalizing illegal aliens, this observation is a red herring and irrelevant. Additionally, Sanders never acknowledges a glaring fact: immigration, because it’s a function of law, can be done legally and illegally. Therefore, it’s likely that both variations exist. – Pulling it together…Sanders desires to advocate for Dreamers as their champion of hope. Sanders wants others to agree: that Dreamers are on par with the oppressed immigrants of the past; that America and Americans should provide for their relief; and that failing to do so will cause the suppression of greatness contained within the next, first-generation of Americans.

I must acknowledge that Sanders is master of the emotional appeal. As emotional appeals go, this one is quite good (if not excellent).

Issue-1: Protecting Dreamers

SANDERS: Madame President, in September of 2017, President Trump precipitated the current crisis we are dealing with by revoking President Obama's DACA executive order.

SAM: Now, the coin has flipped from declarations of righteousness to prescriptions of demonization. Sanders begins with the demonization of President Trump. Simply stated, he wants others to agree to be angry at Trump for oppressing Dreamers.– This statement is a deception cloaked in a half truth. While it’s true that Trump did rescind the Obama executive order (an action well within his lawful powers), it’s equally true that: the Legislature (which Sanders was a seated member of during the Obama years) failed to execute their duties under Art-1, Sec-8, Para-4 of the Constitution; and during the Obama years, the Legislature effectively abdicated their legislative duties in favor of an administrative arrangement set forth by the Executive. Everyone in favor of the prior arrangement contributed to setting the conditions necessary for this issue to rise.

SANDERS: If President Trump believed that that Executive Order was unconstitutional, and that it needed legislation, he could have come to Congress for a legislative solution without holding 800,000 young people hostage by revoking their DACA status. But President Trump chose not to do that.

SAM: This is an outright lie. The DACA spectacle of February 2018 demonstrates a different reality:

1)      Trump did extend an invitation to Congress for legislation. The House agreed of offer a compromise. The Senate disagreed and refused to offer a compromise. As a result, the Legislature failed to make an offer to the Executive. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, blame and quibbling.

2)      It is a fact that the Senate was willing to hold 2.7M government workers and 800,100 Reservists (3.3M Americans) hostage in an attempt to force the acceptance of 800,000 illegal aliens.

SANDERS: He chose to provoke the crisis that we are experiencing today.

SAM: Nonsense! By rescinding the Obama order, Trump brought the matter to the attention of the Legislature; which is exactly where it belongs.

SANDERS: And that is a crisis we have to deal with; and here in the Senate, we have to deal with it now.  And let us be very clear about the nature of this crisis.

SAM: Yes, absolutely. Let’s be clear. – When Sanders claims there is a “crisis” he does not mean that there is a disaster, catastrophe, or calamity. Sanders uses “crisis” as a mechanism to demand something be done because Sanders demanded something be done. By invoking “crisis” in this manner, Sanders is attempting to substitute emotion and fallacy for evidence and logic. In effect, he is attempting to preempt consideration of larger questions such as: whether the United States is better served by immigrants who obey our laws or by those that willfully disregard the same.

SANDERS: Because some people say, “Well, it's really not emanate. It’s not something we have to worry about now.” Those people are wrong.

SAM: Sanders just demonized all peers that have an opposing position as being, simply stated, wrong. – This is a highly illogical action for a Dreamer champion. Sanders is setting conditions that can cause another series of filibuster-based legislative failures.

SANDERS: As a result of Trump’s decision, over 122 people every day are now losing their legal status. And within a couple of years, hundreds of thousands of these young people will have lost their legal protection and be subject to deportation. The situation we are in right now, as a result of Trump’s action, means that if we do not immediately protect the legal status of some 800,000 Dreamers, young people who are brought to this country at the age of 1 or 3 or 6, young people who have known no other home but the United States of America; let us be clear that if we do not act and act soon these hundreds of thousands of young people could be subject to deportation.

