“And this your mountainish inhumanity”

February 7, 2026February 7, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The Strangers Case

Anyone who has not experienced the genius of Shakespeare knows not what they are missing. Here, in a speech from the unfinished play Sir Thomas More, Shakespeare again demonstrates his brilliance.

On May 1, 1517 — now referred to as Evil May Day — riots broke out in London as a response to an influx of immigrant workers. This play, written some eighty years later and attributed to Shakespeare, was never performed, likely due to censorship, yet could not be more appropriate for the age in which we find ourselves.

My point is to underscore the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who’ve entered the country unlawfully are human beings that have done nothing more than seek a better life for themselves and their families. Yes they’ve committed a crime but, given the same challenges they face in their native countries—desperation, violence, starvation, torture, death—who wouldn’t break a minor law if it saved your life or the lives of those you love?

We are using them as pawns in the game of politics and overlooking their humanity in the pursuit of justice that bears little resemblance to the ideals of American exceptionalism.

We are better than this. We can find a way to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and preserve our humanity. They are not mutually exclusive. But we need to remind ourselves what is the most important part of that. And if you don’t believe it is preserving our humanity, we are in grave trouble.

And if you want to experience the full power of this speech, search Ian McClellan’s off the cuff performance on Stephen Colbert’s show.

However you experience it you have to be touched by its powerful message.


Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an agèd man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.
[…]
Say now the king,
As he is clement if th’offender mourn,
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whither would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbor? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, anywhere that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers’ case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.

Questions I’ve Been Asked

February 3, 2026February 3, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

After a post on Social media, I received a number of negative responses (always entertaining) including one that wanted me to answer a few questions. Here is the series of topics and my response.

1. Border Policy

Not sure what the question is here. Of course I support secure borders and prevention of unlawful entry but I also support reasonable opportunity to enter the country lawfully, robust and intelligent amnesty programs for those facing deprivation of rights in their native countries, and recognition that lawful immigration is a net benefit to this country.

Closing the borders isn’t a policy. Controlling the borders and those who can enter the country is.

2. FED Policy

The FED has always enjoyed an independent status from political interference. It is the whole purpose that monetary policy be free of politics. While the members are selected by political authorities (hopefully based on background and qualifications, not loyalty), they are free to make their decisions based on sound economic indicators and conditions not political pressure or threats of removal without cause.

Why this is a mystery or perceived as a problem by this administration is troubling yet consistent with their abandonment of standards and precedent.

3. Ukraine War

Russia invaded the Ukraine after agreeing (decades ago) never to do that in exchange for the Ukrainians surrendering nuclear weapons formerly belonging to the Soviet Union after the collapse. While I do not think we should put ground troops there, I do believe it is in our best interest to provide sophisticated weaponry to the Ukrainians as a bulwark against further Russian aggression which would directly impact NATO allies, primarily Poland and Germany.

Not that tit-for-tat is wise foreign policy, but helping Ukraine inflict more casualties on Russia might expedite a settlement. Keep in mind it was Russian and Chinese weaponry that killed most Americans in Vietnam. Of course, it was American weapons that killed many Russians during their exploits in Afghanistan and Russian weapons killing Americans in our time there, demonstrating the folly of such policies. But this is just a speculative discussion, not setting foreign policy.

Mr. Trump seems to believe his force of personality is enough to restrain Putin, it is not. The constant reversal of policy and flipflop between Russia and Ukraine merely delays any long-term resolution. We either live up to our claim of defending all friends, opposing all foes or we drop the facade and just pursue our own agenda.

4. Iran protest

I once read an article (that I am trying to find) that argued, during our invasion of Iraq, we picked the wrong country in terms of the support of the local population. Iraq is a series of historically antagonistic tribal associations with little loyalty to the country. Iran, on the other hand, was a mostly unified population (excepting the Kurds) that would be more supportive of outside assistance to rid them of the horrors of theocracy (something we should take notice of and avoid).

Iraqis would fight for their own part of the country and against any other, the Iranians would be more unified in toppling the Mulahs and crafting a more representative government for the whole country.

I do not think we should directly aid the Iranian people unless we have a fully articulated plan in place for the end game. A war here would be much different than Iraq. And discussion of restoring the Shah to the throne is tantamount to trading one dictatorship for another.

I have no doubt we would succeed militarily. Nor do I believe, despite the threats of other nations (North Korea, Russia, Syria) to come to the aid of Iran, that any of that would come to pass. But I do not believe the US has made the case sufficiently well to justify such an action or to prepare the American people to accept the reality of flag-draped coffins returning to the US in numbers that might exceed Vietnam, Korea, or Normandy. There is also insufficient demand from Iranian opposition parties indicating a openness to such open engagement.

