Abogado David J. Grummon

12. Today was a good morning...

2009-05-26T22:31:00.000-07:00

So, it's been over a year since my last blog post! That's what having a kid will do for your spare time, I suppose. The following is a rough draft of a piece I've been asked to write up based on a presentation which I gave at a Board meeting for the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity. Please let me know what you think:

Today I woke up to the news that Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. If you watched five minutes of the news, then you already know the remarkable details of her background: Child of immigrants from Puerto Rico, raised by a single mother in a public housing project in the Bronx. She then went to Princeton on a scholarship, then law school in Yale. From there she started a remarkable legal career.

Also remarkable, of course, is the story of the man who had nominated her, President Barack Obama. If you haven’t heard the details of his life by now, you’ve probably been living under a rock. And regardless of your political standing, you have to acknowledge that it’s a remarkable story. Suffice to say, there are many parallels between his life and that of Sotomayor. So, what made possible their paths to power and success? There are certainly many things that contributed to their successes, but you can’t even begin to honestly to look at their stories without bringing up the huge role that education—and especially higher education—has had on their unlikely rise to prominence.

It’s no accident that education is one of the primary issue focuses for the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity (MORE2). Education is what makes stories like Obama’s and Sotomayor’s possible, and we want more stories like that to happen in America. Clearly, education creates role models. Much has been written and discussed about what kind of impact the election of Obama would have on millions of young African-Americans. For generations, so many have often looked at the circumstances of their lives—and the realities of society—and decided that success just wasn’t going to happen for them. For too long, too many have just shrugged and said, “Hey, man, it’s still America, isn't it?” Similarly, I have seen so many of my Spanish-speaking clients bring in their children—some about the age of my son—and wondered how and if they will ever overcome the challenges they already face. Too often, I have found myself looking at a client’s child and thinking, “He’s already five miles behind where my son is starting right out of the blocks.” What kind of impact could the example of a Latina Supreme Court Justice have on my clients’ children?

I have a client named Gerardo who I’ve represented for several years on many different cases, including a large civil case against an out-of-state subcontractor who stiffed him and about 50 other immigrant workers for work done on the Great Wolf Lodge in KCK. We litigated for three years to obtain a decent judgment amount, and then another year to try and pierce the corporate veil of the now-defunct corporation which this subcontractor left behind before he started another corporation. That part of the case didn’t go our way, but over the course of those several years, I got to know Gerardo pretty well.

Gerardo has four children, the youngest which was born just a few months apart from my son. The first time I represented him on some minor traffic case several years ago, Gerardo told me that his oldest daughter, who was 10 at the time, had started saying that she wanted to be a lawyer when she grows up, because the family was always talking about how “El Abogado” was always helping them. Recently, this oldest daughter became a client of mine. She apparently hung out with the wrong people at school, and now has a juvenile felony and a few misdemeanor convictions to her name. And she has dropped out of high school, although working on her GED will be part of her probation. And, as I learned at my last court appearance with her, now she’s also pregnant. Obviously, all of this bothered me, and I wonder what happened between those times. At some point, between 10 and 17, she must have looked around her urban core neighborhood and school and concluded that becoming a lawyer just wasn’t possible. Why bust your tail if it’s never going to happen?

I also worried about what kind of example she was setting for her two younger siblings who are in school below her. I asked her about this, and to my surprise she said that they’re really good students, that they’re studying all the time and getting good grades. So what changed between her and her siblings? Maybe her siblings heard that there’s actually some hope, that there’s a reason to stay in school and work hard. I’d like to think part of it may have had to do with the passage a few years ago of the Kansas In-State Tuition Act, which says, look, children of undocumented immigrants who were brought over when you were too young to have a say: If you go to high school here in Kansas for at least three years, and you graduate having maintained a B average, you can qualify for in-state tuition to go to a State University or Community College. Of course, in-state tuition is still a huge challenge for these kids—just ask any of the other Kansas residents who qualify simply because they’ve lived in Kansas for a year or more—but the Act makes going to college just somewhat possible. It gives children like Gerardo’s a reason to stay in and graduate because there’s something for them on the other side. That’s why the MORE2 Board has supported the In-State Tuition Act and why our Education Task Force continues to advocate that the Act stay on the books in Kansas.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act is different from the Kansas In-State Tuition Act. It wouldn’t give anyone in-state tuition—that would be left up to the states. The DREAM Act would say that if these same kind of students with no criminal record go to college and get at least an associate’s degree or more, they can be placed into a different line—not ahead of anybody—but in a different line to become legal permanent residents and eventually citizens. Same deal if you go into the military instead of college.

Now, the DREAM Act makes a lot of sense on a whole lot of levels, not the least of which is economically. Students who go to college and then get a normal status will be paying a whole lot more in taxes than if they stay undocumented and drop out of high school. And, they are a lot less likely to become one of my clients. Of course, this is statistically the case for all other groups as well, and that’s one of the reasons why MORE2 believes so strongly in better access to education—it doesn’t just benefit the student, it benefits all of us.

Then there’s the whole role-model effect: Just as Obama and Sotomayor can inspire other young people of color to do great things, a young person seeing siblings and family members and friends go to college and get good jobs and start a business can have a snowball effect—the reverse of the negative snowball effect we’ve seen in our communities for far too long.

For all of these reasons, the DREAM Act has bipartisan co-sponsorship and support which has increased each year that it has been introduced to Congress, and we’re hopeful that it will be successful this year. However, there are some people who really oppose it, and I’ve thought a lot about why that might be. One reason might be that if you are someone who has generally adopted very negative and harsh stances against any kind of comprehensive immigration reform, this bill really is very problematic for you. If you are advocating that we should spend millions of tax dollars to stop and hunt “The Illegals” and also pass laws that give them inferior rights and services, then you have to justify these expenditures and the social costs of such policies. If your whole argument is that “The Illegals” are criminals and killers and rapists and disease-bearers and societal drains and are otherwise just a really vile and horrible group of people, then the very existence of these students kind of pops that rhetorical bubble. How can you continue to claim that all undocumented immigrants are so horrible once these students are allowed to show the nation just how successful, productive and brilliant they can be once given the chance?

