Posts

Posted on

big picture

In the news this past week was much conversation regarding spending money. Whether it’s funding the federal government or finding one more creative, Christmas gadget, we focus much on how we spend our money. I think, however, we often focus on foolish things.

Let me not appear to be disrespectful, friends; it’s not my intent. It’s just that we fall so easily prey to becoming passionate about a singular aspect of spending that we sometimes ignore the big picture.

Look at the federal government’s spending bill — which next to the Gruberization of Obamacare and controversial CIA report — was perhaps the most significant story out of our nation’s capital this past week. While passage was bipartisan but narrow in the House — and  faced a similar fate in the Senate — note also the bipartisan criticism. Republican critics, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), demanded the bill be stripped of money that could be used to implement Pres. Obama’s Executive Order on immigration. Democrat critics, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), demanded the bill be stripped of provisions that roll back part of a controversial banking bill, even questioning the “maturity” of the provision’s supporters. Yet both the Cruz’s and Warren’s of the world — who are supposed to represent us — are focusing on something less than the big picture.

Over no time during the past six years have our leaders passed an annual budget.

Allow me to say that again in another way: our federal government has not adhered to a budget for the past six years.

For whatever reason (and I’m sure entrenched partisans will willingly and quickly cast blame on someone else), during the Obama administration, the federal government has never passed a budget. Instead of being guided and limited by a standard practice that most successful business entities must acknowledge, the federal government simply keeps passing “continuing resolutions” — “CR’s” — never wrestling with the bigger problem.

This lack of wrestling is what allows for ample waste and long term problems. This lack of adherence is what allows for the current, uncontrolled spending of the federal government, such as $387,000 spent on a study of the effects of Swedish massage on rabbits… $371,026 on if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids… and $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. In other words, an annual budget forces legislature and the White House to specifically address spending and cut out money we don’t have (… i.e. love those dogs and lions, but not sure massive monies should be spent…).

We seem to be growing complacent in the reigning in of exploding spending, and thus when the Cruz’s and Warren’s and White House, etc. focus on a singular aspect, passionate as they may be, they are still focused on something lesser. How will spending ever be under control if we can’t agree on how much to spend? What domestic entity has ever succeeded by such a process? Where is the courageous, big picture leadership? Where is the leadership to adopt an annual, wisely limiting budget?

This week comes my annual Christmas brunch (fire up), a wonderful, community event where my sole goal is to love on the participants — genuinely and generously — jumpstarting their celebration of the season. It is a marvelous event — fun to partake in and a true privilege to host — sharing all sorts of goodies and gadgets.  The goodies and gadgets are actually far less important than the celebration. The event is thus so sweetly good because we never lose sight of the big picture.

P.S. That’s important.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

split-brained

2014-08-26-right_brain_left_brain-thumbRight brain, left brain. Left brain, right brain. Schemeel, schlemazel, Hasenfeffer, Incorporated.

Ok, ok, so the “Laverne & Shirley” lyrics leave a little to be desired, but again we’re faced with the psychological myth that persons prefer one side of their brain to the other.

“Left-brained” persons are said to be more logical. “Right-brained” are more creative.

In other words, according to multiple sources utilized for this post (including psychology.com, livescience.com, National Public Radio, etc.), “left-brained” are supposedly more rational, respond to verbal instructions, solve problems via logic, sequence, and order, and are known to be more structured, and in control of their feelings. They see the logic of cause and effect.

“Right-brained,” on the other hand, are less structured. They are more intuitively guided. They solve more with hunches and emotion; they are more spontaneous and free with their feelings and emotion. They see resemblances and base conclusions off of such correspondence.

And then look at events of today…

Should they be solved solely via logic?

… solely via emotion?

Or both?

Let the record show that every time the Intramuralist takes the left brained/right brained test, my results are the same. I test pretty equally, right down the middle; in other words, I don’t consistently lean toward either hemisphere. I appreciate emotion, but I can’t leave logic out of the equation. I value logic, but I can’t dismiss emotion.