SAM: Now…it’s demonization through fear. – First, his math is suspect. Assuming the rate of 122 persons/day is true, then so is the rate of 44,530 persons/year. Therefore, assuming rates remain relatively constant over time; those at risk are 89,060 persons per two years. Obviously, this estimate is well below the “hundreds of thousands” claimed. Additionally, for the claim to be true, then the daily rate must immediately exceed 274 persons/day and remain steady for two years. Second, his facts are likely to be biased in favor of Sanders’ progressive view. A simple Google search suggests that the 122 persons/day rate was published in November 2017 by the Center for American Progress.[2] Because the Center for American Progress exists to “…change the country…” through the advocacy of progressive ideas,[3] it’s in their interest to bias their self-sponsored polling to those ends. Third, because Dreamers and DACA recipients are illegal aliens, it’s right and correct for them to be at risk of identification, capture, punishment, and deportation. Make no mistake, Dreamers are in violation of 8 USC 1325 and subject to punishment accordingly.

SANDERS: And that means they could be arrested outside of the home, where they have lived for virtually their entire life, and suddenly be placed in a jail.

SAM: Correct. Illegal aliens, because they are criminals, are at risk of identification, capture, punishment, and deportation.

SANDERS: They could be pulled out of a classroom where they are teaching. And there are some 20,000 DACA recipients who are now teaching in schools all over the country. And if we do not act and act now there could be agents going into the school pulling out teachers right out. And arresting them. And subjecting them to deportation.

SAM: First, and again, illegal aliens, because they are criminals, are at risk of identification, capture, punishment, and deportation. Second, in my view, illegal aliens have no business teaching American children. It is profoundly unwise and immoral to normalize and make righteous the acceptance of criminal behavior.

SANDERS: Insane as it may sound, I suppose that the 900 DACA recipients who now serve in the United States military today could find themselves in the position of being arrested and deported from the country that they are putting their lives on the line to defend.

SAM: More fear mongering. – Even Sanders doesn’t believe it. 

SANDERS: And some people say that’s farfetched. Well, I'm not so sure. It could happen. How insane is that? But that's where we are today.

SAM: This has now reached the heights of stupidity. – On 8 Feb 2018, Defense Secretary Mattis stated on NPR, “They will not be subject to any kind of deportation.” “In terms of the DACA situation ... it's clarified they are not in any kind of jeopardy.”[4]

SANDERS: And that's what could happen if we do not do the right thing. And this week pass legislation, here in the Senate, to protect the Dreamers.

SAM: Nonsense! The right thing for any Senator to do is to honor their Office by supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States within the consent of their State’s legislature. Given the immigration context, this means to fully execute their Art-1, Sec-8, Para-4 duty to establish a system of naturalization (a difficult and mindful thing) versus demonizing opposing positions (a lazy and mindless thing).

SANDERS: Madam President, we have a moral responsibility to stand up for the Dreamers and their families.

SAM: More nonsense! There is no moral imperative to protect criminals from the natural consequences of their actions. By contrast, the American government has a moral imperative to protect the institutions of the State in a manner agreeable to the consent of the People and the several States. Senators have a moral duty to represent the political will of their State legislatures according to their consent.

SANDERS: And to prevent what will be an indelible moral stain on our country if we fail to act. I do not want to see what the history books will be saying about this Congress if we allow 800,000 young people to be subjected to deportation, to live in incredible fear and anxiety.

SAM: And…he returns to the heights of stupidity. – Senator, did you miss the DACA spectacle this last February? Was your head attached to your body when you cast votes?

SANDERS: But there is the very very good news regarding the Dreamers. And it’s actually news that I a couple of years ago I would not have believed to be possible. And that is, Madame President, the overwhelming majority of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents absolutely agree that we must provide legal protection for the Dreamers and that we should provide them with a path toward citizenship.

SAM: Stop! Sanders wants us to agree that his claim of support by “the American people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents” is absolute (meaning…total, unconditional, conclusive, and fixed).

SANDERS: That is not Bernie Sanders talking. That is what the American people are saying in poll after poll after poll.