So, the MORE2 Board has voted to approve the following position on the DREAM Act:
· The Board of MORE2 endorses the DREAM Act.
· We believe that we must act on our values to preserve a vital asset: an educated group of promising immigrant students who have demonstrated a commitment to hard work and a strong desire to be contributing members of our society.
· We believe that this legislation, which provides a path to U.S. citizenship for hardworking and talented immigrant students who have been raised in the U.S., is critical to improving the pipeline from high school to college and proving meaningful employment.
· We believe that punishing students indefinitely and irremediably for decision made by adults many years ago stands in sharp contrast to American ideals. With the DREAM Act, Congress would legally recognize what is de facto true: These young people belong here.

Please join us in supporting the DREAM Act by communicating your support of this bill to your U.S. Senator and Congressperson.

11. Shooting themselves in the foot...

2008-01-06T17:50:00.001-08:00

Kansas passed a great law a few years ago that would allow students who came over without documentation with their parents as children to get in-state tuition at a Kansas Regents university or community college if (1) they attended a KS high school for at least 3 years and (2) they maintained a B grade average. Now, this doesn't actually give them any scholarship or grant money, they just have to pay in-state tuition like anybody else would who meets those criteria. (Actually, you only have to live in KS a year before enrolling to become eligible for in-state tuition, so this law actually creates a higher bar for undocumented students to become eligible.)

The anti-immigrant types have been after this law for years. Kris Kobach, while running for Congress on an anti-immigrant platform against Dennis Moore in 2004, was hired by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (an anti-immigrant group with the not-just-a-little-ironic acronym "FAIR") to sue the state on behalf of US Citizen out-of-state students. Of course, first they had to find some students willing to be named in the lawsuit, since there really weren't any complaining to begin with. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed due to "lack of standing," which essentially means that a plaintiff can't maintain a lawsuit if they are not personally being harmed. (For example, I can't sue Donald Rumsfeld for the war in Iraq just because I'm a taxpayer annoyed at having my tax dollars being spent overseas, etc.)

Moore beat Kobach handily, winning Johnson County outright for the first time in his congressional career. Despite this obvious rebuke on both the legal and political levels, the anti-immigrant types still flock to Kobach and about a year ago that part of the conservative wing of the Kansas GOP got him elected as State party chair.

Of course, as a Democrat, I'm just tickled. Such Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot, and they will be limping from it for more than a generation to come. Latinos are the fastest growing electoral demographic in the nation, and whatever gains Bush made among them in his two elections have completely evaporated as looney anti-immigrant types like Kobach and Tom Tancredo continue to blast away against them. What these foolish anti-immigrant Republicans don't realize is that there are thousands of mixed-status families in Kansas and America. Along with citizen classmates and friends, we have a generation of new voters who will only remember that it was Republicans who were trying to hurt and destroy their fathers, mothers, friends, and cousins, etc.

As a Kansan and an American, however, such policies are really sad and frightening. I know a lot of young clients who graduate from high school who have spent their whole lives here in Kansas City but can't get a drivers license. Without the promise of something better for their future, what motive does a young undocumented high school student have to learn English, stay in school, work hard and achieve to the best of their ability? Those who do believe that there is a possible benefit for buying into the system and playing by the rules end up being positive and productive members of society, and many find a way to legalize eventually. Those who don't believe they can benefit by buying into the system usually give up on following the rules. Sadly, without any hope of a better tomorrow, that's when I get to meet them as a criminal defense attorney. If young people become a problem for our society, that hurts all of us.

Of course, if you base your policies on the idea that all these new immigrants are lawbreakers and evildoers, then then it comes as no surprise that your prophesy becomes self-fulfilling. However, those of us who actually know some Latinos and recent immigrants know that if given the opportunity, our young people are capable of doing amazing and positive things for our community and our nation. Since they were not adults when they crossed with their parents, they should not be punished for their parents'decisions. Nor should the rest of society be punished by polcies which thwart and squander their potential.

The Kansas In-State Tuition law, and the comparable DREAM Act that was proposed at the federal level, hurts nobody and benefits all of us--unless, of course, you see a new generation of young Latino voters as a threat. I do not, nor should our politicians, nor the American people.

10. America is better than this...

2007-09-16T22:33:00.000-07:00

After spending the last five years representing hundreds of families with different immigration statuses, I am alarmed by both the litany of falsehoods being repeated about my clients by groups like the Minutemen and the really bad laws and policies that are enacted when people believe such claims. The anti-immigrant crowd works hard to convince the public that they should fear and hate my clients. They claim that my clients are to blame for most our national problems, that they are invading us to break our laws, rape our daughters, spread leprosy, massacre our youth and that they threaten our cultural identity.

Of course, those with firsthand knowledge of recent immigrants—friends, family members, and others who work and live with them—know that these claims are ridiculous. Ask any of my clients and they will tell you: They came to work and to help their family, a motivation no different than that of my ancestors. Unfortunately, many otherwise good Americans are deceived into believing the claims of the Minutemen and are then often convinced to support a host of “kick-the-immigrant” laws and policies, even when such policies offer no positive benefit to society.

For example, Kansas and Missouri legislators were convinced that taking away the ability of undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses would “crack down on illegal immigration.” Years later, that action clearly has not resulted in fewer immigrants, but has resulted in higher case loads for the police and courts, more uninsured drivers on the road, more hit-and-run accidents, and a new demand for fake insurance cards and even licenses.

Similarly, the recent “deputizing” of the Missouri Highway Patrol for immigration enforcement will result in some deportations, but it is also making my clients more fearful of all law enforcement. Local police already combating the “Stop Snitchin” culture in their criminal investigations will face a new reluctance from thousands of Kansas City residents to report crime and to cooperate with police. That hurts all of us.

Most of my foreign-born clients come to me wanting to follow the law in as many ways as they can, yet find themselves thwarted from doing so—much to the detriment of everybody. Rather than helping to integrate our society, “kick-the-immigrant” laws hurt families, divide communities and create criminality where there was none before. Predictably, groups like the Minutemen then turn around and blame immigrants while claiming that they themselves are merely “supporting the rule of law.” Like Jim Crow, Apartheid, and other bad legal systems that preceded them, “kick-the-immigrant” laws and policies cannot be justified without appealing to our fear, ignorance and prejudice against another group of people. That’s really all the Minutemen have to offer us, and that’s what makes them unacceptable in our halls of government.

Many reasonable people can disagree over what the best national immigration policy should be, but attacking the immigrants themselves separates the Minutemen from mainstream civic organizations. Simply put, America is better than this, and area voters have consistently stated so at the polls. Politicians and policymakers should take note.

