I am mildly encouraged by recent public announcements coming from Mexico’s President. He seems interested in cooperating to stem the tide of migrants crossing our southern border. However, public announcements have been made before, even limited cooperation has occurred in the past. The sad fact though is that it never lasts once the pure crisis is over. We need to change that paradigm this time.

It is clear to any casual observer that the United States has lost control of its southern border. Thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring into this country in numbers the federal government is currently unable to handle. The majority are asking for asylum, though most don’t appear to be in danger. They are likely really looking for economic opportunity and using asylum as a means. We have to do something to reestablish law and order, enforce national security, and provide humane treatment for those who really do need asylum protection.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to which the US is a signatory, are the international agreements that govern treatment of refugees (asylum seekers). The core principle is that such people should not be forced to returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. A country to which they migrate is required to provide housing, medical care, education, jobs, and treatment with the same respect that all other foreign nationals are treated.

A somewhat controversial element of the these agreements specifies that refugees seeking asylum must not be rejected and deported simply for entering the country illegally. In my reading of these international agreements, there is no requirement to allow migrants to enter our country illegally, only that if they do, we have to consider their asylum requests in good faith.

Overwhelming illegal entry is where the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finds itself on the southern border today – between a rock and hard place, so to speak. Their resources are stretched beyond a capacity to deal effectively with the demand. That makes the current situation untenable. It is disrupting normal American life, and creating political division among states, cities, and the electorate. And it is leading to inhumane conditions for migrants along the border as well as in major American cities.

We are unable to investigate and assess the legitimacy of claims for asylum at the rate they are coming. For lack of enough infrastructure, but to honor our treaty obligations, we are simply releasing many into the interior with instructions to wait for an asylum hearing that often may be years in the future. Worse, we are not able to conduct a rigorous enough screening to pick up disease, criminality, or other dangers to American citizens before they are released.

It is time to face reality. We must do what it takes to gain control of our borders. But we must process asylum seekers who do cross in a timely manor. And we must treat those immigrants we allow to stay in our country humanely. That requires making hard political and humanitarian choices we’d rather not face. Following are key things we must do if we actually care about securing the border any time soon:

• Regardless of, or maybe because of, our endorsement of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, we must stop immigrants from crossing our border illegally; that way we can manage the total number of migrants we allow into the United States in a rational way. No country can be expected to compromise the internal safety and security of its own citizens by allowing uncontrolled illegal migration.

• We must publicly declare to the international community that we are about to stop migrants from entering the United States illegally across our borders; and that anyone caught trying to enter illegally will be immediately refused and ineligible for entry consideration in the future.That public position, if broadly disseminated, may itself partially dampen some of the flow of migrants.

• In conjunction with that public announcement of intentions, the Biden Administration must quickly gain physical control of the southern border. That means using all means available, including substantially increased and mobilized border control personnel (US Border Patrol, federalized national guard, and/or other appropriate human resources), drones and other electronic surveillance, physical barriers, and military and diplomatic cooperation with Mexico, to stop illegal entry.

• Persons apprehended trying to enter the US illegally must not be considered for entry regardless of asylum claims. Success in this effort will be recognized when all potential migrants, both asylum seekers and others, are forced to apply through the normal immigration process in countries of origin or at official US ports of entry.

• The Administration must also quickly assess and report to Congress the federal government’s ongoing daily capacity to process and assimilate asylum seekers in an efficient, timely, and humane manner. Within that defined capacity, asylum seekers must be graded and prioritized for entry based on the severity of the danger they face in their home country as well as USCIS’s capacity in accordance with international asylum standards. All migrants without a legitimate asylum case must be turned away, or if they chose, placed in the cue for normal immigration consideration.

• If we don’t have the processing and assimilation capacity to handle all migrants with legitimate asylum claims, we may have to accept only those most at risk, with some other intermediate treatment for those in less danger. The Administration should ask Congress for funds to expand our capacity if we cannot handle all legitimate asylum seekers. Regardless, no migrants should be released into the US because of capacity limits or without proper vetting and ongoing federal supervision before an asylum hearing.

• Because stopping migrants from illegally entering the US at our southern border will most affect Mexico, and because Mexico is also in the best position to assist in that endeavor, we must be prepared to partner with and support Mexican efforts. That likely means significant economic assistance, as well as close coordination and cooperation with Mexican military and law enforcement operations.

• The most effective approach to choking off illegal immigration is probably to stop US bound migrants at the southern Mexican border. I don’t know what assistance Mexico may need in that regard, but we must be prepared to provide all reasonable support. We should expect Mexico to cooperate; after all it’s in their own self-interest. But in the end if they do not, we simply must move to stop migrants from illegally crossing our shared border to enter the US.

• The Biden Administration is our first line of defense in gaining control of our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants. I believe the President has the authority to do everything I am suggesting under his responsibility to protect national security. It would take political courage, but could all be done very quickly. It would also take strong hands-on leadership from the President himself. 

• Initially the actions I have outlined will be a brute force effort, which is unsustainable in the long term. At the same time he takes these actions, the President must also challenge Congress to immediately follow through with the necessary investment in infrastructure, systems, technology, personnel, and logistics to deploy an efficient sustainable border security network.

Ultimately over the medium and long term it is Congress’s job to draft, debate, and pass legislation that reforms immigration policy, provides robust border security, and addresses immigrants already here illegally; a key quality measure of that legislation will be judged by whether it deals humanely and with empathy toward law abiding immigrants who have significant long term roots in the US even though they came here illegally. First among that group deserving empathetic treatment must be the “dreamers” (residents brought here as children).