SAM: Alright! Now I’m excited. I’m ready to hear about nationwide polls that recorded the preferences of every single American (they are total); and hear that those polls demonstrate 100% alignment (they are unconditional); and hear that the 100% result is free from bias (they are conclusive); and hear that those positions measured have not changed over time and circumstance (they are fixed). I am pumped!

SANDERS: Just recently of January 20th CBS News poll found that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans, 87% favor allowing young immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children to remain in the United States. 87%.

SAM: What?! Sanders just claimed that support was absolute (total, unconditional, conclusive, and fixed), but then cited information to the contrary. – The CBS News Polls website clearly shows that such a poll was not taken or reported on 20 Jan 2018. [5] However, there is a CBS News article posted on 14 Jan 2018 claiming “More than eight in 10 Americans, re-contacted for this survey after Mr. Trump's comments about U.S. immigration from African countries and Haiti, said they had heard about them, and three-quarters (76 percent) say the remarks were inappropriate.”[6] Unfortunately, the poll does not clarify the polled population, or how they controlled for biases on any sort (such as business realities that demand CBS generate revenues).

SANDERS: In Iowa, in Vermont, and in every State in this country. Strong support for legal status for the Dreamers and a path toward citizenship.

SAM: Stop! Sanders did it again. – An NPR poll, reported on 6 Feb 2018, claimed that one third of Americans are not in favor of offering a legal status to Dreamers.[7] Additionally, like CBS, NPR is subject to its internal biases and business realities.

-          Example-1: NPR’s strategic aspiration is to “…strengthening the cultural, civic and social fabric of our democracy.” The claim that the American arrangement of governance is a democracy represents a profound and fundamental failing on behalf of NPR to be truthful. The arrangement of American governance is a constitutional republic (rule of law) not a democracy (mob rule).

-          Example-2: One of NPR’s strategic priorities is to increase revenues from sponsorships and grants. This means that NPR has an interest in biasing their product towards the desires of those investors willing to part with their money.

SANDERS: On January 11^th, at Quinnipiac poll found that 86% of Americans voters, including 76% of Republicans, say that they want the Dreamers to remain in this country.

SAM: Stop! I thought Sanders claimed… – The Quinnipiac poll claimed that “79 percent of American voters” support undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children should be granted legal status.[8] Unfortunately, the poll does not clarify the polled population, or how they controlled for biases on any sort.

SANDERS: On February 5^th, in a Mammoth Poll, when asked about Dreamers status nearly three out of four Americans support allowing these young people to automatically become US citizens as long as they don't have a criminal record.

SAM: Stop! Again… – This poll reported that, “When asked about Dreamers’ status, nearly 3-in-4 Americans support – 49% strongly and 24% somewhat – allowing these immigrants to automatically become U.S. citizens as long as they don’t have a criminal record.”[9] Unlike the other polls cited, this Monmouth sponsored poll was accomplished on 28-30 Jan 2018 with a national random sample of 806 adults age 18 and older, in English. Unfortunately, the poll does not clarify how they controlled for biases on any sort. – Side Note: This poll is asking us to agree that a sampling of 806 persons (less than 0.0003% of the population) represents the consensus of Americans at large. Really?

SANDERS: In other words, Madam President the votes that are going to be cast hopefully today, maybe tomorrow, are not profiles in courage. They are not members of the Senate coming up and saying “against all the odds.” I believe that I'm going to go for what is right.

SAM: Stop! Sanders is claiming to know the motivations of all Senators yet to vote. While he is in a position to suspect the intentions of other Senators, he cannot know their intentions prior to the fact.

SANDERS: This is what the overwhelming majority of the American people want.

SAM: Given Sanders’ political motivations, deceptive use of questionable poll data, I find this claim to be unreasonable and likely to be false.

SANDERS: And maybe, just maybe, it might be appropriate to do what the American people want.

SAM: Maybe, just maybe, it might be appropriate for Senators to support and defend the Constitution of the United States while representing the political will of the State’s legislatures. This is also known as “Doing Your Job.”