Such an action would require the most deft diplomatic and military skills by the administration and that is sorely lacking.

5. ICE ability to enforce the law without interference.

Clearly legitimate law enforcement operations should be free from interference and those who impeded such operations arrested and charged. But here we have a unique situation. While unlawful entry into this country is a crime, it is a misdemeanor. A minor offense.

The overwhelming majority of those arrested by ICE have committed no other crime other than this misdemeanor

History is replete with examples of people breaking the law to bring attention to injustices and foster change.

No one objects to ICE seeking out and apprehending those here illegally who have committed crimes. Those who have lived here without committing other crimes and contributed to the nation deserve some consideration of their conduct in the country.

At a minimum this would include due process.

But from my perspective, those who committed crimes, whether that crime is operating a motor vehicle without a license or murder makes no difference, they deserve to be deported. You came here to escape some situation then to further compound that act by breaking other laws eliminates my empathy for your struggles. Although, with that said, if someone here illegally were charged with shoplifting for stealing food to feed themselves or their family it may mitigate the circumstances, but that’s just the bleeding heart liberal (although quite Christian attitude despite my atheism) in me.

However, sending masked and heavily armed tactical officers after men, women, and children (particularly children who are completely innocent of any unlawful act) who have done nothing more than commit a misdemeanor is abhorrent. This is what led to the widespread protests against this policy.

One of the key aspects of dealing with arresting individuals for any crime, something every experienced officer knows, is the goal is to make the arrest with the minimum amount of force. Any competent officer seeks to reduce the tension in these circumstance, not exacerbate them.

Sending what resembles, for all intents and purposes, a military unit to arrest people for minor offenses sets a dangerous tone. Now while every arrest has potential to become violent, no matter the charge, it is incumbent on the law enforcement agency to stage the arrest to avoid, as best they can, inciting violent resistance.

One of the arguments for this invasion of Minnesota (Minnesota?) is the lack of cooperation by state and local authorities. Cooperation is a two way process not a demand for surrender. From what I’ve seen, local and state authorities have only sought the assurances that the law of immigration enforcement, due process, be followed. When they see the reality is midnight flights in direct violation of federal court orders I would expect them to withhold cooperation. It is their duty to operate under the law and refuse to aid any agency which acts counter to that.

One of the biggest roadblocks to expediting deportation is the lack of sufficient numbers of immigration judges. This falls squarely on the shoulders of the administration and their focus on arrest while ignoring the due process aspect. The average time from arrest to hearing can often be months or even years. Reducing this would go a long way to removing one incentive to come here.

The very argument the government made for overturning court decisions on abortion-that it should be a state decision-is inconvenient in this case. And if your argument that immigration enforcement is a Federal issue exclusively you are defeating your own argument. Reducing or eliminating access nationwide to lawful abortions was a cornerstone of the Republican platform. The states rights argument was a smokescreen.

And the fallacious argument of widespread voting fraud, particularly voting by illegal immigrants, is verifiably false.

I firmly believe in the premise of innocent until proven guilty. The tragic shootings of American citizens remain open cases and the officers involved deserve to be treated as innocent. Until all the evidence comes out, and it should be all the evidence for the courts and the public to see, the legality of these matters remains undetermined, but the innocence of the officers under the law need be respected.

Keeping an in-progress investigation confidential is often necessary and prudent, but it cannot remain that way indefinitely. The Justice Department would go a long way to reassuring the public by including local and state investigators in the process.

But, as I mentioned before, placing these officers in these circumstances amid widespread public resistance to these policies is a recipe for disaster. To falsely characterize these demonstrations as a violent insurrection because it fits a political narrative is tantamount to taking a match to a fuse.

While the government has a clear responsibility to keep the peace and enforce the law, it also bears a bigger responsibility to do so in a manner that does not incite violence. Under these circumstances, they have failed.

If ICE held a perp walk of every illegal immigrant convicted of a violent crime being loaded on a plane out of the country, they would do it to almost universal approval. Instead, they face almost universal disdain for their tactics.

6.Transgender surgery and hormone treatment for minors

This issue, like all the others, is complex. There is also an underlying false narrative, often reinforced by the President and his supporters, that children are being surgically altered or given hormone treatments without their parents knowledge on a regular basis. “They send Johnny to school and Jane comes home.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. But this, like many other issues, should be one undertaken with medical advice not political grandstanding. The biggest issue, as always, is a refusal by many who protest the loudest against such treatments to refuse to even consider the complex physical and psychological trauma of these conditions. They let their false “moral” outrage framed by religious nonsense blind them to reality.

God does not determines sex, genetics does.

