DV Journal

I was just at a round table where we discussed, in the most civilized manner possible, the immigration controversy.

Everyone in the conversation liked and respected each other, and listened to the opinions, sometimes quite diverse, from those at the other end of the philosophical spectrum. Some were focused on the chaos at the border. Others wanted to find a way to legalize the millions who were living here already with no status. Another person was upset about ICE raids on a Puerto Rican restaurant that essentially amounted to an attempt to deport U.S. citizens.

Another participant mentioned that the most extreme moves from the Trump administration, like the termination of birthright citizenship, would be blocked by the courts because they were unconstitutional. And finally, someone talked about the need to get rid of criminal aliens, the ones who have been preying upon innocent Americans like Laken Riley.

To be honest, we did have that conversation. And there were a number of people at the table. But every one of those comments was made by me.

I write this to show that you can walk and chew gum, be a law and order conservative and compassionate, oppose abortion and random and cruel family separations at the same time. In me you will find the wide range of opinions and priorities of the American public, and in me you will find someone who cannot be pushed into one category. I am neither “deport them all,” nor am I “accept them all.”

This is an issue of great nuance. But unfortunately, nuance does not seem to win elections.

I mentioned during that conversation that the slew of executive orders and actions were designed to create “shock and awe,” and keep the promises that President Donald Trump made during his campaign. While many pretended that “it was the economy, stupid,” I knew in my heart that the most explosive and compelling issue was immigration. After all, one of Trump’s first acts after his first inauguration was to issue the travel ban, which some incorrectly insisted on calling the “Muslim Ban.”

It was not a ban targeting Muslims, otherwise Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and a host of other countries with Muslim populations would have been included on the list. They were not. The list mirrored many countries that had been suspected of involvement in terrorism. On that basis, I was able to defend the action in some ways, even though I ended up at the airport to protest what I feared would be excesses.

This time around, though, Trump is more seasoned. He was not prepared for the backlash that many of his ill-thought out immigration policies would trigger, and some of them actually fizzled out when they were challenged in court. That is happening again. Many of his initiatives will be tied up in the courts, and that is a very good thing. The president does not get to rearrange refugee policy with a ballpoint pen, regardless of what he thinks about a unitary executive.

Nonetheless, it is very clear that Trump 2.0 has a plan, and has made sure that he picked the people he believes will execute it the best. I think Tom Homan, who served under Obama as well as Trump, is an excellent choice because he is not an ideologue interested in ethnic cleansing, like some of Trump’s advisers. Homan is the real deal. I don’t hold out much hope for Kristi Noem, who is a pretty face and wears a cowboy hat with élan, but who has never in her life had to deal with significant border and security issues as governor of South Dakota, one of the least populous states in the nation.

As a conservative, I want to see the chaos at the border erased. I want to support Trump in his efforts to get rid of criminal aliens, and in that group I include those who have one conviction as well as repeat offenders. If we have to start somewhere, start with the people who pose a threat to our security.

But, also as a conservative, I cannot support the idea that children will go to school one day and come home to an empty house because their parents have been picked up and put on a plane home. Those parents are not criminals, because violating immigration policy is not penal. It is civil. Those people clean your houses and trim your bushes and cook your meals. And yes, they are parents to U.S. citizens, because birthright citizenship is not going anywhere. As someone who is radically pro-life, I cannot deal with fellow pro-lifers who think that the baby in the womb deserves protection but a child born in this country to undocumented parents does not.  As a lawyer, I don’t like to see my constitution manipulated for political gain.

Many have said to me that I am too emotionally involved in this issue. Some have even suggested that they think I am criticizing the government because it’s cutting into my business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chaos is good for my business. Deportation is good for my business.  The more suffering there is, they more clients need assistance.  And I am repulsed by the suggestion from my conservative friends that this is all part of my master plan.

When I sat at that round table, I said I hoped we would arrive at common sense solutions. I said that I hoped we would honor the founding principles of this country, which has always been a refuge for the dispossessed, while at the same time giving priority to the safety and prosperity of United States citizens.