A Migration Story - Season's Greetings from the Unitarian Universalist Church

MS St. Louis

Citations from the Book of Concord have been taken from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord.

 

It’s that time of year again - time for the Christmas visit to Evansville, IN. It’s nice to get away from home and work for a while, and catch up with out-of-town family and friends. Of course it also means that I get to indulge in one of my other, more recent Christmas traditions; seeing what sort of nonsense the Unitarian Universalist Church is up to. Their church sign is usually good for a laugh, and some fodder for an article or two. This year has been no exception (though I don’t think anything will beat “Fire Communion” from 2013). 

 

Driving past the small white cinderblock building on Morgan Avenue, I saw that their sign advertised “A Migration Story.” I was immediately turned off, as this title conjured images of the whole, “Jesus was an unwelcome immigrant too!” chestnut, so often roasted by liberals when discussing the topic of illegal immigration. A little internet searching showed this Sunday’s service would indeed focus on immigration, but the message would be one that had been delivered on Thanksgiving at UU Rockford, IL by Rev. Dr. Matthew Johnson. This piqued my curiosity so I went looking for the text. Unfortunately for me I was unable to locate the printed text, but the people at UU Rockford did publish a podcast to iTunes, which I downloaded and listened to.

 

I won’t do a point-by-point critique of the Homily. In summary, the Rev. Dr. Johnson’s message was that, in the wake of terror and fear, some people seek to close the doors of immigration altogether. How dare you! God loves the stranger, and you were a stranger once to.

 

“If we want to be fair about it, that it is only those folks whose migration stories predate written history who were themselves overrun by the Europeans some 500 years ago who I think get a vote on which migrants we take in now,” he said (Johnson, 2015).

 

As I listened to the Rev. Dr. Johnson spout on and on about Americans should be completely open to accepting refugees and illegal aliens because of the 500 years of white European oppression of brown people I was struck by two things, one concerning the left-hand, the other concerning the right-hand kingdom.

 

First, the left-hand kingdom issue: The bulk of the approximately 20 minute homily focused on the telling of Rev. Dr. Johnson’s own migration story, and the tragic tale of the St. Louis. For those who don’t know, the St. Louis was a ship filled with asylum-seeking Jews which departed from Germany in 1939 bound for Cuba. The ship was turned away. They attempted to gain permission to land in America. The Nazi government, attempting to “help” the United States, warned that the people on board the St. Louis were Communists, criminals, and all manner of subversives. They were again rebuffed. The ship eventually made its way back to Europe. The Jews of the St. Louis found asylum in Great Britain and other countries on the continent. Half of them, however, would not survive the coming Second World War (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2015).

 

Rev. Dr. Johnson explained how his family had come from Germany to America on that very same ship after the Great War. His people had been allowed to come into the country and live; these other poor wretches had been callously turned away and most of them had perished.

 

To those people who would turn away refugees Rev. Dr. Johnson explained that he’d like to sit down at the kitchen table with them and, “I’ll read it [the story of the St. Louis] again, and I’ll read it again, until their heart is opened and their conscience awakes” (Johnson, 2015).

 

There is something to be learned from the story of the MS St. Louis and we should apply that knowledge to our situation today.

 

The sad tale of the St. Louis is not, however analogous to the refugee situation which Europe and America is facing today with those coming out of Syria and Iraq. Whether we wanted to admit it to ourselves or not, sending the Jews on the St. Louis back to Germany was a death sentence. They had no safe place in Europe to which they could flee, at least for very long. We knew that the Nazis wanted to purge the Jews from their midst; Hitler had written of his intentions, and his hatred for the Jews in Mein Kampf over a decade previous.

 

There was no real danger that these Jews were a threat to the United States. There were no Jewish Nazis, and the Nazi propaganda regarding who the passengers aboard the St. Louis were was, most likely, designed to play on the anti-semitic feelings of those in power at the time. The reports from Germany that those Jews seeking asylum were Communists and subversives gave the excuse needed in order to turn the ship away.

 

Today, the tens of thousands of Muslims fleeing war-torn Syria and Iraq seeking refuge in Europe and America have a different story. They are fleeing the horrors of war, but they do not face genocide. Unlike the Jews of the St. Louis, they do have other Muslim countries to go to where they would not be forced to live under Islamic State.

 

Unlike the Jews of the St. Louis, the fear that terrorists could be hidden among the asylum-seekers is legitimate. While there were no Jewish Nazis, there are most certainly Arab Muslim terrorists. So, while it may take some time to check out the backgrounds of Syrian and Iraqi Muslims seeking entry to the United States, they have other safe places to wait in the interim.

 

The real analogy to the Jews aboard the St. Louis would be to the Syrian and Iraqi Christians, the people whom our government has largely been ignoring (Shea, 2015). These people have been targeted by the Islamic State for death. They face persecution and genocide. There is no safe haven for these Christians in the Middle East. Despite their desperate situation the U.S. has refused to allow the Syrian and Iraqi Christians entry in favor of Muslim refugees, so as not to appear Islamophobic. And, like their Jewish refugee counterparts from 70 years ago, there are no Christian members of the Islamic State. It would be much simpler to investigate the backgrounds of these people than it is proving to do with the Muslim refugees, and their situation is far more urgent.

 

Instead, for political reasons, we choose the latter over the former.

 

We should absolutely learn the lesson of the “Voyage of the Damned” - but we are repeating this sad episode all over again, this time with Arab Christians paying the price.

 

God cares for men spiritually through the church; He cares for them temporally through family and government, all of which have been established by him. Part of the job of the government (what we Lutherans refer to as the “left-hand” kingdom) is to protect its citizens and administer justice.

 

“Civil rulers,” it is explained in the Augsburg Confession, “do not defend minds, but bodies and bodily things against obvious injuries. They restrain people with the sword and physical punishment in order to preserve civil justice and peace” (AC XXVIII 11).

 

It isn’t wrong for the government to protect its citizens by being careful when admitting refugees, immigrants, and asylum-seekers into the country. To the contrary, a ruler thus engaged is serving his citizens faithfully according to his vocation.

 

This brings me to the right-hand kingdom issue. During the course of this homily “god” was mentioned only a handful of times. Jesus was totally absent. Holy Scripture was not read at all. What a curious way for a “church” to celebrate the First Sunday of Christmas. Of course, I am well aware that the Unitarian Universalist Church is not Christian, and it does not surprise me. This is what they have to say of themselves:

 

“In Unitarian Universalism, you can bring your whole self: your full identity, your questioning mind, your expansive heart. Together, we create a force more powerful than one person or one belief system. As Unitarian Universalists, we do not have to check our personal background and beliefs at the door: we join together on a journey that honors everywhere we’ve been before. Our beliefs are diverse and inclusive. We have no shared creed. Our shared covenant (our seven Principles) supports “the free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies…We are united in our broad and inclusive outlook, and in our values, as expressed in our seven Principles. We are united in shared experience: our open and stirring worship services, religious education, and rites of passage; our work for social justice; our quest to include the marginalized; our expressions of love” (Unitarian Universalist Association, 2015).

 

War, bigotry, lawlessness, racism, and all the other things commonly referred to as “ills of society,” are the consequences of sin. Sin originated from our first father Adam who, by his disobedience in the Garden, made all men subject to sin and death.

 

“This hereditary sin,” Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles, “is such a deep corruption of nature that no reason can understand it. Rather it must be believed from the revelation of Scripture” (SA III I 3).

 

The Rev. Dr. Johnson said near the beginning of his message that he would sit down at the table with someone who was opposed to immigration, and read the account of the St. Louis to them over and over until their consciences awoke. When I heard those words I was saddened to think that this man would trade the God-breathed words we have been given in Holy Scripture, which are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness - the means of God’s grace, his living and active Word - for the words of men which have no power.

 

Wouldn’t it have been nice for the people listening to the Rev. Dr. Johnson to hear about their sin? No doctor can cure a disease which hasn’t been properly diagnosed, and the Rev. Dr. Johnson is no exception. He is attempting to cure the ills of society by applying a social gospel, which is really no gospel at all. These people, as do we all, need to hear how wicked they are. They, as do we, need to be called to repent of their sins. They, as do we, need to hear the good news that this sin of theirs has been paid for by the babe born in Bethlehem, Jesus, who was God in human flesh; that Jesus died on the cross in our place, and that he rose from the dead, and the gates of life eternal are opened to us by the grace of God through faith in him.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

“Home.” Unitarian Universalist Church of Evansville. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.uuevansville.org.

 

Johnson, Rev. Dr. Matthew. “A Migration Story.” the UU Church-Rockford, IL. November 22, 2015. Accessed December 26, 2015. http://uurockford.podbean.com/e/11222015-a-migration-story/?token=085a764164a18148d872f961afb5fa7c.

 

McCain, Paul T, ed. Et. Al. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

 

Shea, Nina. “The State Department Turns Its Back on Syrian Christians and Other Non-Muslim Refugees.” National Review Online. November 2, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426419/christian-refugees-syria-religious-minorities-united-states-resettlement-policy.

 

“The Voyage of the St. Louis.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. August 18, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267.

 

“What We Believe.” Unitarian Universalist Association. February 9, 2015. Accessed December 27, 2015. http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/index.shtml.

From One Know-Nothing to Another

The Know-Nothing Party Flag

Dennis Gorecki of Orland Park, IL wrote a letter which was published in the Christmas Eve edition of the Daily Southtown newspaper (a Chicago Tribune publication). In his letter, which lists the collective sin of American racism like a litany – or an indictment – Mr. Gorecki’s calls for his “Christian brothers and sisters who support the xenophobic views of the Republican party,” to read Matthew 25:35-46. Those verses read as follows:

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:35-46).

He calls the Republican Party the new Know-nothings which, in many respects, is an accurate statement. The average American’s concern for the security of their country and its borders, however, does not automatically equate with xenophobia, as many leftists believe and proclaim. By citing St. Matthew’s Gospel, this implication is made all the more insulting, as Christians are painted to look like hypocritical racists. This view of Christians may fit well with the Left’s worldview, but it has little to do with reality for the majority of the faithful. Furthermore, Mr. Gorecki’s invocation of Matthew 25:35-46 as his coup de grâce betrays his ignorance of Biblical interpretation.

Christ, telling this parable of the sheep and the goats to his disciples, says, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40). Who are Jesus’ brothers? His disciples! We learn this in Matthew 12:

“While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’ (Matthew 12:46-50).

Again, who are those, according to Jesus, who do the will of His Father in heaven? Those who believe in him, or…His disciples! We learn this in John 6:

“Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent’” (John 6:28-29).

So, who is Jesus calling us to feed, give drink, clothe, and visit in prison in this parable? His brothers, those who believe in him…our fellow Christians. To say that this parable mandates that Christians welcome everyone who calls themselves a refugee into their country without a second thought or question, is to profoundly misinterpret Jesus’ words here.

Certainly this is not the only sense in which the phrase “my brothers” should be understood. Since we have been adopted into God’s family, we Christians are children of God the Father, brothers and sisters of Christ, and co-heirs with Him of His Kingdom. 

This is not to say that Christians are allowed to treat those outside the family of faith badly. To the contrary, Christians are called to love their enemies, a feature of the Christian religion not universally shared by the world’s religions. We are called to pray for those who persecute us, and to live in peace with everyone, insofar as it depends on us.

Christians expressing concern about the effects and dangers of unchecked illegal immigration does not equate with the “No Irish Need Apply” attitude of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Supporting tighter control of the way visas are issued, or not wanting to allow tens of thousands of Muslim refugees into the country without a proper vetting when Islamic terrorists are threatening kill Americans on American soil does not equate with the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, or with any of the other incidents of racism and xenophobia which Mr. Gorecki cites. And, while there are certainly a large number of people in America who are the type of bigot Mr. Gorecki describes, this in no way negates the founding principles of our country, or the picture of America as the land of opportunity for oppressed immigrants around the world. 

Things like racism exist because human beings are sinful. Our natures are corrupt. In our natural state, we are God’s enemy. Our focus is bent inward toward ourselves. As a result, we don’t love God with our whole hearts, and we don’t love our neighbors as ourselves. For this we need to repent. We need to hear God’s forgiveness this Christmas – and every day of the year – that, despite our sinfulness we do not need to fear; that unto us is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This Savior is Immanuel, God with us, who came to bear our sin on the cross while we were still his enemies. Repentance and the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s blood, shed on the cross, is the only thing which will cause us to act according to the Spirit rather than according to our sinful flesh.

Donald Trump, Nazism, and the Immigration Debate

I heard a fantastic interview listening to Issues Etc on-demand the other day. Pastor Wilken spoke with Dr. Richard Weikart regarding the Darwinist roots of the Nazi worldview. You can hear the segment HERE. At approximately 31:00 minutes into the program, the discussion turned to the Nazi deportation of the Jews. Dr. Weikart seemed to imply that the Nazi’s began with the strategy of simply deporting the Jews and wound up approximately a decade later at the bottom of the slippery slope in the valley of genocide. Even though they were discussing Nazism, the topic was really current events, as it almost always is with these types of discussions. I sent the following comments to the Issues Etc comment line:

In your discussion with Dr. Richard Weikart on 08/28/15 regarding eugenics and Nazism, you asked the question, "How does it get from that [deportation of the genetically inferior] to, ‘let’s exterminate them'?" Dr. Weikart went on to discuss how the Nazis progressed from a strategy of deporting the Jews, to mass extermination. The implication seems to be that "deportation of undesirables" is the top of a slippery slope which leads to holocaust.  