9. Here goes a slippery slope...

2007-06-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

This just in from the Kansas City Star 6/15/07 Pg. A-1:

"The Kansas City Council registered its disapproval Thursday with Frances Semler’s controversial appointment to the parks board, but Mayor Mark Funkhouser is not backing down. In a highly unusual move, the council voted 9-3 to urge Semler to resign, or if she refuses to do so within a week, to ask the mayor to recommend her removal. She has been the target of criticism because of her involvement with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group that opposes illegal immigration but that some view as a violent vigilante hate group.
The council resolution was a symbolic rebuke of one of Funkhouser’s first major acts as mayor, but it is not binding. A parks board commissioner can only be removed by the council upon the mayor’s recommendation.
Funkhouser said he would listen carefully to the divergent views on Semler “and do what my judgment tells me to do.”
Earlier, Funkhouser acknowledged that Semler offered to resign, but he rejected her offer.
“I told her to hang in there,” Funkhouser said, amid a growing clamor to drop her.
Semler said Thursday she was disappointed by the council’s action and was frustrated by the controversy.
“My main focus is the inner city. This is summer, and we need to give kids something to do,” Semler said. “I don’t want to be divisive. I want this to go away.”
Semler’s appointment to the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners has caused outrage within the Hispanic, black and Jewish communities because of her membership in the Minuteman group...."

Of course, this was ALL over the conservative radio talk shows here in town, basically bashing those protesting the appointment and calling it no big deal. Besides, why should anyone have a problem with a public official being part of a group that advocates enforcement of our immigration laws? I could have called in, but instead I e-mailed the following response:

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently published a list of what it determined to be 144 "nativist extremist" organizations across 39 states, meaning groups that target individual immigrants rather than immigration policies. For the state of Kansas, it lists three (3) such groups:

1. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Emporia
2. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Kansas City
3. Minuteman Civil Defesne Corps, Wichita

(INTELLIGENCE REPORT, SPRING 2007, PG. 46)

There can be many good faith disagreements over what the best immigration policy should be. However, groups like the Minutemen are not mainstream civic organizations. These groups are trying to justify policy that is bad for all Americans by attacking and villifying a group of 12 million people, even though most haven't even met or spoken to any of them. The appointment of a member of the Minuteman is troubling, as it reflects a move to gradually get members of hate and extremist groups into civic positions of power. The KCMO Park Board may not be much of a position of power, but one has to wonder: What exactly is it that Mark Funkhouser is defending here? Would it be different if the appointee were a member of a more recognized hate group, such as the Aryan Nation, but was otherwise "competent?" What about a member of an anti-Semitic group who is otherwise nice around everybody else? What about a member of a group that supports Hamas or Hezbollah?

This is not an issue of free speech or free association. This is a democracy and we elect officials who sometimes appoint other officials. The electorate gets to voice its opinion over the appointments made by elected officials. Mayor Funkhouser simply needs to clarify whether this appointment reflects his beliefs or just a lapse in judgment.

Those of us who find the establishment of such a group in our city appalling certainly have the right to express how unacceptable we find having such a person in public office. And if we don't take a stand, we've seen where this leads.

8. The Immigration Debate: Thinking Beyond "LEARN to speak ENGLISH."

2006-10-01T22:34:00.000-07:00

Recently, my mother called me about an obnoxious editorial in the local newspaper from our old hometown, The Beloit Call. Because she also works with immigrants and their children in the nearby Great Bend School District, she was upset almost to the point of tears. Naturally, I volunteered to respond:

Dear Editor,
While I appreciated the emotional honesty of Charlene Watson in her Sept. 18, 2006 Ramblings, I was dismayed by the huge amount of misinformation Ms. Watson conveyed. Unfortunately, much of the debate I have heard over immigration policy has been just as disconnected from the reality of the clients I have served as a bilingual attorney. I have met hundreds of Spanish-speaking families in the last several years, including both legal and undocumented immigrants. It would be wrong of me to characterize all members of any group—much less all undocumented immigrants in our country. But I can say that most I have met are hardworking, kind, generous, devoted to family, and entrepreneurial. Many are deeply religious.
Recently, I began asking my clients why they came here. Not surprisingly, it wasn’t to get drivers licenses, college education, public benefits, or health care. Nor was it to “intimidate” Americans or to “take over our country.” Everyone answers the same—they came to work. And work they do—many in jobs that simply aren’t being filled otherwise. The reality is that we simply do not have enough workers to fill all the labor-intensive jobs that are out there. Some California farmers are losing entire crops for lack of workers to harvest them. Entire industries—construction, hospitality, service, meat packing, landscaping, and some sectors of agriculture—depend on immigrant labor.
Ms. Watson expressed concern over Social Security. The reality is that many undocumented workers are doing the work to earn Social Security credits, but those credits are applied to other people’s numbers. While this creates a record-keeping problem, it pours millions of dollars into the system which will never be collected by the workers who did the work. Take those workers and their contributions out, and you will speed the collapse of Social Security. Add a few million otherwise law-abiding younger workers to the system, and you could probably save it.
Ms. Watson claimed the influx of European immigrants of the 1900s were much different from today’s immigrants. In reality, earlier immigrant groups were similarly attacked and maligned. It is well known that many worked long hours in dangerous conditions. Just like immigrants of today, many were exploited. Are we proud of this? Ms. Watson praises the notion that today’s immigrants “HAVE no rights in this country.” In reality, they do. They have the right to be paid for work they have actually done, to work in safe conditions, and in some cases to sue those who have wronged them. Would Ms. Watson prefer an America where this were not so? I recently sued a construction subcontractor who cheated my client and about 50 others out of several weeks pay for labor performed at Great Wolf Lodge in Kansas City, Kansas. If contractors like this can get away with not paying these workers, what kind of workers will they be more likely to hire on the next project? Allowing immigrant workers to be exploited simply gives employers an economic incentive to hire them instead of domestic workers.
Ms. Watson repeatedly emphasized the need for immigrants to “LEARN to speak ENGLISH.” In reality, there is certainly no lack of desire from my clients. Better English skills mean better work opportunities and less risk of being exploited. The rate of English-learning among recent immigrants is no different than that of immigrants in the past. Generally, the older first-generation adults struggle and the second generation children pick up English rapidly at school. Most adults would love to speak more English, but either don’t have time to take classes because of long work hours or can’t find enough English classes to meet the adult demand.
While Ms. Watson claimed past immigrants “did not expect this country to meet their needs,” I am certain my ancestors at least expected that there would be enough opportunity to make a better life. Were their motives so different from those of today’s immigrants? As for handouts, most of my clients are not interested. Most aren’t eligible for public benefits anyway, so they expect none.
What Ms. Watson fails to address is why illegal immigration is happening in the first place. This isn’t an American issue—France, Spain, and many other nations are facing similar debates. So what’s going on? The answer was in Ms. Watson’s hands as she complained over instructions printed in multiple languages: Globalization is affecting business and lives all over the world. Many products sold here are sold in other countries too. If companies want higher sales overseas, they have to make their products and services available internationally. When traveling abroad, one can find U.S. companies—Subway, Sam’s Club, and Home Depot—competing with local businesses. For better or worse, free trade agreements like NAFTA created winners and losers. Some of the losers—like Mexican subsistence farmers who couldn’t compete with foreign agribusiness—are now working on American farms, construction sites, hotels, and yes, McDonalds. We love getting to sell our products elsewhere, but are somehow shocked that this should ever have consequences felt here at home.
There is one clear difference between immigrants of yesterday and today: Back then, most of our ancestors had almost no immigration restrictions on the books to be concerned with. By contrast, today’s immigration laws have broken up thousands of good families that were formed here in America—far more than any other “family values” issue typically raised at election time. Instead of attacking immigrants and destroying families, we should be supporting immigration reform based on America’s best interests, not on fear and misinformation.