Gender dysphoria refers to the clinically significant distress or impairment that can occur when a person’s experienced or expressed gender does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. The distress may affect emotional well‑being, social functioning, or daily life, and it is not defined by gender identity itself, but by the presence of distress associated with that incongruence.

Gender dysphoria is recognized as a medical condition in major diagnostic systems. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‑5‑TR), published by the American Psychiatric Association, it is classified as a diagnosable condition to ensure access to appropriate clinical care. In the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‑11), published by the World Health Organization, it is described as gender incongruence and placed under sexual health conditions rather than mental disorders, reflecting evolving medical understanding while still supporting access to healthcare.

Recognized Legal Exceptions to Parental Control Over Medical Care for Minors

While parents or legal guardians generally have the authority to make medical decisions for minors, U.S. law recognizes several well‑established exceptions where a minor may consent independently, or where the state or courts may override parental choice to protect the minor’s health, safety, or rights.

1. Emergency Medical Care

In situations involving a medical emergency where delaying treatment would pose a serious risk to a minor’s life or health, healthcare providers may provide necessary treatment without parental consent if a parent or guardian is unavailable or refusal would cause harm.

2. Abuse, Neglect, or Medical Neglect

When parental decisions constitute abuse or neglect, including refusal of medically necessary treatment, the state may intervene through child protective services or the courts. Courts may authorize treatment when parental refusal places the child at substantial risk of serious harm.

3. Mature Minor Doctrine (Recognized in Some States)

Under the mature minor doctrine, some states allow minors—typically adolescents—to consent to certain medical treatments if they demonstrate sufficient maturity and understanding of the risks and benefits. Application varies by state and is often limited to specific circumstances.

4. Statutory Minor Consent Laws

All U.S. states recognize statutory exceptions allowing minors to consent to certain categories of care without parental involvement, commonly including:

Sexual and reproductive healthcare (e.g., contraception, pregnancy‑related care)
Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
Substance use and addiction treatment
Mental health services (with varying age thresholds and limitations)

5. Emancipated Minors

Minors who are legally emancipated—through marriage, military service, court order, or financial independence—generally have the same authority as adults to make their own medical decisions.

6. Court Orders and Judicial Review

Courts may override parental medical decisions when necessary to protect a child’s welfare, including ordering treatment over parental objection or resolving disputes between parents or between parents and providers.

7. State Parens Patriae Authority

Under the legal doctrine of parens patriae, the state has an obligation to act in the best interests of children and may intervene when a minor’s health or safety is at serious risk due to parental decisions.

Again not a simple issue. Absent profound medical necessity for surgery or hormone treatments, the state should defer to parental choice. But if the circumstances warrant intervention, it should be taken.

7. Transgender men competing in women’s sports.

Given the complex nature of genetics, where there can be a range of chromosomal differences between male and female, this is a challenging topic. My personal feeling is it should not be allowed. But a more in-depth review of individual cases may be appropriate.

However, in the big scheme of things, this involves a very small percentage of the population.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females. Using an average between male and female we are talking about 1.6 million individuals out of a US population of 326.7 million and they are not all athletes. I think this is much ado about nothing.

Reminds me of the old jokes about the East German women’s Olympic teams.

8. Protesters storming church services.

Like my earlier point on interfering with law enforcement engaged in lawful activities, no one has the right to interfere with someone practicing the faith of their choice. But there is another issue here. When a Church pastor is also engaged in secular matters for which lawful protest in opposition is perfectly legal, the fact that the protesters went to the church is immaterial.

While Freedom of Religion means we have to respect the right to embrace any faith and practice it, it does not mean we have to respect the tenets of the faith itself. Churches are not immune from protest simply because they are religious institutions. Quite often people of faith engage in activities in opposition to government actions. The cloak of faith does not make one immune from criticism, opposition, or open protest as long as it is done lawfully.

The fact that the protest took place at a church is not a significant issue. If someone broke the law, charge them. If they protest lawfully outside the church, it is the First Amendment in action.

In a related matter, the arrest of journalist Don Lemon is frightening, idiotic, and destined to be laughed out of court. What many may not know is the curious background to the arrest. The Justice Department went to a Federal Magistrate with the facts of the case requesting a warrant to arrest Lemon.

It was denied.

They then appealed the Magistrate’s decision and asked a Federal Judge to order the Magistrate to issue the warrant.

The court denied the request.

They then went to a Federal Grand Jury and obtained an indictment to charge Lemon. Now one doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand this is a most unusual process to arrest someone and to predict, with a high degree of certainty, that the case against any of the journalists charged is going to collapse in court.

I hope this answers the questions. I cannot wait for the response.

Crime Reduction Myths: Politics vs. Reality in America

September 13, 2025 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Now the President intends to send the National Guard into Memphis so they can “fix it like we did DC.” This wasn’t his original plan; he did a T.A.C.O. in Chicago, no surprise there. Guys with a brain like J.D. Pritzker scare him.