How would it change the perceived polarization of our country — the Republican vs. Democrat, the white vs. black, the White House vs. Congress, for example — if we valued both logic and emotion? … as opposed to solely base decisions off of one?

How would it change how we wrestle with the issues?

From the budget to Ferguson to the scandalous crud of the IRS? How would it change each of our perspectives if we honored logic and emotion both — as opposed to being solely driven by one side of the brain or the other?

And one more “for the record…”

While the “left-brained/right-brained” theory was coined by Roger W. Sperry in 1981 — who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research — many contemporary psychologists believe the split-brain theory to be a myth.

Is it a myth? Maybe.

But are some more logical in their approach and some more emotional? And do we tend to think the other is misguided because of their different approach?

Fascinating.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

person of the year

Since 1927, Time Magazine’s editors have chosen their annual “Person of the Year.” The award is not a popularity contest, nor is it a person who is necessarily admirable or positive; past designees have included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin — with Stalin named twice. The title is aptly given to one who has “most influenced the news this year for better or worse.”

The origin of the magazine’s moniker was different — at least in regard to motive — as the editorial epithet was first assigned in order to remedy a perceived editorial embarrassment. Aviator Charles Lindbergh was not featured on Time’s cover following his historic trans-Atlantic flight that year; hence, the designation of Lindbergh as the first then “Man of the Year” allowed Time to save some journalistic swagger.

Sometimes the person is a bit more ambiguous, such as “The American Fighting Man” in 1950, representing U.S. troops involved in the Korean War — or an entire people group such as 1960’s “U.S. Scientists.” In some of the periodical’s more creative attributions, 1982 cited “The Computer”, 1988 “The Endangered Earth,” and 2006 was actually “You.”

(… ok, “You” is still making this observer chuckle… must not have been many great choices that year…)

This year, with the continued evolution of social media, Time again invited the rest of us to join in, although the editors aver they will be doing the actual selecting. This year’s prime candidates, no less, include multiple, perennial national and world leaders — such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and both U.S. Senators from Kentucky. Several CEO’s made the list, as did celebrities Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, and Kanye West. Also included is NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, “Ebola doctors and nurses,” and Pete Frates and Pat Quinn — originators of the ALS “Ice Bucket Challenge.”

My sense is that the so-called winner will not be Pope Francis, as even though included in the consideration, the pivotal religious leader was the 2013 designee.

The title could be given to the included “Ferguson protestor.” Even though the societal figure was prominent only in August and December, the choice would contribute to the public narrative desired by some. Let’s face it; one of the aspects manifest via Ferguson is that sometimes the media influences the narrative more than reality itself. Sometimes the media seems to actually create news — especially when possessing a bias certain sources surreptitiously share.

As the Intramuralist considers potential worthy suitors, I immediately think of “awards” to the following :

To Pres. Obama — who still seemed to rally the masses this year, albeit arguably more in opposition than support…

To Attorney General Eric Holder — who questionably, oversaw the legality in multiple serious scenarios, from the IRS to Ferguson, Missouri…

To “A Trio of Athletes” in Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice, and Jameis Winston — each who for better or (yes) worse, brought domestic violence to the forefront of public conversation…

And to “The Social Media User” — who still creates or kills a story based on how much they Tweet, text, video, or Vine.

We will watch with curiosity for this week’s announcement, seeing who earns the subjective distinction — seeing still, how they will react to the title. Will they be humble? Will they be honored? Will there exist any bias in the presentation?

At least this year, the “victor” probably won’t be “You.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

above reproach

So many leadership skills are taught via academia. The most vital, however, can’t be taught — no matter the prominence of the school nor reputation of the professor. An effective leader must be above reproach. Their activity, attitude, and articulations must not be open to censure. They must be blameless. Is that not the problem with so many contemporary leaders? If they wish for us to listen and follow, they must be above reproach. But they are not…

We watch the NFL, a societal mainstay, wrestle with recent events that have attracted significant negative publicity. Note that I choose my words carefully, as instances of legal abuse have long permeated the league; what’s different in 2014 is the public’s increased awareness.