7. We can still be...

2006-09-10T20:14:00.000-07:00

Shortly after 9/11/2001, I wrote the following article for the University Daily Kansan at KU. For one reason or another it was never published. At the time, I was somewhat opimistic of the possibility of good coming from the attacks. Perhaps someday, it will be part of a vision to a more hopeful future for our country...

WE CAN STILL BE PROUD OF AMERICA
David Grummon
Columnist
"Why should I be proud of America?" a friend asked me after September 11. I thought a lot about the question. Sure, we call America the "Leader of the Free World," and the "Land of Opportunity," but we also know our nation has a dark history. America was born a racist and divided land, giving only white landowning males voting rights, while thousands languished in slavery. Our leaders relocated and decimated hundreds of Native American populations. Even after slavery ended, Jim Crow laws made African Americans second class citizens. During World War II, our government hustled Japanese Americans into internment camps.
We’re the only nation to use the atomic bomb on civilians. We sometimes supported ruthless dictatorships to win the Cold War. More recently, we have enforced human rights when it served our interests while turning a blind eye to abuses by our allies.
So how can I still pledge my allegiance to our flag, or sing "I’m proud to be an American"?
Pretty easily, actually, despite the sins of our forefathers. Our history’s not entirely dark. We’ve saved the world from global tyranny more than once. We’re among the world’s largest contributors of humanitarian aid. We’ve changed the world in many positive ways in the last century.
I’m proud of many recent acts of bravery by Americans. Not enough can be said of New York City firemen and police during 9/11, nor the hundreds of volunteer workers who searched for survivors nor the average Americans who fought to retake control of a highjacked airplane, sacrificing themselves to save others.
But America’s true greatness is neither defined by the past, nor by bravery in crisis. Our greatest pride in America should come from the promise of its future. This is what really sets us apart. With each generation and every challenge, America is always becoming more American. We learn from past mistakes and struggle to reach the promise we call the American Dream.
That struggle hasn’t been easy. Usually, calamity and upheaval have pushed us to become a better country. It took the Civil War to abolish slavery and turn a loose conglomerate of states into one nation. It took the Great Depression and World War II to transform a stagnant society into the vibrant, prosperous world power which shaped the last century. It took the social upheaval of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement to make us realize, as Dr. King put it, that we had not yet reached the day when we would "live out the true meaning of our creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….’"
Over a year ago, as we sorted out our Presidential election, people accurately described America as "deeply divided." We saw enemies among each other, whether it be Government or Big Business, the religious or the non-religious, Hollywood folks or back woods folks. We found so many things to hate and divide us, our nation seemed to be falling apart.
These things don’t seem to matter as much anymore. I don’t believe God is the author of evil like we saw on 9/11, but God can transform tragedy into an opportunity for good. I think we have a chance to start over again, to learn from our mistakes, to become the nation we always wanted to be, and to get closer to the American Dream than we ever have before.
So how do we reach for the American Dream in the wake of such a crisis? We should learn from our mistakes, the biggest lesson being that we cannot afford to hate anymore. Not hate towards liberals or conservatives, not other religions, not homosexuals, not Arabs, Muslims, Jews, foreigners, Hippies, Capitalists, or Tree Huggers. It’s alright to disagree—that’s democracy—but hatred gave us September 11, and Americans that engage in hatefulness now should be ashamed. Nor can we ignore injustices that create hatred. While we bring terrorists to justice, our leaders are wise to address the root causes that leave desperate people open to manipulation by madmen.
We should not let the lives lost on 9/11 fade away without meaning. Will our nation rise up against fear and terror by seeking a more perfect union, or will we continue to rip ourselves apart? Let the legacy of this tragedy be not only victory against the hatred of others, but also redemption of our own American Dream.

6. DÉJÀ VU

2006-06-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

This weekend I watched the Oscar-winning movie “The Pianist,” which tells of the story of the Polish pianist and composer Wladyslaw Szpilman and his survival of the German occupation of Warsaw and the horrific Jewish Ghetto. Three things struck me as remarkable:

First, the Germans did not immediately round up all Jews and ship them to Treblinka. The process was incremental. First they took away small rights—limiting the amount of money they could keep in the home, limiting where they could work, restricting the restaurants and stores they could go to. Then more basic rights—no sitting on public benches, no walking in public parks. Then they required them to be visibly marked with the Star of David. Then they prohibited them from living and working in all but a designated area. Then they walled in that area and let very little food in. Then all Jews were required to get a work permit, or else be removed to a labor camp. Then everybody was removed to the labor camp. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Second, it boggles the mind why Polish Jews submitted to this treatment, or better yet why everyone else in Poland did. Of course, so long as these laws did not adversely affect them, the average Pole—or German or other European nationality, for that matter—probably thought it was not their problem. Some, like the man who buys Szpilman’s piano for a pittance of its worth, doesn’t even acknowledge that he is exploiting their desperation. When one of Szpilman’s family members protests the low price, he replies, “What are you going to do, eat the piano? What’s the matter with you people—I’m doing you a favor.” Of course, eventually the plight of the Jews became the plight of everyone, and the Nazis went after anyone else who dared oppose them.