The “fix it like DC” requires some huge assumptions about the effectiveness of the deployment, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s been a reduction in crime because of the presence of the Guard and additional law enforcement resources.

That would be a positive. But what is the long-term plan? Do we flood the streets of America with military force as our long-term crime reduction strategy?

In 1972-1973, the Kansas City Police Department conducted a landmark study about police deployment. The study had several goals.

Would citizens notice changes in the level of police patrol and crime?
Would different levels of visible police patrol affect recorded crime or the outcome of victim surveys?
Would citizen fear of crime and attendant behavior change as a result of differing patrol levels?
Would their degree of satisfaction with the police change?

The design took three different police beats in Kansas City and varied patrol routines in them. The first group received no routine patrols. Instead, the police responded only to calls from residents. The second group had the normal level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as many patrols.

The experiment had to be stopped and restarted three times because some patrol officers believed the absence of patrols would endanger citizens. This full study went twelve months, from 1 October 1972 to 30 September 1973.

Victim surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored police-citizen interaction were used to gather data. These were taken before the start of the experiment (September 1972), and after (October 1973), giving ‘before’ and ‘after’ conditions for comparison.

The results of the study;

Citizens did not notice the difference when the frequency of patrols was changed.
Increasing or decreasing the level of patrol had no significant effect on resident and commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism–crimes.
The rate at which crimes were reported did not differ significantly across the experimental beats.
Citizen-reported fear of crime was not affected by different levels of patrol.
Citizen satisfaction with police did not vary.

The Kansas City Police Department concluded that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere.

A significant factor derived from the study was that crime prevention was more highly dependent on the willingness of citizens to report suspicious and/or criminal behavior to police than on the levels or types of patrol.

(Kelling, G.; Pate, A.; Dickman, D.; Brown, C (1974). “The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report”. Police Foundation.
Braga, Anthony (27 June 2012). “Hot spots policing effects on crime” (PDF). The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration. p. 23. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 January 2017. Retrieved 10 January 2017.)

There have been targeted programs of increased police presence (Operation Hot Pipe in San Diego during the crack cocaine epidemic) that have been successful. However, all were characterized by intense planning, officer training, a defined implementation and scope, and a limited duration. (https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/benefits-and-consequences-police-crackdowns)

Both pre- and post-implementation analyses were used to evaluate the process and adjust future projects. None of that is taking place with the deployment of the National Guard.

What does this tell us? A great deal.

Anecdotal data (or more accurately, public proclamations) showing a positive effect on reducing crime with the deployment of National Guard and other resources to aid local law enforcement is incomplete at best and political confirmation bias at worst.

Now I am certain those who support this approach will say it makes people feel better when they see the guard on the street. So does morphine when you break your leg, but the leg is still broken and will take proper treatment and a long time to heal. The morphine eventually wears off.

Deploying the National Guard is an improperly prescribed analgesic applied to a false perception of rising crime. It is a crisis with no basis in fact. And even if it has some positive effect in certain areas, it is not a long-term solution.

Until one is willing to take a three-pronged approach to deterring crime– strong, effective, and equitable enforcement, available economic opportunities, and providing access to solid education and vocational programs –a single-focus approach will not reduce crime in the long run.

But that doesn’t lend itself to as pithy a slogan as “Lock’em up and throw away the key.” We’ve done that to an entire class of individuals (look into minority incarceration rates and US incarceration rates). All that’s accomplished is creating a new (and lucrative) industry of private prisons.

I would argue our abandonment of public education to the false and inherently biased promise of “school choice” is a fundamental cause of inequity in our country and a significant contributing factor to criminal behavior in those who don’t have the luxury to “choose” their school.

None of this is news to anyone with any background in criminal justice. None of this is absent from the mountains of information available to criminal justice agencies and the political entities that control them.

Where it is absent is from the current management team at the Department of Justice and in the Office of the President.

The choice to have National Guard troops patrolling the streets of our cities is optics, pure and simple. And it is a lesson in the propagation of propaganda and unadulterated politics influencing decision-making.

Contrary to all valid measures of crime conclusively showing it is decreasing, the President contends that we are in a tidal wave of violence and criminality. Strange how he focuses on Democratic led cities and ignores issues in the red states.

The reason is apparent and the manner transparent.

Invent a problem, demonize a convenient entity as the cause, focus your solution on those in the political opposition, and declare victory after a few weeks.

All this amounts to wasted resources that could have been used to reduce crime (which already was in decline) in a more effective and lasting manner.

