Railing on Trump's "Wall"

Much fuss is being made over President Trump's recent executive order to temporarily halt immigration from certain countries with incidents of Islamic extremism or terror-related unrest. People from the left and the right question the morality, legality, propriety and even the sanity of this measure. One-time Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gushed to CNN that the Statue of Liberty now has tears in its eyes. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went so far as to implore her fellow senators to reverse the order, to condemn what she called an "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral" measure.

Setting aside the question of the timing and promulgation of the order which have more to do with the circumstances surrounding the measure than the measure itself, it is worth examining the basic complaints leveled so clearly by Senator Warren: that Trump's order is "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral."

Perhaps Warren has engaged in repetition for effect, but calling a measure "illegal" implies that that measure is also "unconstitutional", at least as far as American law is concerned. The reverse is also true: any measure proven to be unconstitutional is also de facto illegal and has no binding force whatever. So arguing that any measure can be both "illegal" and "unconstitutional" either indulges rhetorical redundancy or misrepresents the terms. It may be that Warren intends "illegal" to mean "unstatutory," which simultaneously interprets her statement with more nuance and bankrupts it of all legitimacy, as we shall see. All that she could mean, then, is that Trump's order either follows no current statutory regulation or defies such regulation: plainly, she means the same thing by "unconstitutional."

The Constitution, however, contains a trio of clear references regarding the Executive's role in immigration. Article I, section 8 gives Congress the duty and power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"; thereafter, Article 6 clearly states that "this Constitution, and all Laws made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land"; and finally, Article II, section 3 ordains that the President shall "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The relationship is clear: Congress legislates the rules governing immigration and insofar as those laws conform to the "supreme Law" the President is obliged to enforce them.

Now, the President already has Congressionally delegated powers regarding the control of immigrants and visitors to the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) states:

  (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

In pursuance of such aims Trump enacted his temporary halt on immigration from countries deemed to host political elements detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Either Senator Warren is unaware of the existence of this statutory protection of such Executive action, or she disregards it. In no way can she claim it legal to bar the President from acting on such laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is his duty to faithfully execute precisely such laws, and so he has done however unsystematically or surprisingly. To obstruct the President in the execution of the law—the measure for which Warren ultimately advocates—would itself be an illegal act.

Concern for those immigrants with previously approved visas currently held in airport custody should not be blown out of proportion either. Immigrants with pre-approved visas will undoubtedly be released quickly and without further bother. I also find the hysterical tweets by Senators Chris Murphy and Diane Feinstein over children in Syria hypocritical to say the least. Their party has overseen and protected the murder of tens of millions of innocent children in the safest space that should ever exist: the womb. And if that were not enough, the idea that the United States can hold all displaced persons from any country without consequence has been roundly disproved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DFPKNdYFkE&t=441s).

CNN cannot avoid hearing the conclusion that Trump has the law on his side, and that any court which has a respect for rule of law investigating this order would find his ban legal and non-discriminatory (pace whatever Al Jazeera and Harvard Law might suppose http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/wrong-trump-immigration-ban-170130102549929.html). Moreover, anyone who reads the "ban" cannot miss the leniency of Trump's measures. No ban on the Muslim religion (which Trump could have enacted under the statutory banner of "any class of aliens"), no ban on all immigrants from all Middle Eastern countries, and the halt itself is to last no longer than ninety (90) days. Three months from now, this measure will expire, unless further legal measures are needed.

As for the morality of the order, Senator Warren must answer one simple question: which is truly immoral, to temporarily halt the influx of immigrants, many of whom are already forbidden from entering the United States by virtue of the preceding sections of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (particularly 4a, "Public Charges"), or to disregard the safety and security of those citizens of the United States who are and continue to be the primary concern of the President of the United States?

It seems Warren would prefer to permanently prejudice the President against the citizens of the United States rather than rein in or review their suicidal open-door policy.

In the Hall of the Joyful King

     "One who fights for victory and not the truth will have only one ally, that is the devil.  Not the defeat of the intellect, but the acceptance of the heart is the true object for wielding the sword of the spirit."

     The sword of the Spirit, like the scythe of the harvester, hews untruth from under the good and the bad. One is wise to be certain of his own position, motives and arguments before he comes to the test. If he is not so prepared, he should listen and conduct inquiry to avoid becoming a victim on the scaffold of truth: a man who proves that he cannot explain his own position is more likely to search for answers than the man who believes he has explained it without challenge. It is foolish to oppose things that do not work against the Truth, and it is ridiculous to assume a man's position without assuming his posture. One must hear a man through, dig the truth from whatever depth it has been buried and expose it. Little more is needed in argument or evangelization; often, the seed is found to have been left untended, not unplanted.

    One need not fight to win. The victory is won. Now one must fight to conquer hearts which remain at odds with the rightful King. Defeat is for the lost.

  The faerie sight that sharpens the faculties to readily spot incongruities must walk with the affection that the human heart holds for all things true and all things lovable. A true sense of humour bonds inner sight (to see the inside of a song, as it were) and humility; it adores the hidden preternatural side of life. It is Joy, a presentiment of things eternal, a sign of what is to come. It is a sacrament of the hidden side of Christ, the side that delights in all creation, in all Good, in Himself, in the Spirit and in the Father. Perhaps that is why it is so important to live a life of Joy: it is the face of God that Christ asks us to reveal to the world. He remains with us so that our Joy might be complete. It is for us to revel in it. Catholic Joy springs from certainty that comes with sight, even of things seen "in a glass darkly" to be revealed in their fullness at a later time.