Third, I recall how the Nazis came to power anyway. Not everyone recognized them for the monsters they were. In fact, they were democratically elected to power. How were they elected? They were able to convince large parts of the public that some groups of people—mostly Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals and other non-Aryans—were to blame for Germany’s problems, not to mention the Communists. This was done by propagandizing lies and stereotypes about the Jews, and convincing people that “The Jewish Problem” was a critical priority: Jews were not loyal Germans. In fact they were a scourge upon that country and the Aryan race. They were taking advantage of Germany, they were dishonest, they were dirty and diseased. Jews and the others were to be feared and hated. History’s lesson is clear—Nazis did not take Germany over because of their lust for power. The Nazis took over because everyone else gave up their power and allowed it to happen.

Some of this is starting to sound a little too familiar. With regards to the Illegal Immigration Problem, that is. And Homosexuals for that matter too. Despite a very long list of questionable policies and decisions, a growing number of our elected officials, primarily Republicans, are increasingly turning to fear as their next play to stay in power. America’s problems are not the result of anything we’ve done. Muslims want to kill everybody. The homosexuals and activist judges are trying to destroy families and the institution of marriage. And illegal immigrants are pouring across the border and destroying our country. I am starting to understand how it happened in Germany and Poland. It happened in the name of nationalism, in the name of security, the rule of law, and cultural preservation. It happened legally, incrementally, and democratically. Will it happen again? Will the powers of fear be allowed to convince the American public to believe what they say about immigrants, gays and Muslims? Will the majority give our power away—with the Patriot Act and domestic spying—and allow it to happen? America has between now and November to decide.

5. Si, se puede.

2006-04-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

It is no secret that my law practice serves hundreds of Spanish-speaking clients, many of whom are undocumented individuals. I say undocumented because to call them “illegals” or “aliens” goes a long ways to blur the issues that confront our country about what to do about illegal immigration and does very little to describe the people being talked about. Some of my clients crossed the border without permission. Some came here on legal visas, and overstayed. Some are in the process of becoming residents, and many more are in a questionable netherworld of immigration status which only their immigration attorney, if they can afford one, could describe, and probably not in one sentence.

My clients are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Some are here living in difficult conditions and sending almost all of their money back to family in their country of origin. Some have made a life here with their families—many of which have citizens, legal residents, and undocumented family members all mixed together. Obviously, it is difficult and unwise to characterize over 11 million people (the number of undocumented immigrants said to be living in the United States) one way or another. I bristle at conservative talk show hosts who characterize all of them as criminals and law-breakers. And how many have they actually met? Very few, if any. I have met hundreds of families, yet I do not think I am qualified to say much at all about all 11 million. I am only qualified to describe those I have met: Most are hardworking, kind, generous, devoted to family, and entrepreneurial. Many are deeply religious. Some I have met are bad apples—hell, I’m a traffic and criminal defense attorney. It comes with the territory. But unlike robbers, burglars and thieves, to which I have heard undocumented immigrants compared on the radio, almost all of my clients at least came here to work without any desire to do harm to anyone—certainly not to domestic workers, taxpayers or American society. Many risked their lives to come and work simply out of love and devotion to their family.

By referring to an entire group of people as illegal, law-breakers, and criminals, we are engaging in group justice. Rather than being judged individually on their own actions and by the strength of their own character, we are lumping everyone together and doing our best to forget their humanity. That makes it easier to support policies that are otherwise immoral and contrary to our Faith. However, this debate is about far more than political correctness in how we label people.

A few weeks ago, massive demonstrations took place across the country to protest a proposed law which had passed the U.S. House of Representatives—HR 4437—and was then being considered in the U.S. Senate. Anti-immigrant commentators liked to say that these were all illegal immigrants demanding that they not be deported, or demanding that there be an open border with absolutely no restrictions. (How dare they! What arrogance to come here illegally, and then demand that we change our laws to suit them!)

Of course, there were more than just undocumented individuals there. I was there, and I saw plenty of U.S. Citizen clients. Although everyone agrees that current immigration law is broken and needs to be changed, the protests were not against the status quo, but against HR 4437 and proposals like it. The law as proposed would have made any undocumented presence in the United States a federal felony—a crime that is punishable by a year or more in prison. (Currently, undocumented presence is a civil offense—deportable, but not really criminal) HR 4437 would have made “harboring” (i.e. living with) an undocumented immigrant a felony as well. HR 4437 would have made “transporting” (i.e. giving a ride to) an undocumented immigrant a felony, and employing them a felony, and otherwise assisting them to stay here a felony. Theoretically, my job could have been interpreted as a felony under this statute. Moreover, the proposed law would have removed the right to an attorney for those who were detained by immigration--meaning even legal immigrants or even citizens could conceivably be deported without full due process. THAT is why people turned out en masse and said—“enough.”

So, I have been asked many times, what do I actually think should be done then?

Well, I do not support open borders, but building a giant wall along the Mexican border seems like (a) a waste of taxpayer money and (b) a very ugly testament to history about who we are as Americans. We didn’t like the Berlin Wall or the Iron Curtain. We didn’t like the Jews being walled off into a ghetto in Poland by the Nazis. We only like the Great Wall of China as a tourist attraction. We don’t even really like the Israeli “security barrier” going up around Jerusalem and the West Bank, but nobody seems to know what to do about the Middle East anyway. We didn’t like the barriers built between white and blacks in apartheid South Africa. Border security is fine, but mammoth walls just don’t seem very American.

Everybody understands that if an undocumented person who is already here is taken into custody by Immigration, they will be deported. Ironically, one could use the argument used by the NRA when it opposed gun-congrol laws--instead of passing more laws making more things illegal, why not just enforce the laws we have now? Being in America without documents is not by itself felony-level behavior, and doesn't deserve felony-level punishment. America already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Incarcerating 11 million undocumented individuals—and anyone living with them or giving them a ride to work—would require a massive tax investment to build dozens more federal prisons.