Is Dr. Weikart saying that the Nazis developed their plans of mass murder as they slid down the slope from their relatively innocuous initial plans for deportation? If so, history seems to indicate otherwise. Hitler started with the intention of eradicating the inferior races from existence as too many historical sources to enumerate here indicate, including Mein Kampf. He simply hid his end goal of murder, which he knew the public would not accept if he were brutally honest at the time, by calling for deportation. 

This is also an argument used by some opponents of those who advocate stricter enforcement of existing immigration law. Activist journalists such as Jorge Ramos like to set up the straw man argument that it would be impossible to deport X number of millions of undocumented immigrants. Also, no person is "illegal." Do you see the Nazi deportation of Jews as equivalent to the call for stricter enforcement of immigration law, and the deportation of illegal aliens from the U.S.? I do not see them as equal. The former is discrimination based on race/creed/color etc; the latter is government faithfully fulfilling its God-given role according to Holy Scripture.

They flirted around the areas I covered in my comments, and I don’t believe they mentioned Donald Trump by name, but it was certainly clear what Dr. Weikart’s view of The Donald was. 

I personally think Donald Trump is a populist, probably with a leftist bend, who will say anything he thinks is profitable in order to achieve his ends. One look at his past will show you he’s not a Republican. His comments about taxes, and buying politicians to “get things done” tells me he certainly isn’t a conservative, and his stance on SCOTUS’ 2005 Kelo decision and the concept of eminent domain makes me question whether or not he has ever heard of the U.S. Constitution. The thing which seems to have Donald Trump’s critics the most upset, though, is immigration. I don’t say his immigration policy, because he hasn’t outlined one. I don’t say, “what he thinks about immigration,” because I don’t trust him to say what he really believes. All of that is beside the point, however, as one only needs to mention “immigration” to merit an attack from both the left and the right. 

I felt compelled to put the proverbial pen to paper because of another piece involving the Nazis which is making the Facebook rounds. Someone took the 1920 Nazi Party platform and edited it to replace the word “German” with “American.” He did this in order to show how racist what Donald Trump is saying in his campaign regarding immigration is. This is what the creator had to say about his project:

So I have had a little fun. I've taken the 1920 Nazi Party platform [I used this translation: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/…/Holoca…/naziprog.html ] and edited it to replace "German" with "American" as well as making a few other minor changes that mask its identity but keep its spirit. I reprint the edited version below. What strikes me is that I bet if you showed it to Trump supporters, they would love it. What I worry about is that when you told them what it was, they wouldn't care. [And yes, as Phil says in the comments, it really does read like a Trump/Sanders ticket, with the nationalism and the socialism.] Feel free to copy and paste and use as you wish.

The piece is certainly interesting, and I suppose that it could be a useful thought experiment. I couldn’t help but feel a little insulted though, as I am one of those Libertarians who believes in border security. Consider these examples from the piece which deal with immigration and citizenship. Remember, these things were taken from the Nazi Party platform of 1920:

3. Only Americans can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of American blood can be Citizens, regardless of birthplace. No one who is not the child of an American can therefore be an American Citizen. 

4. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in America only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens. 

5. Only Americans are entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Americans may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office. 

6. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from America. 

7. Any further immigration of non-Americans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Americans who entered America after August 2, 2014, be forced to leave America without delay.

There is a debate about immigration going on between two sides in this country, and it is frustrating. It’s frustrating because the two sides are ignoring quite a large middle. On one side, advocates of open borders lobby for unrestricted immigration with few, if any, controls or expectations of assimilation for the immigrant. On the other, xenophobic rednecks want all brown people to be rounded up and shipped back to their country of origin, while simultaneously constructing a 400 foot wall along the length of the southern border, without doors or gates. Those are the choices presented to the American people by the media, and by Democrat and Republican establishment politicians. In reality, we suspect strongly that things will remain status quo. 

There is a third option, however, which politicians and social activists either ignore or mischaracterize to suit their need. This option can be summed up in the phrase, “Big fence, wide gate.” Americans wish to see their government attempt, in earnest, to stop the entry of millions of illegal aliens per year into the country. Not wanting to unduly deny any person a reasonable shot at the American dream, a majority of them also wish to make the process of immigrating to the United States easier, 1) so that people do not attempt to come here illegally, 2) we maintain the integrity of our nation’s borders, 3) we know who is coming to our country and can better judge whether they mean us good or ill, 4) and we can admit the best, most talented immigrants more quickly.

I do not understand why this is a difficult concept for people to grasp. Americans who wish for the immigration laws of the United States to be enforced and for the immigration system, in general, to be reworked to be more efficient in the interest of national security are not National Socialists. I am not a Donald Trump supporter. I do, however support the enforcement of immigration law and the reworking of America’s immigration system. Certainly any honest person will admit that there is a middle ground between advocating for either open borders or a locked-down, xenophobic police state. But, since both Donald Trump and I used the words immigration, I am the same ignorant xenophobe he is supposed to be.

I couldn’t tell you what is inside the mind of The Donald. I do know that it is not unreasonable for Americans to want their Federal government to stop millions of people from violating their nation’s border every year. Many of these illegal aliens become an added drain on the federal Treasury, and they cause the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels to increase. Moreover, illegal aliens who enter the country without any controls go through no process of assimilation to American culture. You can make jokes about American “culture” all day long by pointing to McDonalds and American Idol, and the point is well taken. That is not the culture to which I am referring. True American culture is not what is broadcast on television, but rather the ideals enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and our other founding documents. The U. S. Constitution protects the rights of man from an oppressive government. It establishes that the government of the United States is one which respects the rule of law rather than the rule of men. It is not unreasonable to require that those who would immigrate to the United States be familiar with those ideals, be positively disposed toward them, and agree to uphold them. 

I don’t really give a crap what kind of weird traditional head scarf someone wears when they move here. I don’t care if they look like me, speak a different language, or have different social or religious traditions than I have. What I do care about, is whether or not that new immigrant with the crazy hat “…holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

Among the people crossing the borders illegally may be America’s next James Madison or Thomas Jefferson; there may also be the next Osama bin Laden or Che Guevara. No one could possibly know, though, because “no person is illegal,” and to demand that the federal government insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare by securing the border is somehow racist. 

There are those who wish to stop all immigration, legal and illegal. I believe these people are misguided. My now ex-crush, Ann Coulter, is one of these people. She does, however, understand the basic problems that illegal immigration presents to a country, and makes a compelling case that America’s current immigration policy, which was adopted in 1965, was specifically designed to change the demographics of America, and thus, the culture. 

As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center in 1998, “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy, has resulted in a wave of immigration from the third world which should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic party” (Coulter 2015).

Reddy also wrote:

The immigration reform of the 1960s has produced a whole new generation of Democrats. What more could Democrats ask for? (Reddy 1998)

Indeed.

She also makes another good point which I have heard echoed by people whom I know to be reasonable and caring. The immigration “problem” cannot be fixed until something is done to stop the massive amounts of people entering the country illegally, or illegally overstaying their visas. To quote Ann:

As Reagan’s amnesty proves, it’s pointless to talk about what to do with illegal aliens already here, until we’ve secured the border. When the bathtub is overflowing, the very first thing you do is turn off the water. You don’t debate whether to use a rag or a mop to clean up the water, whether to get a bucket or put a hose out the window, whether to use towels or sponges. The number one priority is: Shut off the water (Coulter 2015).

After that happens, I am – along with a large chunk of the rest of the country, I suspect – willing to discuss every option, from amnesty to deportation, to best deal with the people who have come here illegally, and to fix our immigration system…but not a moment before. As long as those Establishment big-wigs on the right (read Chamber of Commerce) think that they can import near-slave labor from Mexico, and those leftist elites (read rich Democrat politicians) need voters and inexpensive housekeepers, however, nothing will change.

This is why the average person is frustrated with the so-called immigration debate, and why so many are being seduced by the populist rhetoric of Donald Trump. He is, in his brash-but-media-savvy way, not so much saying what people want to hear, as he is saying something different than the establishment politicians are saying. What’s more, he is saying his nonsense in a way in which they want to hear it said – loudly and without apology. Calling people who cherish and wish to protect America’s Constitution and way of life, and are frustrated with politicians of both major parties, modern day Nazis is not the way to win them from his camp. Boldly advocating for the kind of reasonable immigration enforcement and reform they desperately wish to see become government policy is.

Bibliography

Coulter, Ann. Adios, America. Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2015.

Reddy, Patrick. "Immigration: The Real Kennedy Legacy." The Public Perspective. October/November 1998.