The NFL is led by Roger Goodell. As commissioner, he wants us to follow his lead — yet in the discipline of Ravens running back Ray Rice, Goodell’s honesty is in question. Goodell initially barred Rice for an Intramuralist-perceived, tiny two games, saying he had not seen the video in which Rice brutally knocked his then fiancé unconscious. When the video became public, Goodell suspended Rice indefinitely, saying seeing the video (… uh, not the accompanying public disgust and thus pressure…) motivated him to alter his disciplinary decision. Many say Goodell knew of the video and brutality ahead of time. Goodell’s honesty is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

We watch the renewed racial unrest, as protestors react peacefully and not-so-peacefully to recent grand jury events. Much of the protest seems led by Al Sharpton. As a civil right activist, he wants us to follow his lead — yet Sharpton’s career was initially propelled into prominence by his fervent support of an African-American teenager 27 years ago. Tawana Brawley claimed she was kidnapped and gang-raped by several white men, including a police officer and local prosecutor. Sharpton loudly and consistently, verbally attacked the men. The case was dropped after a long investigation revealed Brawley’s claims to be false, and Brawley began making defamation payments for her false accusations. Sharpton, however, still admits no fault for his involvement. Sharpton’s pursuit of truth is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

We also watch our nation attempt to navigate through multiple messy legal scenarios. The leading law enforcement officer in the land is Attorney General Eric Holder. He wants us to follow his lead — yet in the final hours of the Clinton administration, then Deputy Attorney General Holder quietly facilitated what many have called “the most unjust presidential pardon in American history.” Holder recommended the pardon for Marc Rich, an active fugitive who had used his money to evade the law. He was indicted on 65 federal criminal counts of tax evasion, fraud, and racketeering; it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history at the time, and it earned Rich a spot on the FBI’s “Ten Most-Wanted” list. After Rich’s ex-wife gave Pres. Clinton’s Party over $1 million — including $100,000 to Hillary’s then Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation — Holder recommended Rich’s pardon. Holder’s upholding of the law is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

If leaders wish to lead well — if they wish to be effective — their activity, attitude, and articulations must be above reproach. There should be no question. Otherwise, the rest of us will be challenged to listen, much less follow.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

understanding

huddleCLR“Mom, you just don’t understand!” said one son yesterday morning, after hiding his sibling’s things in order to get back at him for a perceived, serious offense. You just don’t understand. We are way too good at placing all onus on someone else — that the essence of the problem is the ignorance of another — as opposed to empathy for all.

How many times do we sit back in our less-than-humble perches boldly sharing with another that they need to understand?

Friends, you need to understand…

Parents, you need to understand…

Kids, you need to understand…

Men, you need to understand…

Women, you need to understand…

Husbands, you need to understand…

Wives, you need to understand…

Black people, you need to understand…

White people, you need to understand…

Liberals, you need to understand…

Conservatives, you need to understand…

Those in between, you need to understand…

Americans, you need to understand…

Native Americans, you need to understand…

Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, straights, architects, economists, ice cream salesmen, etc., you need to understand…

We so easily call out all people groups, assuming an entire group thinks and feels the same. We so easily magnify what they are missing as opposed to reflect upon our own omissions.

You just don’t understand.

I wonder how the world would operate differently, if instead of boldly proclaiming the omissions of others, we spent more time humbly reflecting upon the gaps in our own wisdom. Would that not encourage empathy for all — as opposed to only empathy for some? And if empathy is only for some, is it really empathy?

Too often we pounce upon what another people group doesn’t “get” — placing all onus upon them, as if we know better and best. “We” will each know things another does not; but none of us know all. Too often, too, this happens either in social media or before public microphones and cameras; in other words, too often this happens outside the authenticity of face-to-face, respectful conversation. It dumbfounds me how so many fall so easily prey to a social media boldness that limits authentic dialogue and conversation. Sorry… but that’s not brave; that’s not bold. That’s a lack of respect for other people.