And what do we get for our tax dollars? Each incarcerated individual now becomes a ward of the state. If you’re worried that undocumented immigrants are draining public resources while they are living free and working—many paying taxes, buying consumer goods and services, investing in homes and businesses—just imagine the drain of having to house and feed and care for more than 11 million new prisoners. As it is, each incarcerated individual represents in some way a failure of our society. That person usually deserves to be punished for his or her actions, but criminal behavior is all too often a symptom of poverty and racial and economic segregation. And for each father and parent that is taken out of the home, we will have more children—including many U.S. Citizen children—growing up in single-family homes (or now needing adoption, if both parents are jailed). Studies show that they will be at a greater risk of living in poverty, engaging in criminal behavior, and being the perpetrators or victims of domestic violence. The inability to become legal is already a burden on so many families. HR 4437 would cost taxpayers and society and would break apart more families than the most “ultra-liberal policy” could ever hope to do.

People who are otherwise just raising their family and going about their lives should be given some pathway to become legal and eventually citizens. Such a pathway doesn’t have to be an amnesty, but should also not be so burdensome that it breaks up families or otherwise is too horrible to be a realistic option.

Beyond the clichés of “we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of the rule of law” we need to have a vision of what we want America to be, and what is the best way to get there. Moreover, once you get to know someone--their hopes and dreams and their ambitions--and realize that they are pretty much just like your hopes and dreams, there is no way you can look them in the face, adhere to the tenants of the Christian faith, and still support immigration policies like the ones in HR 4437. Yes, we need to enforce our laws, but our laws must also be fair, rational and just. Of course, this essay cannot possibly be my definitive statement on all the issues that face my clients, but it is at least a start.

On April 10, 2006, we are again being called to a Day of Action for Immigration Reform. I plan to be involved and I would invite anyone else with similar values to participate. I believe our protests are making a difference and that as long as we continue to debate rationally and counter xenophobic or racially motivated talking points, our country will come out with better laws. Si, se puede. Yes, we can.

4. Troubling Times

2006-01-20T23:54:00.001-08:00

The last several months have brought several developments that many Americans, myself included, find very troubling with respect to the nature and future of our democracy:

1. Enemy Combatant Designation -- The Bush Administration has been challenged in court for its several-year-old policy claiming that the President has the right to designate individuals, including U.S. Citizens, as enemy combatants. The policy claims that enemy combatants do not have the right to legal representation or counsel and do not have the right to sue in normal federal courts. The policy also claims that the government does not have to even reveal the identity of enemy combatants should the President deem this necessary for national security.

2. Rendition -- The practice of removing individuals, whether they be suspected terrorists, enemy combatants, or another undesirable classification, from U.S. territory or government custody to foreign allied nations, presumedly for the purposes of avoiding legal and constitutional restraints on U.S. law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

3. Secret Prisons -- The U.S. has faced recent allegations of creating and maintaining top secret covert detention facilities in several Eastern European nations, presumedly for the purposes of secretly detaining individuals for whom the status of enemy combatant is not secret enough.

4. Torture -- While the Pentagon and Bush Administration have emphatically characterized that any acts of torture or other inappropriate behavior that may or may not have happened at the Abu Ghriab Prison in Iraq or the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay are isolated incidents and do not reflect policy or even normal procedure among military or intelligence personnel, Vice President Dick Cheney has also emphatically opposed legislation proposed by Republican Senator John McCain (a former Vietnam POW) that would make torture by U.S. personnel of others in any situation subject to criminal penalties. This clearly gives the world mixed messages as to whether the United States tortures its POWs or enemy combatants or not and whether it really considers torture acceptable under some circumstances.

5. NSA electronic surveilance of U.S. Citizens -- The New York Times, after sitting on the story for a year at the request of the White House, revealed that the President had authorized surveilance of international phone calls by Americans to individuals overseas. This policy circumvented the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act) Courts, which were established after the Nixon Administration to give the intelligence community a way to have wiretaps secretly reviewed and approved by a neutral court with high-level security clearance. This new surveilance program, which had been re-authorized by the President about 30 times, did not seek any warrant or FISA approval. This would appear to be a prima facie violation of the U.S. Constitution, but the White House has insisted that it is both legal and an important tool in the fight against terror. Later, the FBI revealed that this policy had flooded it with NSA wiretap request on thousands and thousands of phone numbers, the vast majority of which were useless deadends.

6. It was reported today that the U.S. Justice Department is suing Google to obtain pretty much all of its records of everyone's internet searches. Unbenownst to most Americans, Google and Yahoo and other search engines routinely keep track of what we all do internet searches for, in part as a means to tailor web-based advertising to us. Now that ability may result in our internet seach habits being collected by the government for the nominal purpose of investigating how people search for child pornography. Of course, there is nothing to prevent that information from being archived and mined to find out other things about internet users.

7. My new favorite--since it directly affects me: The Missouri Department of Transportation will spend $3 million annually on a program to monitor the movements of individuals on highways via their cell phones -- without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this will be used to track traffic patterns to see where the State needs more lanes, more bridges, or to sense traffic jams, etc. But with this comes the power, theoretically, to identify individuals who are speeding or even track down a wanted individual who is careless enough to leave their cell phone on while driving... which is everybody here.

So why do I and so many Americans, Democrats and Republicans, find these developments troubling?

To be clear, I definitely do not oppose the government to using powerful investigative motives to combat terrorists, drug traffickers, and other bad ass evildoers. But how far is too far? As an attorney who has represented clients in federal criminal cases, I can tell you that the government has amazing access to a great deal of information once it obtains a warrant to do so. It's creepy. Every debit and credit card transaction, car rental (including your mileage), ATM withdraws, and telephone and cell phone records. Of course, I learned in our Criminal Procedure class at law school that communication devices which broadcast your conversations to "the world", i.e. cell phones and wireless handset telephones, do not need a warrant, because the courts consider this a lowered expectation of privacy. I was actually stunned at the amount of evidence that they were able to collect on a defendant. And when they suspect an individual of drug trafficking or other really bad things, I have no problem with them going to a judge, showing probable cause, and getting a warrant for all kinds of things.

However, the developments mentioned above reveal a disturbing trend: Government acting without constitutional checks and balances to investigate and surveil individuals and U.S. Citizens whenever the government believes it should do so. The argument for these measures is compelling: After 9/11, everything changed. We are now fighting in a "different kind of war."

However, for two centuries, we depended on the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution that there should be a separation of power and a series of checks and balances that would ultimately keep any of the three branches from obtaining too much power. To protect against king-like tyranny, there are serious limits to what our President and the Executive Branch can and cannot do. To protect against Mob Rule or complete populism, Congress was given the power to make laws, but not the final word on legality or even wisdom of those laws--the President has veto power and the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, i.e. the power to find a law unconsitutional. Congress can impeach either a president or Supreme Court justice for breaking the law and betraying the Constitution. These checks and balances have always been considered the genius of our system.

