Pixel Tracker

Thursday, February 21 , 2019, 12:17 am | A Few Clouds 49º

 
 
 
 

Christine Flowers: Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech Sounds Good, Rings Hollow

As an immigration lawyer, I approached Donald Trump’s Aug. 31 immigration speech with anticipation, hope and trepidation.

I was willing to keep an open mind about a topic that, next to abortion rights and religious freedom, is the most important issue for me in this campaign. I was prepared to praise the man if he came out with an honest, workable, nontweetable attempt to address the extremely complicated factors that go into the whole concept of “illegal immigration.”

To say I was disappointed is an understatement along the level of “Houston, we have a problem.”

I listened politely as the Republican presidential nominee spoke about building his wall, and understood that this was an appealing concept to many — including myself — who are troubled by the fluidity of our borders.

As he discussed the modalities that would be used to build that wall, evoking technologies apparently not yet in existence, I realized that his use of this concept was much more symbolic than anything else.

“Build a wall” has been an effective slogan over the years for many conservative opponents of immigration, and it doesn’t require much cerebral heavy lifting.

Trump sounded more poetic than Maya Angelou: “On Day One, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful Southern border wall.”

He talked about “above- and below-ground sensors” that other people call “tunnels.” He talked about aerial surveillance, towers and additional manpower.

He also said Mexico would pay for the wall, even though Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, whom he’d met only hours before, made it clear that Mexico “no paga.” So the estimated $8 billion to $12 billion needed to build this “beautiful Southern border wall” will have to come from somewhere else.

Beyond the wall, and the absolute lack of detail on the methodologies by which it would both be built and financed, Trump talked about how he would increase the border patrol force by about 25 percent. I think that is a fantastic idea, but I’d like to know where that money is coming from, too, especially after we build those walls.

Then Trump announced the revolutionary concept that he would change enforcement priorities by “removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays (and) public charges.”

I stood up and gave him a standing ovation when I heard that. But I gave President Barack Obama that same standing ovation when he announced those same priorities in November 2014. Yawn.

Trump then talked about screening refugees, and no one who has seen the brutality wreaked by ISIS and other Islamic terror groups should object to that. But, as experts have noted, refugees generally undergo the most rigorous and time-consuming process of any category of immigrants who enter the United States. Sometimes the process can take up to 18 months, or more. So again, nothing new.

And he talked about jobs, which is a big part of his appeal, the great job creator.

Good for him. I agree something must be done to bring workers out of the shadows, provide them with work authorization, give them identification cards and continue to allow them to work legally in our restaurant kitchens, mowing our backyards and cleaning our bathrooms.

Oh, yeah, and winning Olympic medals for us when they become naturalized U.S. citizens.

But the thing that finally made me realize this was not a serious speech was the last part, when Trump brought the mothers of slain citizens on stage to say “Vote for me.”

In this powerful, hardly subliminal attack on so-called “sanctuary cities,” Trump did what the Democratic National Convention was justifiably criticized for doing when it trotted the mothers of Michael Brown and other so-called victims of police brutality on stage.

I was appalled then that we would use mothers’ grief to advance an agenda, and I was appalled when Trump did the same thing.

The suggestion that illegal aliens must be kept out of the country because they have an innate tendency to be more violent and homicidal than the average native-born American is wrong. Debatable, but still wrong.

Statistics consistently show that immigrants commit violent crimes at a significantly lower rate that the native-born. It’s an argument we can have; I’m fine with that.

My problem is using death to make your partisan point.

“My boy was shot by a cop. They’re bigoted monsters.”

“My boy was killed by an illegal. They’re homicidal maniacs.”

Same tune, different verses.

And if you don’t think it’s the same tune, that’s because your ears are registered with a different party, and you think some mothers are less entitled to grieve than others.

As for me, I’m thinking Helen Keller was lucky.

Christine Flowers is an attorney and a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News syndicated by Cagle Cartoons. Contact her at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter: @flowerlady61. Click here for more columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Talk to Us!

Please take Noozhawk's audience survey to help us understand what you expect — and want — from us. It'll take you just a few minutes. Thank you!

Get Started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >