Author Archives: Nicole Sanders

As trial date after trial date is set, Trump’s legal problems are becoming clearer and more serious by the day.  Dare we hope that he will be so busy being in court that he will not have time to campaign? that people will tire of his constant proclamations of victimhood and seek out an alternative?   Now, despite all his legal trouble, not only does Trump command the hearts and minds of what is being termed the “Republican base” but his influence extends to every other candidate with any hope of running against him.  It makes us ask questions, or at least it should.  How did America come to be a country potentially willing to elect someone with this much legal baggage without asking questions?  How did one man get such a commanding grip on our social institutions and come so close to destroying them?  Do we dare think about how a second term of Donald Trump could remake the nation?

The Democrats aren’t helping much.  They have put forward a candidate with weak poll numbers handicapped by age. He is not campaigning hard enough and in the right ways.  His running mate, who could be a real asset with certain very important voting blocks, is not visible enough.  And he is running on not being Donald Trump, which is in and of itself a threat to democracy.

But for all my disappointment with and criticism of Joe Biden, at least it can be said that he isn’t going to become a convicted felon anytime soon.  This actually means a lot.  It shouldn’t.  It should be a given that the nominee for a political party isn’t a gangster.  That is what Joe Biden has come to represent–a time in the life of America when there were certain things that could be taken for granted.  Biden is asking us to step back in time, not just before Trump, but really before the Republican party started to come undone a generation ago.  There is nothing wrong with that.  The Democrats need to position themselves as the party that is doing everything in its power to return the country to sanity.  There are a lot of voters out there desperate to be able to trust that the person they are voting for has some legal integrity, that the “old” rules still apply (I would just rather see Biden do this by endorsing and campaigning for someone younger rather than running himself).  

In reality, the question “How did we get here?” is more complex than it first appears to be.   Trump was a long time coming.  The roots of the problem go back to the late 80’s with people like Rush Limbaugh.  It has taken a long time for things to get this bad.  It may take a long time for things to get better.  But better won’t begin until somehow someone finds a way to make it clear that there are voters out there for whom respect for the rule of law still matters.

A Montana judge handed down what promises to be a life-altering ruling–telling the state’s youth that they have a right to a future in which there is a livable environment.  The court found their state failed to protect the environment they rely on now and will need in the future.  It is a beginning, a glimmer of hope in an increasingly dark situation, and absolutely one potential answer to the complex problem of holding those disproportionately responsible for climate change accountable.   

It is just common sense that those refusing to act now are harming the future of the nation’s young people.  But at this point, it should be clear to everyone involved in fighting climate change that waiting around for either governments or, especially, the private sector, to do anything on their own won’t produce any kind of positive result.   Especially here in the United States, there are too many people who either outright deny the science of climate change or–being in a worse state of denial–think we can afford to do nothing about it.  This case provides a potential roadmap for change in a society still unwilling to consider the future of its own citizens.  And most importantly, it represents the ability of the young to stand up and be counted, because it is they that will ultimately have to solve the problem of climate change.  

The problem with climate change has long been that it is hard to pin down.  Unlike other forms of pollution it is hard to say this particular plant emitted this particular substance at this particular time in this particular way and now needs to be held responsible–stop polluting and clean up.  This model will never work for holding emitters responsible for climate change.  Creative ways of holding people responsible must be explored if any headway in getting emissions down is going to be made.   One of the most straightforward, and potentially most effective, ways, is to make anyone who emits responsible for a part of the results of all emissions.  This may be a very hard legal road to go down.  However, the Montana case shows us a way forward for challenging the inevitable claim on the part of polluters that they personally cannot be held responsible for such an overarching problem–despite the reality of their complicity in the greatest existential threat of this generation and perhaps many generations to come.  

Of course, the Montana case is just one small step in the right direction, and it is hard to know what a Supreme Court stocked with partisans appointed by a president with no respect for the rule of law will in the end say.  Still, it represents hope that those responsible can be held responsible before it’s too late.  This ruling has the potential to be a catalyst for the idea that all of us have a role to play, and have a responsibility to protect the future not only in Montana but in the world. 

The “Heartbeat bill” is an exercise in hypocrisy on the part of the Republican party that shows both how unconcerned with human life, and out of touch with their constituents, they are.  I think I speak for the vast majority of Iowans when I say this bill manifests extremism.  Contrary to what state legislators seem to believe, not everyone who opposes this ban is a “woke” radical who believes in all abortions on demand all the way through the ninth month.  

Abortion is morally wrong.  I believe that and I believe that strongly.   Which is why I would never get one.  But I don’t have the right to make what I consider to be good moral choices for other people.  Living in a democracy means living with people who do and think things I consider wrong.  Do I think adultery is wrong?  Yes.  It is one of the ten commandments.  Do I want to live in a society that slaps handcuffs on every husband who is unfaithful to his wife?  No!  Sometimes there are things that are wrong that the government just can’t legislate–they are too personal, too intimate, and more than anything, they are things that cannot be rectified by laws.  That doesn’t mean we don’t address them, it means we acknowledge that taking away people’s rights isn’t the answer.  Abortion is one of those times when someone has the right to do something even when I think it’s very wrong.  

Making abortion illegal will not make the problem go away.  Worldwide there is no correlation between abortion bans and fewer abortions.  In fact, countries like Mexico have legal abortion and some of the lowest abortion rates in the world.  Countries like the Dominican Republic have draconian laws but higher rates of unintended pregnancies that end in abortion because so many illegal abortions occur.  Over the long term, banning abortions is an exercise in futility.   All that comes from making abortion illegal is unsafe abortions and women with intended pregnancies experiencing life threatening complications not getting the care they need.  “Heartbeat bills” may sound righteous and may play well  politically, but they solve no real problem in the real world.  This “Heartbeat bill” is nothing but a distraction designed to take attention away from what this legislature isn’t doing to support women and children.

The way to stop abortion is not to demonize the women who seek them or the doctors who fear that if they fail to provide that care, their society will begin to slip backward into a time when unsafe abortion was a common cause of maternal death.  Now, in America, it is taken for granted that women desperate to end a pregnancy do not end up dead.  I don’t want to see this state, or any other part of the nation, return to those days.

We need common sense abortion laws that find a middle path through polarization.  Find a term limit that gives women enough time to make a real decision and still addresses the state’s interest in the unborn.  Viability was a standard for 50 years.  If you ask me, that worked.  Fetal pain would be another potential common sense gestational restriction.  At 24 weeks is a fetus a living thing that should have legal protection.   A case can be made for having the gestational limit sooner than that.  The vast majority of abortions are already happening in the first 13 weeks.  The world over most abortions happen within the first 10 weeks.  But 6 weeks is disingenuous.  The vast majority of women don’t know they are pregnant, much less have they had time to come to a decision.  And for the record the fetus doesn’t have a heart.

We’re talking about something the size of a pea.  Yes, it is still a life, but you have to balance that life with the real world impacts on the life of a mother, not to mention what an unintended pregnancy can mean for the people who surround the mother–like the children she already has and the father of the baby.  Lost in the abortion battle is what an unintended pregnancy can really do to a woman’s life.  We need to strike a balance.  It is a moment to find common ground.

And, then, we can begin the real work of preventing abortions–the things that we know do work to stop abortions.  Instead of shaming women and their doctors, address the reasons women seek abortions.  Most women don’t see abortion as their first option.  Often it is a last resort.  They seek abortion only when other things have failed.  Helping women with unintended pregnancies may not have immediate political benefits.  Nor is it sexy.  Nor is it easy.  But it will work.

For starters, ensure every woman has access to quality health care insurance from conception through the first year of life for her and her baby.  This will take not only lengthening Medicaid’s maternal health benefit (a small step forward) but strengthening it, expanding eligibility, and raising reimbursement rates and lowering red tape to make sure women can find a provider willing to work with Medicaid.  Transportation systems for low-income people would have to be improved, particularly in small towns with little or no mass transit, so pregnant women would be able to access health care.  In many areas of the state we don’t have enough OBGYN’s.  With fewer abortions being performed, this problem will worsen.  The state will need to actively recruit more OBGYN’s.  That means facing the fact that doctors won’t want to work in a state where they can’t be sure they will be able to care for their patients.  Paid leave during pregnancy for working women who have to be addressed.  Find ways to create no questions asked prenatal care, to ensure no woman is slipping through the cracks.  Parenting and prenatal health classes will be necessary, especially for younger mothers, to give them confidence and support in dealing with pregnancy.  The state could make available prenatal medications and invest in education efforts such as the benefits of breastfeeding for would-be mothers.  Alternative high schools designed to help young mothers are often underfunded and don’t present a path toward college.  Stigma is a big issue here, as well.  Making adoption easier is a good way to start, but it is not a panacea, and won’t work for a lot of mothers.  It goes without saying that we need to strengthen workplace protections and maternity leave for new mothers.  The state would have to act to find ways to lower the incidence of high risk pregnancy.  That is an entire initiative in and of itself.  We will have to do something about access to labor and delivery services in rural areas.  Women Infants and Children would have to be expanded to ensure working women qualify and benefit money could be used for a wide variety of non-food items.  The state will have to ensure that low-income mothers have access to the basic needs of having a baby–things like clothing and strollers, and that they are provided these things through the state, not solely through charity.  Efforts to prevent and address workplace discrimination against pregnant women would have to be stepped up, particularly for women in jobs where they are sexually objectified or exploited.  Work requirements would have to be waived permanently for pregnant women.  If the governor is serious about preventing abortion she could spearhead an initiative to heavily invest in solving the state’s child care crisis, ensuring that all families have access to quality child care no questions asked, as they do in other developed nations.  The state could create a tax credit for pregnant women regardless of income.  Job programs specifically designed to meet the needs of pregnant women entering the workplace would go a long way, as women with unintended pregnancies who are unemployed now face having to look for a job while pregnant so they can support their baby–this includes the costs associated with bringing the baby to term.  And efforts to address those specific costs would be crucial–not only are children expensive, having a child can be expensive and incredibly logistically difficult.  A TANF benefit specifically for working pregnant women could be created.  The state would have to address the way in which fathers are often delinquent in supporting their children, which would mean, for starters, increased efforts to crack down on men who don’t pay child support, so pregnant women can be sure they will get the assistance from the father they need once the baby is born.  The state would have to ensure that all working poor pregnant women have access to subsidized housing, so no mother has to choose between having a baby and sleeping on the streets.   

We know that the majority of women who seek abortions already have other children, so efforts would have to be made not solely for the pregnant woman, but for other young children she already has.  That means things like universal pre-K and expanded SNAP and free and reduced school lunch.  TANF is woefully inadequate.  

I could continue. Any one of these is a good place to begin.  There are a myriad of ways to end abortion.  This bill isn’t one of them.  Abortion is just one more symptom of a broken system that doesn’t care for and value children and women.  To truly end abortion, we will have to reform that system.  I speak as someone truly interested in ending abortion.  I think it is wrong to take the life of the unborn.  And at one time I considered myself staunchly “pro-life.”  But the so-called “pro-life” Republican radicals talk out of both sides of their mouths–railing against the evil women who are desperate and doctors who don’t want to see their patients act from that desperation, and disinvesting in the things that give women with unintended pregnancies good options.  Truly ending abortion would take a sustained public health initiative, one that values the lives of pregnant women just as much as it does the unborn.  When the governor is prepared to do this, she will be qualified to pass judgment on women seeking abortions and the doctors who perform them.    

In an era of hyperpartisan disinformation on both sides, one judge has tied the hands of federal authorities trying to keep disinformation from going viral.  I am against censorship and all for freedom of expression.  But social media companies have a responsibility to their users. And as increasingly important sources of news, they have a responsibility to society.  

There is no evidence that the government is making decisions for social media platforms.  The platforms apply their own standards.  They are making their own editorial decisions.  If a high-level government official warned a journalist for the New York Times, in good faith, that one of his or her sources might be speaking untruthfully, and what that reporter was publishing might very well be false, and that reporter took that into consideration, would that be government censorship?  No.  It would be good journalism.  Of course, no journalist should let themselves be pressured into not publishing what is true by the government.  But if a government agency (or anybody else for that matter) steps forward and in good faith warns a news outlet that their news is mis- or dis- information, that news outlet has a responsibility to investigate and act accordingly.  What conservatives are doing is demanding social media platforms act in socially irresponsible ways just as those of us who care about journalistic ethics have been trying hard to get them to do the opposite.  

This is not a conflict about the government trying to keep anyone from speaking their mind.  The constitution gives citizens the right to speak–however heinous, wrong, or otherwise mis- or dis- information.  But you don’t have the right to take the conflict on-line and demand a private company, applying a set of reasonable journalistic ethics, publish your article if that private company deems it to be untrue.  If I write a letter to the editor for my local newspaper and their editorial board thinks I’m lying or I don’t follow their rules, they don’t have to print it.  That kind of editorial decision is the newspaper’s freedom of speech.  

Even if there is bias on social media platforms, there isn’t much anybody can do about it.  Ironically, conservatives claiming bias are the ones attempting to violate people’s free speech.  If social media platforms want to be biased, they can do that; it’s their freedom of speech.  Imagine what kind of chaos we would have if people argued their first amendment rights were violated every time they perceived bias in editorial decision making.  

The alt-right does not own Facebook and Twitter.  They were not created to give them a platform for their deliberate mis- and dis-information.  Social media should be there to help people connect and learn about things going on in the world that they might not know about otherwise.   If conservative voices are angry that their speech is no longer welcome on social media platforms, they should reread content moderation policies–policies that private news corporations have a right and a responsibility to defend.

Arguments about affirmative action almost exclusively revolve around what it has done for people of color.  Lost in the debate is what affirmative action does for white people.  Growing up in a rural state I saw the flip side of ensuring diversity in higher education as I worked my way through my general education courses.  In conversations overheard and with my classmates it quickly became apparent that for many of the white kids around me from very small towns, college was the first time they had ever had to sit down next to a person of color, much less learn to collaborate with someone that did not look like them.  

Part of educating the next generation of students is ensuring that they have the mental and emotional skills to thrive in a diverse environment, because as America moves toward a majority minority country, a diverse working environment is an inevitability.  Learning together, working together, understanding and overcoming one’s own biases is a skill.  It has to be learned and it has to be taught.  In a perfect world it would be taught to everyone long before they reach higher education.  But we live in an imperfect world.  There are a lot of kids growing up in social environments that are so heavily de facto segregated that white children reach young adulthood without having had any meaningful relationships with anyone outside their own race.

Affirmative action allows minorities to have opportunities they would otherwise not have––but it also provides even more important opportunities for white students.  It ensures that people poised to be in leadership positions do not go out into the world knowing only their narrow social group.  We live in an increasingly diverse world, but many of our elite high schools remain heavily segregated.  There are a lot of white kids out there for whom their first real experience of working with someone who looks different from them will come when they leave their small, heavily segregated communities behind to seek higher education.  

Affirmative action is doing more than just leveling the playing field–affirmative action is ensuring diversity.  And, that mandate, to ensure that colleges and universities remain places where all students learn in diverse environments is a mandate that absolutely cannot be ignored.

Diversity is a two-way street.  Often it isn’t people of color who benefit the most from a diverse learning environment.  College can and must be a place where students’ horizons are broadened.   Higher education prepares individuals to be active citizens.  How can we hope to adequately prepare students to be citizens and leaders in our democracy if they have never been pushed to relate to people not of their own race?  How will we combat unconscious bias if not through diversity?  Just as Black students need teachers who look like them, white students need students who do not look like them.  Otherwise, we run the risk of having leaders in this critical generation of citizens who are unable to see past their own skin color.

When the pandemic hit, America made an unheard-of bipartisan effort to support the nation’s public schools.  Now, much of that money has been misspent. It went to structural repairs–.things like new parking lots and basketball courts–not to group tutoring sessions that are proven to increase learning and narrow achievement gaps.  But it’s not that schools have bad priorities; there are reasons COVID money was misspent, reasons that tell us a lot about what is wrong with public school funding.    

Many schools opted out of things proven to close the achievement gaps that have widened during the pandemic simply because they knew the money was a one time gift, a one-off, and that cuts probably lay ahead.  There was no motive to invest.  A program created today won’t be funded tomorrow. That is exactly what has happened.  There is now the threat that federal funding won’t keep pace with inflation.  America is once again choosing to balance its budget by jeopardizing its future.  

Every year is another year of lobbying at the state and federal level.  We subject teachers and principles to a constant fight for every dollar they need.  The result is that most schools don’t know how much funding they will have in real terms from year to year.  It all depends on state legislatures that often see-saw back and forth between those who are willing to invest in public education and those who are hostile to it.  Every new budget must be protested.

There was a time when things weren’t the way they are now.  Schools have long gotten the short end of the stick, the way that children in America often do.  But over the course of my lifetime, since I was in elementary school myself in the early 80’s, education funding has become more and more of an uphill battle–maybe even a war.  Every issue has become a battle in what has come to be a quagmire–a neverending assault on the future of America, its kids.  There is one word that doesn’t describe the approach taken–investment.  It’s what schools need to know will be there. 

I know that the pandemic era infusion of cash was well intended, and very needed.  But something is needed much more, and needed now–commitment.  Educators need to know their government will be there for them.  One infusion of cash may prove pointless, even harmful, because it makes it look like public education is being supported when it isn’t.  Public education has been facing a crisis almost as severe and just as important as the pandemic–the slow but steady erosion of a societal commitment to giving it what it needs to give America’s kids (all of them) a future. 

Now that the pandemic is over, America’s education system has the same crises it had before, only now the commitment to confront those crises is gone.  The lesson of misspent COVID funds is that supporting public schools some of the time or only for a little while doesn’t do us any good. 

Yet another mass shooting and the question arises again: Why do we never get anywhere on gun control?  Poll after poll and study after study show that the vast majority of Americans support common sense gun control and that gun control can and will work.  Yet, even the simplest and easiest things, things that everyone should be able to agree on, still go nowhere, at both the state and federal level.  Meanwhile, a powerful lobby that represents a small minority forces the rest of us to live with the deadly consequences of its radical agenda. The NRA claims legitimacy by saying it represents gun owners.  Yet, if any polling is correct, it is very clear that their positions are far removed from what the majority of gun owners believe and want. 

It isn’t just about mass shootings.  The most common death by firearm is still suicide.  Many of these deaths are also tragically preventable if the simple, common sense measure of mandating that guns be kept under lock and key is enacted.  Most gun owners feel that this is a basic responsibility of gun ownership.  The question then becomes how to deal with one group of people who have so much power that they are able to block measures that simply ask people to not behave in a way that the vast majority of us can recognize as irresponsible.

  Ultimately, the inability of America to get common sense gun laws passed is a symptom of a greater disease.  The majority of Americans no longer have control over their own government.  They have lost it to a vocal, radical minority.  There seems to be little hope of being able to take back our government anytime soon.  But over the long term, defeating the gun lobby would score a victory for all citizens tired of special interests forcing all of us to live with the consequences of gridlock.   There have been too many dead kids.  Their deaths are preventable.  The solutions are known and easy to implement.  We know they work.  We have seen them work in other countries.  For a time we saw them work in our own country. 

I, personally, have nothing against gun ownership.  If people want to own guns for sport, hunting or personal protection they should be able to do so.  Problems arise when guns become a powerful cultural symbol.  Weapons should not be symbols; that is the central problem.  The best example of this is how owning an AR-15 has become a way to make a statement about one’s political and socio-cultural identity.  Herein lies the difficulty.  When guns become a statement of identity it becomes impossible to discuss them in a rational, measured way and not descend into the culture wars.

Because of this, for all the demands to take action, action never comes.  What we need is to be able to talk about guns not as a cultural symbol for a vocal minority, but as a practical reality the majority of us can agree on.

The Republicans, allowing themselves to be manipulated by an alt-right minority, have managed to damage the reputation of the United States in the global financial sphere.  While in the meantime, millions of Americans are being held hostage by lawmakers who think the best way to balance the budget is for more American children to go hungry, and for more disabled people to be without the health care they need.  It’s insane and senseless.  The best way for America to get out of the financial hole that it has dug for itself is to invest in its future–its children.  

Let’s face facts.  There is no way to balance the budget without the very rich paying their fair share.  This doesn’t mean we have to vilify anybody, and it doesn’t mean we are punishing anybody.  It means that the very rich got to be very rich vis-a-vis infrastructure, tax incentives, and what might very well be termed corporate welfare.  All we are asking is for those at the very top acknowledge that their wealth could not have accrued had it not been for the tax dollars of those at the middle and bottom.  This nation is indeed facing a crisis.  It is time for the wealthiest to give back, do their patriotic duty, be a part of the solution.  And we are not talking about huge changes.  That will not be necessary.  At a time of crisis the wealthiest can stomach modest increases in taxes, understanding that is part of their role as citizens.

To instead literally take food from the mouths of hungry children is the worst possible course of action at this point.  This disinvestment in Ameriac’’s future will only cause this nation to dig itself in deeper.  Failure to spend the resources we have wisely is what got us here.  SNAP, child care, pre-K–we know that things like this pay for themselves many, many times over, over the long term.  They are necessities to bringing our fiscal house in order.  

If you want to talk about things we can’t afford, we can’t afford the consequences of one more hungry child living in poverty while one or both parents work full-time.  We cannot afford the financial repercussions of untreated mental illness and drug addiction.  Consider the costs of cops who do not have the support of the communities they are trying to serve.  If the Republicans would like to reduce spending in human services, they should work to reduce hyper-incarceration and address the incredible financial toll the opioid epidemic is placing on criminal justice systems in the rust belt.  If you really want to make financially sound decisions, create programs that ensure everyone who wants to go to college can–that they contribute their time and talents to the overall economy instead of ending up resorting to welfare in the first place.

Trickle down doesn’t work.  It didn’t in the 80’s it won’t a generation later.  The only way out of this debt crisis is to stop disinvesting in our future.