With regard to the "enemy combatant" designation. The Constitution gives us the right to Due Process whenever Life or Liberty is at risk. So, the power of government to prosecute crimes is checked by the rights of the accused to have a fair trial and neutral decisionmaker, and the right to legal counsel. My job, as legal counsel, is not to "get the guy off" but rather to make the government prove its case. It is the government that must prove a case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence legally obtained under the constitution. If we allow anybody in government to simply skip this process and jail someone indefinitely without having to show any proof of wrongdoing and without giving the accused due process or access to legal counsel, this becomes dangerous for everybody. If the government can do this to a guilty guy, it can and will do it to an innocent guy.

This isn't to say everyone in the government is evil. Of course not. Sometimes the cops are bad and are profiling my clients, but sometimes cops--even good cops--are just mistaken. Sometimes the cops are doing everything right, but the witnesses they rely on are wrong or are bad. Sometimes cops make mistakes. And long long ago, Americans decided that if they simply trusted everything every employee or representative of the government said or did, that innocent people might go to jail or be put to death while guilty people went free. If the President is allowed to keep his power to designate any U.S. Citizen as an "enemy combatant," we will begin to descend a very slippery slope to a Police State.

Which leads me back to the troubling developments of the last several months. Certainly the threat of another 9/11-type attack is real. Certainly our government has the responsibility and duty to protect us against such attacks. But how far is too far in executing that responsibility?

We were originally told that the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom. We know now that Osama Bin Laden has really never indicated that the driving force behind Al Qaeda is our freedoms -- political, cultural, or religious. Bin Laden and every other Islamic terrorist organization complain about U.S. foreign policy. Still, the idea that another 9/11-type attack would curtail our freedoms is a strong and ongoing sentiment in our nation.

But how exactly has our freedoms retreated since 9/11? At the request of our government, we are happy to give up the freedom of taking knives and weapons on planes--that's very reasonable and really not much of a sacrifice. But are we willing to give up our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Are we willing to give up Due Process rights if we are accused of a crime? Are we willing to give up all semblance of privacy, even if we know we are not doing anything wrong? We are told that these desparate times require these desparate measures, that this is a new kind of war that requires new tactics. But is there a point, is there a line beyond which we can say that the cost to our freedom is not worth the gain to our security? Is the freedom for which we have fought and died over two centuries simply to be given up because the government asks us nicely? Will the freedoms we once feared to lose from an invasion of the Soviet Union actually be lost gradually under the guise of patriotism and security? In seeking to save our paradise of democracy, at what point do we actually begin to destroy it?

The men and women in uniform overseas, wherever they are stationed, have volunteered to be there and to risk their lives to protect our freedom. They know they run a risk of dying, but they believe the risk is worth it to protect the freedoms and liberties that make America worth defending. Are they the only Americans willing to risk their lives for these freedoms? I don't want another 9/11 to happen, nobody does, just as almost no soldier wants to die on the battlefield. But perhaps I am willing to risk death to protect these freedoms--freedom from having my entire life monitored and catalogued by the government.

Maybe, just maybe, we are beginning to reach the point where our love of freedom outweighs our desire to be safe from every risk of another attack. Is this unpatriotic? If we can never stop every threat to America, and if this War Against Terror is to last for a generation, perhaps we are coming to the point where Americans must simply decide: Freedom or security?

3. Rain falls on the Good and Bad alike

2005-09-04T23:40:00.000-07:00

As I was buying a can of Coca-Cola at the drug store down the street from my office, I mentioned watching the hurricane destruction and rescue efforts on TV to the cashier. She said, "Well, you know, I'm a Christian, and I just can't help and think about Sodom and Gomorra and how they were destroyed for their wickedness. And you know, New Orleans was a wicked city."

I thought about correcting her by reminding her that actually it was LAS VEGAS which is universally known as "Sin City," but I thought better of it and took a different approach:

"Well, you know, I don't think bad things like this necessarily only happen to bad people. I mean, the victims of the Tsunami last year stretched over several thousands of miles and dozens of countries. I don't think all of those people were bad or were being punished. Like the Bible says, 'The rain falls on the good and bad alike.'"

I wished her a good day and excused myself. I had to get back to the office and I wasn't about to get into a religious debate with her. And actually, the whole conversation takes us back to one of the oldest theological debates: The Question of Evil.

In otherwords, if God is all good and all powerful, than why do bad things happen to good people?

This question especially haunted me in 2001 after my good college friend Sara was randomly murdered in her home, only days after discovering that she was pregnant. Her husband, one of my best friends, came home from work to discover her body. I had been the best man at their wedding. I just learned today that the man who murdered her just died in jail prior to his trial for the crime.

That same year another close friend was killed by a drunk driver. She died in her husband's arms. They had only been married two years.

And then there was the 9/11 attacks. Again the question was asked, what did we do to deserve this? What did any of these people do to deserve this death and horror?

To begin with, we must grapple with the question of merit--do some people deserve to die and some people deserve to live? I suppose so, but who makes that determination? God does, on Judgment Day, I suppose. But make no mistake--the second most critical theological tenet of our faith is that ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD--therefore all of us deserve punishment and damnation. BUT--the first most critical tenet is that SALVATION FROM OUR SIN COMES FROM THE GRACE OF CHRIST, NOT OUR WORKS--therefore if any of us get into heaven, it is by grace and mercy, not merit.

But then what about punishment and reward in this life? Well, I believe faith in God has plenty of reward and benefit in this life. What I can say with certainty is that Faith is not a magic spell that will stop all bullets, block all disease, and redirect all evil and pain away from me and towards less righteous people.

So, is God powerless? No, I believe God performs many miracles, but he also sees things far better than we ever can. Why does he not stop the planes from smashing into skyscrapers or redirect hurricanes from populated areas, or open up the earth to swallow up ethic cleansers before they reach their victims?

I have no idea. I know that often the consequences of sin often fall on people other than the sinners. But I have also seen God's hand work miracles out of tragedies. I don't know what it will be in this case, but I see the best chance in six years of our country uniting beyond the labels of red and blue. I see us grappling with the issues of race and class like we never have before, though we have needed to for so long.