   Certainty, because it is rational and well-examined, is not bigotry, the result of a blind faith in opinion. The true bigot not only claims faith as his cornerstone, but as his whole foundation, if not his entire structure of belief.  He makes himself the arbiter of his reality. If he ceases to believe, not only does his belief die, but all that he believed in dies with it. The validity of belief is the difference between the man who holds up a house and the man who lives in one. The first destroys his house if he leaves it, the second leaves either to find the house well-founded or weak; whoever the man may be, however great his faith, only the strength of his will can maintain such a structure; the mind lends it no aid of certainty. If that will is broken, the structure of belief will fall, with the weight of all reality following fast upon it. If his house stands without him, he never loses that sense of longing for what he has made his own.

  Certainty is built upon the foundation of reality, the bedrock that does not sway under pressure from men. Arguments leap forth like buttresses to hold the walls and roof firm to protect the interior from the elements of dissent. Even if one stops believing in what is certain, it remains to touch his mind. He may even forget it exists until he catches the familiar "scent." Then he will unearth it eagerly and show it to his friends, no matter how dirty or dilapidated it has become in his absence. Its original magnificence can be restored and refined through care. Then the house can ring again with the laughter of true Joy, firm and prepared to stand the rumblings even of the laughter of God.  

What is the Ultimate Question?

I have just had the pleasure of reading an article by Grant Freeman entitled "The Ultimate Answer". It was published by Those Catholic Men and is available here: http://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/the-ultimate-answer/. Mr. Freeman's article fired my interest and gave me several thoughts upon which I would like to elaborate. In the film adaption of Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings (known on earth as mice) build a supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate the ultimate answer to "life, the universe and everything." Later, when they confront Deep Thought, they receive an unlikely response to their important question.

        "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is forty-two."

        "Forty-two!?"

        "Yes, yes, I thought it over quite thoroughly. It is. It's forty-two."

        "Rubbish!"

Here, Freeman stops, explaining that Douglas Adams may have unwittingly pointed to Christ as the numerical centre of "life, the universe, and everything," as forty-two generations elapsed from the time of Abraham to the birth of Christ in Matthew's genealogy. While Freeman expresses this hint at God's marvelous sense of humour—at the "gracious hand [that] gives not only without, but even against [one's] plans and inclinations" (http://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/how-to-be-a-humble-hero-in-2017/)—the  dialogue continues. Deep Thought defends its answer.

        "It would have been simpler of course to know what the actual question was."

        "But it was the question. The ultimate question. Of everything!"
        "That's not a question! Only when you know the question will you know what the answer means."

        "Give us the ultimate question, then!"

        "I can't. But there is one who can. A computer that will calculate the ultimate question. A computer of such infinite complexity that life itself will form part of its operational matrix, and you yourselves shall take on new, more primitive forms and go down into the computer to navigate its ten million year program. I shall design this computer for you and it shall be called [Earth]."

Douglas Adams hits upon a tremendous insight. We all have the answer to life before our very eyes; we are not asking the right questions. Perhaps the trouble is that we are asking the questions. We may become frustrated with answers that we do not reasonably conclude ourselves, but ultimately, the answer is right in front of us. We do not understand that we need it. Like children, we ask "why?" when given a straightforward response. This is neither wrong nor bad, it is profoundly human. But like children, sometimes we need to accept the answer without an explanation or experience to prove the point. Although "the burnt hand oft teaches best," we could avoid the pain by obeying.

Many people are leaving the Church because they feel unfulfilled, unanswered, and unencountered. They live searching for what they want out of life. They fish on the sea, unaware of the current that inexorably draws their boat homewards. They do not listen to the questions that life poses for them. They do not answer what life asks, give what life demands, or follow what life instructs. Their faith does not seek understanding, but to be understood. How many people waste their lives trying to "find themselves" instead of trying to find another? Ultimately, Douglas Adams is right: life is about living for another.

At the end of the film, before the mice can harvest Arthur Dent's brain to complete the reconstruction of the Earth program up to the moment it was destroyed, Arthur desperately tries to dissuade the mice from killing him.

        "You want a question that goes with the answer forty-two? Alright, well, what about what's six times seven? Or how many Vogons does it take to change a light bulb? Here's one: how many roads must a man walk down?"

        "Hey, that's not bad."

        "Fine, fine, take it! Because my head is filled with questions, and I can assure you no answer to any one of them has ever brought me one iota of happiness. Except for one. The one, the only question I ever wanted an answer to: is she the one? And the answer isn't bloody well "forty-two," it's "yes." Undoubtedly, unequivocally, unabashedly, yes. And for one week, one week in my sad little blip of an existence, it made me happy."

In short, Dent exposes the core of life, the ultimate question that beats upon everyone's heart: who will you love? No Catholic could disagree with this question. What is the purpose of life? To be happy. How does one achieve happiness? By living for another. Who is that other? Here, paths diverge. We choose either created things or their Creator. Dent chooses Trillion, and if we are generous to him, he is not entirely wrong. Each spouse through marriage brings the other closer to the ultimate answer. We can hope that Dent and Trillion help each other reach "forty-two." If Freeman is right, then "forty-two" has a more familiar name, one that is "above every other name": Jesus.

Jesus is the answer. What is the ultimate question? Will you give me your heart?