One has to wonder if this is more about making people fearful about turning out to vote in the mid-terms or, more troubling, creating a false crisis, an opportunity to declare martial law, and a suspension of basic human rights than it is about any concern over crime.

Open your eyes, America.

An Immodest Proposal: Catch and Re-Lease

February 24, 2020February 24, 2020 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In 1729, Jonathan Swift, an Irish cleric better known for his work Gulliver’s Travels, wrote an essay entitled,

“A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick”

It is more commonly known as A Modest Proposal. Swift, seeking a way to deal with the starving people and abject poverty of Ireland, came up with a unique, if controversial, idea.

Since one can always learn from the past, I submit this Immodest Proposal for your consideration in dealing with the Extraordinary Danger posed by the invasion of our country by those illegally crossing our borders, stealing all the good jobs, raping and pillaging (even if they are caught) because of our “catch and release” policy.

Here is An Immodest Proposal for Preventing the Poor Immigrant People from Being a Burden to America and For Making them Beneficial to our Economy (although I hear it is already perfect.)

It seems our efforts at stemming the tidal wave, nay tsunami, of people crossing our border under the mistaken idea we welcome these teeming masses yearning to be free has been only failure.

We have tried kindness and understanding, and still they came.

We put the National Guard on the borders, and still they came.

We built a wall (and rebuilding it as soon as part of it fell into Mexico,) and still they came,

We snatched their children holding them as hostages to discourage others from coming, and still they came.

It’s time we turned these lemons into lemonade. For what level of desperation must they feel to face not only our indignation and revulsion for their daring to embrace the dream of freedom but to ignore every effort we’ve made to stop them?

I have the perfect solution.

Instead of catch and release, we catch them and then lease and re-lease them to do all those jobs Americans are not willing to do.

We can lease and re-lease them to farms, at costs far lower than minimum wage, and thus lower the cost of agricultural products.

We can lease and re-lease them to cities and towns to clean the highways, collect trash, maintain the sidewalks, sweep the streets (at night to be out of sight of most citizens) thus reducing taxes and improving our living environment.

We can lease and re-lease them to companies who need massive amounts of labor to fill all those newly created jobs (after all Americans have first dibs, of course) and the lower labor cost will reduce the price of all those Amazon orders.

The cost savings will translate into lower taxes, put more money in the hands of “real & true” Americans, and eliminate all those pairs of sneakers hanging from telephone lines which is a blight on our land.

We can take some of them and use them to care for the children too young to work and supplement our own daycare facilities to lower day care costs.

Some might claim, this is slavery. I disagree. We did not ask them to come here. We’ve made a tremendous effort to discourage them, yet still they came. It would be reasonable to conclude their ignoring our objections to their coming here amounts to volunteering.

We might even put a light at the end of the tunnel. Say after ten or twenty years of toiling for our mutual benefit, they would be entitled to either a path to citizenship or a free ticket home.

Absent concurrence with my suggestion, we could always revert to Swift’s original idea. More difficult to sell but would accomplish the same honorable purpose.

When did America Become a Land of Cowards?

July 17, 2019July 18, 2019 / Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

When did this country become a land of cowards? This is not the America I
knew. Americans do not fear those seeking asylum. We do not demonize those who seek a new life in America.

We used to welcome such people. Now we fear them because we put blinders on in the face of reason.

We used to take on separating out those who deserve asylum from those
seeking to take advantage of our open generosity. Now we label all as criminals, with no basis in fact, and stick them in cages.

Child Worse yet, we separate them from their children and cage them. If our goal is to create more people who hate America, we are well on our way to accomplishing that goal. If our goal is to destroy the once respected, if imperfect, view most of the world had of America we are succeeding.

We have become a country driven by a fear of everything we do not, or will
not, understand. We have a President who tells sitting members of Congress, who by law must be American citizens, to go back to the country from where they came.

America is that country. It is the country facing severe problems so inelegantly put (to be kind) by the inciter in chief. Problems of intolerance and prejudice exasperated, if not created, by the President himself.

He would do well to remember, this is as much their country as it is yours or mine.

More so, I would argue, since they at least have the courage of their convictions to challenge the status quo or the headlong retreat to a mythical and whitewashed past.

The ignorant arrogance of the President and those who remain silent in the
face of such vitriol from this man is astounding. The lack of universal
condemnation across the country for such remarks is a national embarrassment.

Let us make one thing clear, no rational American wants unregulated entry
into the United States. Despite the President’s pandering to uninformed
jingoistic nationalism, most Americans are wise enough to understand the
difference between illegal entry and those seeking asylum.

To put this in perspective, perhaps some numbers might help.

According to the Pew Research Center, “The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world the U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.4 million in 2017.” The same report found that immigrants and their descendants will drive 88 percent of the United States’ population growth through 2065.