“But Mom, you just don’t understand!”

What was the offense that called for my son’s clamor? One of his older brothers said something to him that he didn’t like. Defensive due to a seemingly crass expression, my youngest chose to then hide an ample supply of my oldest’s personal belongings.

Did I understand? Maybe. Maybe not… I get your anger. I get your frustration. I get that this is a big deal for you, and even though I don’t share your perspective, I want to hear you and walk with you through this… I also desire to teach my son better… teaching him to look inside himself first, never allowing his offense to impede the humble reflection that leads to wisdom and growth.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

what lasts

How much do we live with only the “now” in mind? How much does “living for the moment” distract us from recognizing the long term — for grasping the eternal? As I watch the world around us, I wonder how we would act and feel differently if we could see what lasts. I wonder how the Ferguson protestors, supporters, critics, and bandwagon jumpers would react differently — how we would react differently — if we had a more permanent perspective. And then I read the perspective shared by the New Orleans Saints tight end, Benjamin Watson, linked here in Sunday’s comments. It’s worth the post. Below are Watson’s thoughts. I encourage you to consider them in totality…

“I’M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I’M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I’M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I’m a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a ‘threat’ to those who don’t know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I’M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I’M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I’M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn’t there so I don’t know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I’M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I’ve seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I’M CONFUSED, because I don’t know why it’s so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don’t know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I’M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take ‘our’ side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it’s us against them. Sometimes I’m just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that’s not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That’s not right.

I’M HOPELESS, because I’ve lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I’m not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I’M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it’s a beautiful thing.

I’M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I’M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that’s capable of looking past the outward and seeing what’s truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It’s the Gospel. So, finally, I’M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.”

Thank God for Watson’s eternal perspective. Maybe that is what would unite us…

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

can we fix it?

It was ironic; was it not?

While celebrating a national holiday marked by its inherent humility and grace, a midwestern suburb smoldered due to non-peaceful protest. The streets and small businesses of Ferguson, Missouri were looted and set ablaze, as violent protestors were enraged by a grand jury’s decision not to indict a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black man. As has been said amidst these posts, while all are welcome to their opinion, the insistence that any can ascertain a verdict of guilt or innocence without being present or reviewing all evidence seems questionable. Again, however, emotion and experience have paved the path to truth for far too many. Emotion is guiding what may or may not be true.

What is true, no less, is that racial tension is significant in this country. During the tenure of the nation’s first African-American president, the tension seems to have at best remained constant — possibly, even increased. The tension is real and significant.

I watched this week how many attempted to address the issue. How do we deal with the problem? How do we fix it? Can we fix it?

I watched some call out white people, some call out black people, and some remain strikingly silent.

I watched some pick out a singular, perceived aspect contributing to the tension — prejudice, privilege, or civil rights only for some. Some called out poverty; others called out law enforcement, the justice system, or a singular aspect of crime: white on black, black on white — even black on black.

Can we fix it?

I watched many speak of the need to fight. Said activist Al Sharpton (not exactly camera shy) in the immediate aftermath, “It was expected, but still an absolute blow… We can lose a round, but the fight is not over.”  Occupy Wall Street and other less peaceful activists have said we need to take advantage of the fight.

Can we fix it?

This is a tough issue, friends. Part of the challenge is that too many parties fight. And not only do too many parties fight, but most seem to fight only for one party. If we believe in civil rights, we must believe in civil rights for all. If we believe in no judging by the color of a person’s skin, then no skin color should matter. So back to my question: can we fix it?

I will say it again. This is tough. Fixing it is hard. What exists that can actually unite all people? In what can we find oneness and unity?