SANDERS: Rather than what a handful of xenophobic extremists want.

SAM: There it is folks…the race card! – Make no mistake about it. Sanders just labeled anyone with an opposing position a xenophobic (chauvinistic, intolerant, racist) extremist (radical, fanatic, terrorist). – Clearly, this is a character attack meant to smear the intelligence, character, and goodwill of anyone that does not walk and talk in lock-step with himself. Ironically, by using this approach, Sanders also smeared his intelligence, character, and goodwill towards anyone else.

SANDERS: Maybe we should listen to the American people?

SAM: Maybe…you should do your duty on behalf of the law abiding Americans you represent.

SANDERS: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who understand that it would be a morally atrociously thing to allow these young people to be deported.

SAM: There it is folks…the bigot card! – Sanders just characterized failure to address the DACA crisis as a moral atrocity (the culmination of willful acts of violence and oppression against Dreamers).

SANDERS: And I think, from a political perspective, about 80, 85, 90% of the American people supporting anything in a nation which is as divided as we are today.

SAM: Well, what is it? – It’s 80%! No, wait, it’s 85%! Or...um…90%! That sounds way better than quoting already cited information. – Does this mean that Sanders wants us to agree to disregard all poll data or just his cited poll data?

SANDERS: This is really extraordinary!

SAM: Not really. Given his history of exaggeration, it’s perfectly reasonable that he would continue to exaggerate.

SANDERS: You can't get 80% of the American people to agree on what their favorite ice-cream is.

SAM: Really! Are we really supposed to agree that the discharge of Senatorial duties under the Constitution is on par with any particular citizen’s choice of their favorite ice cream? Really!

SANDERS: But we got 80% of the American people were saying do not turn your back on these young people who have lived in this country for virtually their entire lives.

SAM: Okay…so…we’re back to 80%...I guess?

SANDERS: Madam President, we have got to act and act soon here in the Senate.

SAM: Oh, yes…back to the crisis angle.

SANDERS: And there is good legislation that will allow us to do that.

SAM: Good? What makes legislation good? – Before deciding “goodness” let’s ask some questions.

-          Why is the answer to a failed progressive policy (the DACA order) another progressive policy (a DACA-like law)? Why is it right to reward someone (forgiveness and provision of citizenship) for doing something wrong (operating as a criminal for years)? Why is the unlawful behavior of illegal aliens more politically valuable than the lawful behavior of legal aliens? If the wrongdoing represented by illegal aliens in the US must be rectified, then why is detection, arrest, and deportation not a viable solution?

-          Why should Americans agree that the natural consequence of illegal behavior is wrong in the case of particular illegal aliens? Why should Americans fear maintaining illegal aliens in an illegal/criminal status? Why should the quintessential American standard, “No One is Above the Law,” be cast aside for the exclusive benefit of illegal aliens?

SANDERS: And in the House the good news is that there is now bipartisan legislation sponsored by Congressman Hurd and Congressman Aguilar which will provide protection for Dreamers and a path towards citizenship. And my understanding is that that bipartisan legislation now has majority support.

SAM: On 16 Jan 2018, the Rep. Hurd website reports that Representatives Will Hurd (TX-23), Pete Aguilar (CA-31) and Jeff Denham (CA-10) introduced the Uniting and Securing America (USA) Act (HR 4796). [10] As of 22 Jan 2018, cosponsors include (26 R’s, 27 D’s). The bill was introduced on 16 Jan 18 and sent to committees thereafter.[11] – There is no recorded information (such as votes, procedural or otherwise, to support the claim of “majority support.”

SANDERS: And I urge, in the strongest terms possible, that Speaker Ryan allow democracy to prevail in the House.

SAM: Sanders got this one right. Ironically, our constitutional republic does prescribe democratic processes for its legislative institutions.

SANDERS: Allow the vote to take place. If you have a majority of members of the House, in a bipartisan way, who support legislation, allow that legislation to come to the floor, let the members vote their will. And if that occurs, I think the Dreamers legislation will prevail.