Consider that for a moment.

Out of a population of 300 million, almost 15% are foreign born. Soon, this will be a country with a significant change in the ethnic origins of many of the people living here.

No matter. They will still be Americans.

They are not any different from those who have been here longer. My family has been here for just four generations. Let me disabuse those who see people of different ethnic or racial origin as foreigners that if the measure of a real American is one born here, there are descendants of slaves going back longer than many white Americans. There are generations of people living in Texas descended from the original Mexicans when Texas was part of that country.

Native Americans go back even further. If any people suffered from the
ill-effects of illegal immigration, they would own the discussion.

Immigration—controlled, regulated, and intelligently managed—is good for America. It always has been, always will be. To ignore history, to ignore the realities of the changing demographics of the country, to ignore the basic human decency characterized by the American people is to lose the very thing the makes America great.

Those four Congresswoman demonized by the ravings of a madman may be naïve in the policies they pursue. However, it is that same naivete that sparked a revolution in 1776. A young nation, populated by idealists and dreamers, saw the necessity to throw off the fetters of a repressive government and fight for fundamental human rights against overwhelming odds.

Those efforts gave us the government we have now. Almost to a man, each of those founding fathers was foreign-born. Still, they rose to the occasion to create this great nation.

I wonder what they might think of this President and his silent enablers?

We are better than this. We are smarter than this. We are nobler than this.

It is time we remember that and take a stand against such idiocy percolating in the country.

Something Right for all the Wrong Reasons

April 2, 2019 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Let me preface this piece with a couple of caveats.

I think Donald Trump will go down in history as the worst President ever
I find Trump to be boorish, a bully, a liar, and an inarticulate, uninformed charlatan
I hope with all that I know is right with America that the voters say to him in 2020, “Mr. Trump, You’re Fired!”
I have not lost my mind.

With that said, let me get to the point.

In threatening to close the southern border, Mr. Trump is correct. A crisis often calls for drastic action. A crisis not of just illegal border crossings, but severe economic and humanitarian issues in Central America.

We face a humanitarian crisis of significant, if not historic, proportions. The crisis is directed and condoned by the corrupt and greedy governments of Central America, i.e., El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala. Assisted by the government of Mexico by facilitating the passage of these desperate caravans across their territory.

There is no right answer here. It is not the risk of terrorists we need fear. Not the overblown, exaggerated, culture of fear of crimes perpetrated by immigrants propagated by Trump and his zealot supporters. That is as sinister a false flag as anything coming out of this administration, which is saying much.

But by leaving the borders open, we are luring the desperate with false hopes. This administration has little concern for humanitarian issues. This administration ignored its own citizens in Puerto Rico, what hope do immigrants, illegal or otherwise, have here?

In cutting foreign aid to these countries, Mr. Trump is adding fuel to the very fire he wishes to extinguish. Countries give foreign assistance because it is in their best interest to do so. While some see it as sharing our wealth and spreading goodwill if foreign aid worked against our interests we would not offer it.

Close the border, Mr. Trump. See just what the economic implications to the southern states turn out to be.

Stop foreign aid, Mr. Trump, and see what effect it has on the stability and economies of those countries.

Use your self- aggrandized deal-making skills to convince Mexico and others it is in their best interest to protect our best interest.

The nightmare you have created by focusing on a wall that will take years to build, have a questionable effect, and cost billions of dollars is a sideshow to real statesmanship and your obligation to serve America’s best interest.

Close the border, Mr. Trump. Even you cannot make this worse.

Take the money you save by withholding foreign aid and use it to improve the immigration and border control system. Use it to regain the advantage that has always made America Great, the benefit of immigration and immigrants significant contribution to this nation.

Do that, and you can go back to playing golf while the nation burns.

A Tweet a Day, Keeps Rationality Away

June 18, 2018June 18, 2018 / Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

In the latest tirade from the Commander-in-Chief, the President whined,

“Why was the FBI’s sick loser, Peter Strzok, working on the totally discredited Mueller team of 13 Angry & Conflicted Democrats, when Strzok was giving Crooked Hillary a free pass yet telling his lover, lawyer Lisa Page, that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming President? Witch Hunt!”

Aside from the blatant inaccuracy and disingenuous nature of these words (let alone the second-grade grammar), there is something more troubling on display. In the words of William Shakespeare, a man who knew the power of words, there is this,

“There is no darkness, but ignorance.”

words-have-power The mark of a person is not made by their words but by their deeds. Yet, words offer a window on a person’s character. How one expresses yourself—the tone and timbre of the language—is an elementary part of one’s approach to life.

With emotional and intellectual maturity comes the wisdom to understand the necessity of choosing words carefully. A rational and respectful person learns to make a point without resorting to infantile name-calling.