I do not believe that God willed this disaster upon New Orleans or any of us. But if there is good that may come from it, it is God that will bring about that miracle.

2. History is making all of the arguments...

2005-08-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

The most damning aspect of the reasoning for the War in Iraq, as originally explained to the American people, was that it was contingent on things happening in the future. At the time the public discussion happened, I was trying to ask anyone I could--what happens if there are no WMDs? What happens if the Iraqis don't welcome US troops with flowers? What if there are no terrorists being harbored in Iraq like there were in Afghanistan? What if there is no connection to 9/11?

Of course, some people still dog on those war protesters way back then, but never address the fact that these questions should have been asked and answered sufficiently before we went to war. I haven't written much in public about the War in Iraq because frankly, history has made--indeed is making--all of the arguments for those who opposed invading. No WMDs, no flowers, no 9/11 connection, and who knows when we're getting out.

"What! Why that's treasonous crazy talk!"--say the conservative talk-show hosts. But rather than discuss the issues that should have been discussed all along--should we have gone to war under the circumstances under which we did go to war, the subject gets changed--"So, you trust a mass-murderer like Saddam Hussien to disarm and stop gassing millions of Kurds?" "So, you think the Iraqis were better off with Saddam than now?" Or my favorite from a letter to the editor in the KC Star this weekend... "So, why did you support a "liar" like Clinton who said that Saddam was dangerous and had WMDs and why won't you support a President now that's willing to do something about it." Or, instead of answering Cindy Sheehan's legitimate questions, the conservative media will attack her because some of her supporters include Michael Moore, etc.

It's litterally like banging one's head against a wall. You ask one question, such as "So, now that all the reasons the Administration initially gave to invade have proven to be false, do you still think we were right to go to war in Iraq?" and you get responses that don't match the question, such as "So, you think we should just cut and run and abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists then! Typical liberal! Why don't you just come out and admit you hate America!" *Sigh* Anyway, I suppose that's placing words in some conservatives' mouths... except I've actually heard those come out of conservatives' mouths. It's like believing that this President is never, ever, EVER wrong about anything is somehow a holy dogma. I mean, I may have supported Clinton, but I sure didn't support everything he did. I wrote plenty of letters and e-mails to him opposing this policy or that.

I guess my suggestion is this: As we begin to think about Iran and North Korea and about how to win the War on Terror, if such a thing is winnable, or a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, if such a thing is winnable--perhaps we would all serve our country better if we thought critically about everything our elected officials say and propose, rather than just blindly following and believing them no matter what the evidence shows or what the costs may be. We should no longer follow the party line--Democratic or Republican--without asking difficult questions whose answers we may not be comfortable with. Doesn't Congress owe that to its constituents? Don't each of us owe that to our country?

1. Why speak out?

2005-07-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

On September 11, 2001, as the political cliche goes, everything changed. Indeed, I remember talking with my brother in Korea by phone that morning, and the two of us simultaneously watching one the second plane hit even though we were half a world apart. After we hung up, I continued watching the coverage in shock. I began to feel sick and I wanted to cry.

Obviously, I was horrified by the destruction and the senseless loss of life. But I was almost equally sickened by what I knew would soon happen to my country. Americans, for all our redeeming qualities, do not have a history of staying enlightened and committed to principles of democracy when we are threatened and attacked. Point to the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Remember McCarthyism and Red Scares and teaching school children about the Evil Empire during the Cold War. Similar Western democracies had also been led astray during times of fear. The arson-burning of the German parliament building became a flashpoint that opened the door for the public of that nation to accept and look the other way as the persecution of Jews began even before World War II.

I am glad that for the next several weeks, our country came together in unprecidented unity. It was an emotional time of healing. But then, as differences in opinion emerged--which is inevitable in a free democracy--there soon became a distinct message that our opinions should remain unified and uncritical of our government and its actions. As time went on, dissenting opinions were not just labeled as incorrect or unwise or even wrong. People who disagreed with the ruling party were called unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizers, and even treasonous. Those who are criticizing our administration, it was argued, were giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. We should not ask what America or anybody has done that led to the 9/11 attacks, we were told. The terrorists hate our freedom. If you think America is so bad, why don't you just leave?

Of course, several years before, I had struggled to write an essay for 4-H, (an extracurricular civic education club for children, especially in rural areas) on what it means to be an American. I struggled with the paradox of our national motto: E Plurbus Unam: From Many, One. We have many races, cultures, religions and point of views that have come together to make us one nation. So, what defines us as Americans? Speaking English? Adhering to one culture and one way of doing things? Worshiping all in the same way? Surely, being American was nothing so subjective and trite. Americanism had to be something more universal and more pure. An American, I wrote, was someone who is committed to the democratic principles laid forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In truth, these are nearly the only cultural, political, social, economic and religious instruments which all Americans agree upon as being good and worthy of dying for. A few years later, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visited my law school and spoke, and essentially said the same thing.

What makes America great? Open and free discussion of our government and its actions and policies, the freedom to worship as you wish and as much or as little as you wish, and the ability to disagree and resolve differences without having to resort to violence--these are things which seem universally and eternally American to me. Now, in the wake of 9/11, what seemed so universally and eternally American to me was called giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.

Respectfully, I must disagree. The most patriotic thing I can do for my country is to be American in its best and purest sense, rather than to change what I say and do, and the freedom with which I can say and do it simply because some evil people did some evil things to my country. If we believe that America stands for freedom, but indefinitely curtail such freedoms for an indefinite war that claims to defend it, than have we not then let terrorists change our way of life? If we start sliding into a police state with omnipresent surveilance and ever-receeding civil liberties, then what exactly is it that our sons and daughter are spilling their blood for?

Shortly after the framers of our Constitution emerged from their 18th century conclave of democratic debate and compromise, a woman is said to have asked the aging Benjamin Franklin what kind of government the delegates had given us, Franklin replied, "A Republic, Ma'am, if you can keep it."

The greatest threat to America is not from any terrorist or foreign invader. Let the evildoers destroy what ever buildings it wants and kill the people it can--America as the last best hope of humanity will survive, because it is not a building or any group of people. America is an idea more precious than all the gold in Ft. Knox or all the value of the stocks on Wall Street. The greatest threat to America is from its own people when they forget that idea and relinquish, bit by bit, our ability to be Americans. If the idea of America is to survive the War on Terror, it must bravely be defended within the hearts and minds of Americans here at home.

So I started my own blog.