As tragic events in Jerusalem play out, Biden’s stance, and what he is willing to do about the situation remain unclear.  America has done little to keep the Netanyahu government from eroding Israeli democracy.  It is understandable that Biden might reach the point of just not wanting to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  A solution to this problem has evaded generations of American and world leaders.  But America has a unique relationship with Jews all over the world. There is a moral imperative.  For one, the terrible loss of life; but also it is wrong for a place with so much significance to so many to not be a place of peace.  The seat of the three Abrahamic faiths should not be a place of violence and bloodshed, but a place where all can worship. 

       There is room for condemnation on both sides.  What is needed is clearer heads and a willingness to do what is needed to end the conflict, rather than constant back and forth blame laying.  It is never permissible, under any circumstance, to target innocent civilians with rocket attacks.  However, Israel has a powerful but small minority controlling the fate of their nation and the direction of the peace process.  Of course, Ultra-Orthodox Jews have a real and very deep connection to a sacred land. However, the global community cannot automatically place their attachment to this land above that of their neighbors.  The issue at stake is how to remove from the process a group of people who are unwilling or incapable of reaching peace.  If the Ultra-Orthodox were to be forced to back down, the power of Hamas might become very much diminished, bringing a solution to a seemingly impossible conflict.

This is where the US and the world community can and should step in.  Biden faces a terrible problem, but also has a tremendous opportunity.  It is an excellent moment to turn to the Ultra-Orthodox, who are provocative and responsible for the human rights violations of Palestians, and make it clear that if they are unwilling to change the way they approach the conflict, they cannot remain part of the process.  They cannot be allowed to be part of an administration.  And they cannot be allowed to gain political advantage by empowering people with religious beliefs so radical they cannot accept a world where everyone has equal rights.

         For instance, the legal arguments being used to evict Palestinians from their homes are not only discriminatory, they are senseless, and go against everything Torah stands for.  There is an imperative in Judaism for respecting the right of people to remain in their homes.  Jews can maintain a connection to the land that does not disregard the shared humanity of their Palestinian neighbors. 

There is no place in any faith for simply disregarding the faith of another.  There is no just cause to cater to one small minority who cannot put peace above a connection to a land sacred to many.

When I was a kid, I was taught that one of the principles of good governance is that if you want to complain about a problem, you had better have a solution in mind to present about how to fix it.  Apparently, Ron DeSantis never learned this principle.  We all know the immigration system is broken.  I, too, am still very disappointed at the Biden administration’s handling of the crisis overall, despite his finally taking steps in the right direction.  Yes, obviously, immigration needs to be fixed.  No, denying people health care is not an answer.  Heartlessness toward people who have come to America seeking a better way of life does nothing but make circumstances worse.  The problem is not the undocumented people living in this country trying to eke out a living while being exploited.  Nor does the problem lie with people who extend a helping hand and offer care and compassion.  The immigration system itself is responsible, not the people caught up in it.

We have made it next to impossible for people to come here legally.  Over the years the process has become more and more of a bureaucratic nightmare–the time that it takes to have a hearing, the amount of paperwork and documentation, the arbitrary standards–the overall unwillingness to give asylum to people who need it. 

Meanwhile, we need immigrants.  Many businesses are opposed to DeSantis’ crackdown because they are reliant on labor from undocumented workers.  DeSantis’ crackdown threatens industries in his state from agriculture to tourism.  It makes sense to allow an essential labor force to get permission to work legally.  Do something to make it easier for the people who need to be here to come here; and for those who are essential who are here to stay here.  Don’t spurn the people our national economy needs.  DeSantis and his allies imagine that the country is being overrun by immigrants.  If it is, it is being overrun by essential workers.    

The border is a mess.  More must be done.  But at the end of the day, the issues are logistical, not fundamental.  America does have room for immigrants.  It is a matter of finding a way to integrate them into our society; of having a fair, equitable system that will make  common sense decisions about who should or should not stay.  Unfortunately, that system doesn’t exist.  This, not an inherent threat from those who come here seeking a better life, is where the problem lies.

Ultimately, America can’t say there is solely an economic imperative.  There is a moral imperative.  Consider what people are going through to get here.  Also consider what they go through once they get here.  Acknowledge how desperate someone would have to be in order to make that journey.  It is so disheartening to see someone gain traction in the Republican primary by simultaneously waving the flag and withdrawing into nativism.  DeSantis forgets that America is a nation built by immigrants.  DeSantis has lost touch with American values.