It would seem with the president we see evidence of intellectual dystrophy and emotional immaturity. Not generally a concern for most who have little international influence, frightening in the case of a man with sole determinant authority to launch nuclear weapons.

History is the arbiter of success and failure. When history reviews the Trump Presidency, the self-serving blaming of others for all things he’s failed to accomplish or been taken to task for will rise to the surface as one of his most glaring defects.

To stand idly by, wringing his hands in-between writing sophomoric tweets, as children are torn from their families is the epitome of disingenuous cowardice. If he seeks to be perceived as even the least bit Presidential, issue a Presidential Executive order halting the policy of separating the children and see who challenges the order in court.

I can guarantee it will not be a Democratic challenge.

The one truth is nothing is permanent. This too will pass.

The President, for all his braggadocio, claims of success, and superlative laced tales of his performance, along with his constant complaining about everybody not on Team Trump, would do well to heed the admonition of Ozymandius by Shelley.

Ozymandius

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Rational Immigration Policy

January 11, 2018January 11, 2018 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

There are two immigration policies undergoing intense scrutiny. The Temporary Protected Status Program (TPS), which is an established policy within the United States immigr Customs and Immigration Service and DACA (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals.)

Temporary Protected Status Program

The program falls under the aegis of the Secretary of Homeland Security who, when circumstances warrant, grants temporary protections from deportations for individuals from areas undergoing specific problems.

(From the United States Customs and Immigration Service Website)

The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:

Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war)
An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or an epidemic
Other extraordinary and temporary conditions

During a designated period, individuals who are TPS beneficiaries or who are found preliminarily eligible for TPS upon initial review of their cases (prima facie eligible):

Are not removable from the United States
Can obtain an employment authorization document (EAD)
May be granted travel authorization

Once granted TPS, an individual also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of his or her immigration status in the United States.

TPS is a temporary benefit that does not lead to lawful permanent resident status or gives any other immigration status. However, registration for TPS does not prevent you from:

Applying for nonimmigrant status
Filing for adjustment of status based on an immigrant petition
Applying for any other immigration benefit or protection for which you may be eligible

Here’s the list of countries and the date of designation granting temporary protected status.

El Salvador 2001
Haiti 2010
Honduras 1999
Nepal 2015
Nicaragua 1999
Somalia 1991
South Sudan 2011
Sudan 1997
Syria 2016
Yemen 2015

Aside from the extended period such designation has applied to some countries, there is something else that troubles me.

Nothing prevents those allowed into the country from applying for citizenship through normal channels. It would seem that individuals here from El Salvador, for example, since 2001 have had ample opportunity to seek citizenship.

Since the program is “temporary” protection, why is there any surprise or outrage if Homeland Security exercises their lawful discretion in terminating the program?

One can make an argument about conditions in Sudan or Somalia, perhaps, as ongoing. However, the situation in El Salvador that triggered the designation as long since passed.

I am not without sympathy for the plight of many in the world. Moreover, I think the US bears a great deal of responsibility to use our wealth and power to promote human rights in the world, but those who live in these countries bear the obligation to seek to change conditions in their own countries, not merely enjoy the hospitality of the American people.

I think the TPS program is a shining example of the best of America and I think the temporary nature of it need be recognized.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Senate Bill S 1291 was introduced in 2001 and known as the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). It has been reintroduced on several subsequent occasions but never enacted.

President Barrack Obama signed an Executive Order Jun 15, 2012, creating the DACA program as an interim.

The order was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal immigrant children tuition. The policy was officially established by a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security titled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” This policy allowed certain immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years- renewable upon good behavior. To apply, immigrants had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012, must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16, and must have lived in the U.S. since 2007. In August 2012, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people were eligible.

So far, 800,000 individuals have applied for the protections. Applications are no longer accepted.

The DACA Program, a temporary humanitarian effort, is another example of the best of America. We do not punish someone for the act of another. Human beings brought here as children should not be callously deported from what may be the only country they have known.

The image of Immigration Agents separating families for deportation for no other reason but undocumented status is horrifying, raising the image of lines of Jewish women and children, separated from their husbands and fathers, in the depravity of Nazi Germany.

However, with that said, if someone brought here as a child, educated by public schools, enjoyed the opportunity (not the guarantee, opportunity) of the Amercian Dream yet has made no effort at obtaining legal status or citizenship, it gives me pause.

America has a big heart. We have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice our blood to defend others in places far from America; Belleau Woods, Normandy, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Inchon, Chosen Reservoir, Hue, Afghanistan, and when many of those battles were over, we extended the hand of friendship to our former enemies.

The charity of America is enormous, but not unlimited. We should offer hope and help, not unending handouts.