The history of racial tension in this country is complicated, painful, and deeply rooted. It is challenging for each of us to comprehend the totality and depth of the issue. If we are going to even attempt to “fix” this problem — or at the very least, minimize the tension — then we need to engage in deep, empathetic, loving, and honest discussion prioritizing reconciliation. My sense is that the calling out, looting, singular aspect focus, and the fighting for civil rights only for some (or empathy only for some — or loving only of some) will not aid in the reconciliation process.

We need far more humility and grace… far more focus on more than “some.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

thankful

When I think about Thanksgiving, I think about what gratitude really means. I look at the world around us, and I see a culture so seemingly lacking in thanksgiving — in generous, consistent thanks… a culture that embraces far too much anger, resentment, and self-righteousness. I’ve yet to discern, my friends, how we can be angry and grateful at the same time. I don’t think we can give thanks and still be resentful. I think there’s no way we can be full of any righteous indignation and still possess the humility to give thanks to someone or something else.

Gratitude is personal. It’s not some aimless offering. The colloquial “thank God” doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you add an “s” and a comma. “Thanks, God”… that means far more… That’s direct. That’s intentional… that takes all focus off of self.

I don’t believe we are called to give thanks for all things, but I do believe we can give thanks in all things — especially when I think of gratitude as being something more… as trusting in the great, big God of the universe. I can’t always thank him for my “thorns,” but I recognize that the rose bush doesn’t exist without the thorns. I trust God. That’s enough for me. That trust makes me thankful.

I pause this day, thinking of my sweet sister, Nicole. She is awesome. Ok, so I’m biased — maybe just a little — but ask any who meet her; she’s awesome! Nicole has always been this vibrant, encouraging, positive young lady who makes the whole room brighter. She rarely focuses on the negative — nor on the anger, resentment, righteousness, or self.

Things have changed this last year for her. Nicole was suddenly and shockingly diagnosed with stage 4 esophageal cancer. The disease continues to progress; hence, this 34-year-old, beautiful young woman, now walks a life marked by an incredibly challenging, physical reality. She won’t tell you this, but some of her days are really, really hard. And yet, she continues on… still positive… still not focused on self.

In one of our recent conversations, I found myself uniquely stunned. Nicole remains faithful. She is not paralyzed by any fear nor dismayed by the diagnosis. She is not shaken by the huge “thorn” in her life. In fact, she will quietly but boldly tell you, that she still has much to be thankful for… she has a wonderful family; she is surrounded by people who love her; and her relationships are better. It’s amazing how cancer causes people to let you know how they really feel. People have been generous in the outpouring of their love. She gives thanks for that. Her attitude is absolutely amazing.

On this Thanksgiving, may each of us trust God in all things. May we give him thanks. And may we always see the rose bush… even amidst the thorns. Happy Thanksgiving, friends. I am thankful for you.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

ferguson

There will be no indictment in Ferguson, Missouri. The grand jury did not find there was ample evidence to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of unarmed, 18-year-old Michael Brown. Remember that Wilson is white; Brown was black. Also be aware that the 12 person jury is the only group of people that has heard all the collected evidence. They had a “monumental responsibility.” Their job was to separate fact from fiction. Their job was not to be pressured by the public nor seduced by subjectivity. Their job was to search for truth.  I pray they did their job well.  I do not claim to know.

I also wholeheartedly believe there is no reason for looting, riots, destruction nor any celebration. There is grief that a young man died far too early. There is heartache for his surviving, hurting family. And as is typical of our Intramuralist dialogue, there are questions. I will offer only a few, written in the immediate aftermath, witnessing the response:

How many of us made up our minds ahead of time what the verdict should be?  — what was that based upon?

For some, was an indictment more important than truth?

Is a non-indictment an absolution of guilt?

Why do we feel empowered to discern right from wrong in absence of all the evidence?

How does the media affect the process?

Are we getting an accurate perspective?

Does our emotion ever obstruct us from truth?

Does social media help or hurt?

Does  public pressure ever trump actual evidence?

Do we feel capable of dictating justice?

Do we ever become demanding?

Where are we unwilling to allow justice to play itself out?