The focus of any comprehensive federal immigration legislation must be on what is in the best long term interests of the United States. It should include recognizing the role immigrants will play in filling the need for sustaining and continued expansion of our labor force. The legislation should take in to account the economic, professional, and cultural value immigrants have brought and will continue to bring to our democracy. It must also be inclusively balanced in immigration quotas across the international community based on relative populations of the many nations, and not biased in favor of one population over another.

I know the more progressive Democrats will say what I am suggesting is far too draconian, naive, hateful, unworkable, and inhumane. They will say I’m anti-immigrant, a white supremacist, or worst, a Republican. Let them! My pro-immigrant credentials are well documented. Of course Republicans will say I am coddling and proposing citizenship for those “illegal alien criminals” who are already living among us, and am trying to further dilute the real American electorate by giving those illegals the vote. Both positions are disingenuous.

Truth is, I live in the real world where if one wants to solve a problem, hard decisions have to be made and tough actions taken. What I suggest is bold, but simple, rational, and effective if we really want to control our border and bring sanity to the immigration process.

I know it will be hard work that will produce less than perfect results. And I know it cannot happen overnight. But a committed President can have the border fully under control in 60-90 days. Long term border security will take longer and must engage Congress in a way they have been unwilling to consider in the past. Simply demonstrating that we can control the border, but what it takes using brute force tactics, may convince them to implement a more strategic, efficient, and rational approach.

It is time for American politicians, judiciary, and the electorate to step up and support democratic governance. After review of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Colorado found former president Donald Trump guilty in the January 6th insurrection, and therefore determined he is not eligible to run in the Colorado primary election. Their ruling was in accordance with the terms of the 14th Amendment, which specifies that engagement in insurrection disqualifies an individual from holding public office. 

Trump lawyers say the 14th Amendment does not apply to a sitting president. Paraphrasing their argument, they say the Amendment applies to Senators, Representatives, and Officers of the United States. They say a president holds none of those positions, including that of an Officer of the United States Government. If it had been the intent of the Congress that the Amendment should apply to the president, they say, the language would have specified that.

So let’s consider the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. The government had just put down an insurrection. Congress drafted and voted for the Amendment; the states ratified it. With it Congress and the states were declaring that those who led, participated in, or supported an insurrection could not be trusted in our democratic government and must not be allowed to hold public office.

I am quite familiar with the detailed language in the 14th Amendment as well as the contemporary political and electoral context of the time in which it was passed. Reading the amendment as excluding the president from its scope is patently absurd. That would mean a president could promote, even lead, an insurrection, and if not ultimately successful the first time, may run for the presidency again, hold the office if elected, and then lead another insurrection to achieve his/her personal objectives. Does any rational person think that Congress would have intended that insurrectionists could not hold any federal or state political office EXCEPT President of the United States?

At this point in time, the only serious question anyone should be asking is whether former President Trump is guilty of insurrection as the Colorado Supreme Court has found. If the answer to that is “YES”, then Donald J. Trump must NOT be allowed to appear on the ballot in any state for any federal or state public office.

My recent post on the Israel/Hamas conflict brought a fair amount of comment from several critics. Apparently my claim that only a two state solution could lead to long term Middle-East peace was a bridge too far for several folks.

One said what Israel was doing in Gaza was exactly right and I was too naive to recognize it. Another said that I was clearly anti-Israel, or worst, pro-Hamas and was endorsing its goal of destroying Israel. One said the Palestinians had the chance for their own state 75 years ago and refused; now there could never be peace as long as they occupied part of the Jewish Homeland. That individual did not suggest where Palestinians should go. Another misquoted me as saying Hamas was right on October 7th. Not a single comment expressed concern for the plight of the Palestinian People.

I am certainly familiar with the history of the creation of Israel, the rejection of the UN two state solution by the Palestinians at that time, and the impact this ongoing conflict has had on all Middle-Eastern people. I am not here to defend the Palestinians rejecting the UN “partition” plan. I would note however that the plan was quite biased in favor of the Jews. And I suspect that presented with a similarly unbalanced choice as the Palestinians were offered, virtually all Americans would reject it as well.

I spent more time on the ground pursuing investment and strategic partnership opportunities in Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt than I care to relive. Regardless, that experience did give me some sense of the hopes, dreams, and politics of the various peoples in the region. Unlike the Israeli and American extremists like to claim, virtually non of them (except Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian backed terror groups) have the destruction of Israel as their goal.

As for me saying Hamas was right on Oct. 7th: if the individual claiming that had read my literature more carefully, if he read it at all, he would have seen that I was quite critical of Hamas’s October 7 attack. I specifically wrote that what they did was “pure inhuman evil and is way beyond what any civilized people would do to others, even in war”.

But regardless of what Hamas did, withholding food, water, fuel, and medical supplies from 2 plus million mostly innocent people to punish a few hundred terrorists with indiscriminate bombing is itself criminal. It is certainly not the behavior of a civilized democratic government. It is also guaranteed to fail because it creates a near infinite new supply of terrorists. A special forces approach to gain intelligence, root out the terrorist leaders, and find the hostages would likely produce substantially better results. I recognize Israel will say that would expose their solders to increased danger. That is probably true if Israel’s timetable is a few weeks rather than months. That type of warfare takes time, patience, and intelligence. It certainly can’t be done quickly and it does lack the pizazz of leveling entire city blocks, as they are doing now.

The “jury is still out” on how history is ultimately going to assess this current Israel/Hamas conflict. I suspect if/when the mass killing stops this time, Israel’s star will be seriously tarnished in the eyes of the international community. I am just thankful that the Biden Administration is finally stepping up to try to moderate Israel’s brutal military behavior. The Administration’s willingness to openly reference the creation of a Palestinian State as the only long term solution is clearly a positive move as well.