I think ending DACA is a mistake if we sacrifice innocent people in pursuit of such a policy. Stopping the Temporary Protected Status designation is a grave error if the conditions that triggered it still exists. I believe it is necessary if they no longer exist.

However, I also think asking people to help themselves, to make an effort at repaying our support by either reclaiming their own country or respecting the law and seeking citizenship here is more than reasonable.

Easing the Pain by Changing the Words

February 20, 2017February 20, 2017 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

George Carlin, one of the great philosophers of our time, had an insightful piece on words. He discussed how, during World War I, troops who’d been in intense continuous combat, to the breaking point of their humanity, suffered from shell shock.

The words themselves were terrifying. Shell shock said it all.

Then, World War II showed up and we needed a better phrase. Thus came the term Battle Fatigue. Battle was ominous, Fatigue implied being tired perhaps worn out. Still frightening, but less so.

During the years 1950-1953 in Korea, we tried to redefine the whole thing by calling it a police action. 33,686 dead Americans later, we realized our failure.

Finally, with Vietnam, we arrived at Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD. Sounds almost benign. As Carlin pointed out, maybe if we kept the term shell shock the soldiers who suffered from it would have received the help they needed.

Where once we “killed” our enemies, now we “terminate with extreme prejudice.”

The military is particularly adept at this. I suspect they must have an occupational specialty for language smoothing.

But changing words to make them sound less troubling masks the problem rather than mitigates it. Morphine will take away the pain of a broken arm, but it still won’t work right if left untreated.

Our attempt at using words to cushion these issues opens a whole Pandora’s box of nonsense. The term PTSD is commonplace now. People traumatized by a snarling rabid raccoon, seeing a squirrel turned into road pizza, or not making the honor roll wear the diagnosis like a crown of thorns.

What once was the exclusive purview of those in combat or emergency services has been expanded to encompass a bad day at work. Are there individuals who suffer from trauma experienced outside of combat or violent crime? Of course. But I suspect a significant number just don’t want to face the fact that life’s not fair and bad things happen.

It’s what you do about it that makes you rise above it and survive. Seeking a diagnosis de jour to ameliorate your hurt feelings isn’t helpful.

What got me thinking about this was the term, undocumented slaves-with-words_a8zqmum immigrants. Undocumented is so much nicer than illegal, even if there is no distinction. Like the advice about how to convince people of a lie. Tell it big enough and often enough it is soon considered fact.

Like claiming any negative news stories are fake.

Undocumented is an error in paperwork, illegality is a crime. Undocumented sounds so much better.

There are serious issues facing this country. Finding ways to make them sound less threatening is foolhardy. Ignoring them may be fatal. Finding rational, thoughtful solutions is the way.

Otherwise, let’s give everybody a trophy, put all the names on the honor roll, and ignore the reality of life.

Apologies to the Future of America

February 16, 2017February 16, 2017 / Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

Hello,

This is America from the early 21st century. If you read this, if there are any of you left to read this, you’ll no doubt be confused by the legacy we left for you.

You may have questions as to just WTF happened to cause a normally sober and rational people to elect “the Donald” to the presidency.

An excellent and unanswerable question.

We can hope the 45th President wasn’t the last.

Arising from the fears of an ignorant elective confused by what is required to serve in the position, he was elected by anger fueled with barroom logic screaming “throw the bums out.”

Fear trumped rationality. Anger replaced discourse and dialog. Nationalism couched as patriotism blinded the reality of a changing world. We wanted to return to the cocoon of an insular America.

We tried to turn back time to an era that was neither better nor great.

Some will argue this missive is premature. We are a mere three weeks into this debacle. But one can use logical deduction to see the future. If he can mangle things this much in 21 days, what will a full year look like?

Supporters see his “take no prisoners, school-yard bully” approach as refreshing. Yet it flies in the face of 300 years of maturing American style of diplomacy and managing domestic affairs.

We elected a maniacal, Machiavellian, misanthrope with delusions of rationality to serve as the leader of the free world.

All I can do is ask your forgiveness and hope you manage to survive to read this.

Washington left us a legacy in words. Lincoln left us the poetry of his Gettysburg Address. John Kennedy’s words inspired us to go to the moon and join the Peace Corps.

Trump tweets trash. 144 characters not worth the effort to push the delete key.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, we can only hope Trump doesn’t tweet while America does the same.

In the words of the Don Henley song,

We are

Beating plowshares into swords for this tired old man to be elected king

I have nothing to offer up in our best defense but an apology for our wanton disregard of your once bright future. We have no excuse for overseeing the end of the innocence.

So please accept our apologies. If you found a way to right things, we applaud you. If there is no America left to read this, we accept our responsibility for your demise.

Sincerely,

Your apologetic past