Do we feel warranted in taking justice into our own hands?

And…

…do we believe that God is just — that justice will eventually be served through him?  Is that enough for us?

I have few answers — mostly just questions, as it’s a sad time in Ferguson, Missouri. A young man died far too young, and a lack of unity and trust exists amid the community.

That lack of unity was evident last night. When I witnessed a sign by one in the crowd, saying “black lives matter,” my heart hurt. The protestor is right; black lives do matter;  all lives matter.  Therein lies the challenge; we are inconsistent in the valuing of life or the life of another.  Sometimes we see differently in regard to only one “kind of life,” when yes, all lives matter… black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, born, unborn, gay, straight, religious, non-religious, old, young, Republican, Democrat, special needs, you name it… Sometimes, for some reason, we passionately seek justice only for some.  Perhaps we should instead trust God for justice for all.

Prayers for peace… prayers for the Brown family… prayers, too, that wisdom, truth, and love would always reign most important.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

ordering immigration

mexican-flag-300x225Years ago I shared an apartment with a man name “Pepe.” “Shared” is a relevant term. More accurately, my friend — for whom “Pepe” served as a colloquial cognomen for a far longer name (necessitating significantly more advanced pronunciation skills) — gave me 100 bucks each month to camp on my couch.

Pepe was a Mexican citizen. His wife was expecting their first child. You should have seen his face in anticipation of that child… a quiet, gentle man — a man who looked only a known friend in the eye — his countenance shone unprecedentedly brightly when thinking of his future son.  Amazing… just amazing.  I was so touched by his hope… by his joy.

Pepe lived with me for those few months, away from his wife, as he worked two full-time jobs in South Florida in hopes of making enough money to pay for the baby’s birth. I have thought of him often as the immigration debate swirls — how he would have been affected. It helps me to think of Pepe. It helps me to think of that quiet, gentle man… a man who was unquestionably humble, never feeling entitled, a man who embraced hard work and never ceased to count his many blessings.

Last Thursday Pres. Obama announced that he was taking executive action in order to reform the nation’s immigration system. He will make law without congressional input. Here is a brief snapshot of the relevant facts:

  • There is bipartisan support for immigration reform.
  • A Senate-passed bill was never voted upon in the House.
  • Many House-passed bills have never been voted on in the Senate.
  • Partisans in both the House and Senate frequently blame the congressional body refusing to hold votes (… ahem… forgetting anytime one points a finger, four fingers point back at self…).
  • Obama’s Executive Order halts deportations to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who’ve resided in the country for at least five years. This affects four to five million people.
  • Many could now receive work permits.  It’s uncertain how many will attain Social Security cards and thus qualify for other benefits.
  • How it affects the economy is uncertain.
  • Obama’s legal authority is uncertain.
  • Obama previously said he does not have the authority to ”suspend deportations through Executive Order.”
  • Obama denies any political motivation.
  • The White House waited to announce their plan until after the midterm elections but before the new Republican majority in Congress convenes.
  • The administration began planning this move nine months ago.

As posted previously, the Intramuralist believes our current immigration system is challenged by laws and an enforcement process which seem inefficient and inconsistent. This is a tough issue. Yet precisely because the issue is tough, I do not wish for any president to make unilateral decisions; I want the President to use Congress. I want them to work together. There is bipartisan support to do this well.

Pres. Obama’s unwillingness to wait until the new Congress convenes in a little more than a month tells me that there is some aspect in which Obama is not being transparent. He is utilizing Executive Order as a substitute for the hard work of governing. Executive Orders are the “easy way out” — easier because by bypassing Congress, an Executive Order also bypasses the time, respect, and humility necessary to listen, consider, roll up the sleeves and work with someone other than the likeminded… someone other than self. My concern is again the manifestation of an unprecedented, arrogant approach.

When thinking of immigration reform, it helps me to instead think of Pepe… a quiet, gentle, and undoubtedly humble man…

Respectfully…

AR