SAM: Again, a bill sponsored by 53 out of 235 seats (22%) does not equate to a majority. Additionally, the bill has not come out of committee, debate, or amendment processes; therefore, it’s entirely possible that the bill may become unrecognizable to its sponsors.

Issue-2: Comprehensive Immigration Reform

SANDERS: Madam President, we all understand that there is a need for serious debate and legislation regarding comprehensive immigration reform.

SAM: Here it is…the progressive Holy Grail: comprehensive immigration reform.

SANDERS: This is a difficult issue. An issue were there are differences of opinion. A whole lot of aspects to it. How do we provide a path toward citizenship for the 11 million people in this country who are currently undocumented, but who are working hard, who are raising their kids, who are obeying the law?

SAM: Stop! Sanders just framed the significance of this issue: the legalization of 11 million new, dependent, and loyal progressives. – Don’t be fooled. These 11M persons (illegal aliens known as unauthorized workers) prefer to reside in California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois; Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.^[12]  All of these states are blue or transitioning from red to blue; and, when taken together, control 249 (92%) of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to secure the Presidency. In political terms, the progressive base of these states will expand and be augmented while opposing positions will be further dominated and controlled.

SANDERS: What should the overall immigration policy of our country be? How many people should be allowed to enter this country every year? Where should they come from? All of this is very very important and needs to be seriously debated.

SAM: Agreed! No argument here. – Did you notice that Sanders is now playing nice?

SANDERS: But, Madame President, that debate and that legislation is not going to be taking place in a two day period. It's going to need some serious time, some hearings, some committee work, before the Congress is prepared to vote on comprehensive immigration reform. And it will not and cannot happen today or tomorrow or this week.

SAM: Agreed! No argument here.

SANDERS: Our focus now, as a result of Trump’s decision in September, must be on protecting the Dreamers and there are families, and on the issue of border security.

SAM: Nonsense! It’s entirely reasonable that your demands don’t reflect top priorities.

SANDERS: Madam President, or Mister President,…

SAM: Well…which one is it?

SANDERS: …there will be important legislation coming to the floor of the Senate today or maybe tomorrow. And I would hope that we could do the right thing, do the moral thing, and do something that history will look back on in a very positive legislation. Let us go forward. Let us past the Dreamers Bill.

SAM: Stop! There is no “Dreamers Bill” being offered within the Senate. However, Sanders may be referring to the Dream Act of 2017 (S 1615) that was commonly referred to as the Dreamers Bill by USA Today. – Given all of his references to mass media publications, I have to ask: who is doing his thinking for him?

Issue-3: Border Security

SANDERS: Let us deal with border security.

SAM: Stop! What?

SANDERS: And then, in the near future, let us deal with comprehensive immigration reform. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Related Posts

Civil Rights for Illegal Criminals…Really?

Illegals – A Means to Shift Political Power

Illegal Immigrant Civil Rights – Really?

---

[1] Senator Bernie Sanders. YouTube. “The Moral Issue of Our Time”. 14 Feb 2018. Speech on the Senate Floor. TRANSCRIPT

[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2017/11/09/442525/release-122-daca-recipients-losing-protection-every-day-851-week-congress-delays-passing-dream-act-according-cap-study/ (accessed 180216)

[3] https://www.americanprogress.org/about/mission/ (accessed 180216)

[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/08/584424541/mattis-dreamers-in-the-miliary-won-t-be-deported (accessed 180216)

[5] https://www.cbsnews.com/feature/cbs-news-polls/ (accessed 180216)

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation-tracker-americans-weigh-in-on-trump-immigration-remarks-first-year-in-office/ (accessed 180216)

[7] https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-support-legal-status-for-dreamers-majority-oppose-building-a-wal (accessed 180216)

[8] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2512 (accessed 180216)

[9] https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_020518/ (accessed 180216)

[10] https://hurd.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-hurd-aguilar-and-denham-drive-bipartisan-daca-border-security (accessed 180216)

[11] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4796 (accessed 180216)

[12] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ (accessed 180128)