Finding Common Ground with President Trump

I am sharing this with my representatives. I hope you'll consider sharing this or something similar that shows your views as well!


Dear Representative (or Senator) ___________,


I have been concerned with the way the Trump administration has handled various immigration matters. But in an effort to find common ground, I have found various statements by Donald Trump that I believe highlight important starting points that many Americans can agree on. Please consider working with others to make progress on these issues. Compromise can be painful, but it is better than extended periods of inaction that harms our country.

First, in December 2024, Donald Trump said on Meet the Press, “I will work with the Democrats on a plan. And if we can come up with a plan, but the Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything. Republicans are very open to the dreamers. The dreamers, we’re talking many years ago they were brought into this country. Many years ago. Some of them are no longer young people. And in many cases, they’ve become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases they have small businesses. Some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.” When asked if he wants them to be able to stay, he said, “I do.” Can this be done now? It could be as simple as passing a law that states that people who came to the United State before age x have lawful status to live and work here and may apply for citizenship. I would be most happy with all who came before age 18, but would also be very happy with at least those who came before age 10 (which is the youngest age that Idaho juvenile law allows detention for, no matter how serious a violation of law was, and for immigrant children they were almost always just doing what adults told them to do and not doing any kind of willful law violating).

My second proposal for improving laws for immigrants relates to when, on October 22, 2016, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump stated that we should build a wall and Mexico should pay for it. A few seconds later he said he had spoken with the president of Mexico, calling their president a wonderful person. So the intent was not to say that Mexico is bad and should suffer for something, but that Mexico or Mexicans should contribute to something they’re a part of. This history of benefits coming from showing good will to those of other countries goes back thousands of years. My younger brother loves to study ancient documents, and he showed me something from more than 2,000 years ago, in which helping to build a wall resulted in the benefits of citizenship: “the Syracusans helped the Antandrians to finish a portion of their wall, and in the garrison-duty made themselves most popular. For this reason the Syracusans now enjoy at Antandrus the privileges of benefactors and citizens.” See https://topostext.org/work/96. This positive tradition of respecting foreign-born individuals continued and is referenced in the Magna Carta in 1215: “All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs.” This time-proven and rights-respecting tradition is part of what inspired our Founding Fathers to create the kind of government we have. I think it would be wonderful for people, who have been here for a time already or who desire to come, to be able to contribute to building something (like a wall) that keeps bad things like drugs out and in exchange have the benefits of citizenship.

I realize that such specific suggestions may not be the best next steps. They are not the only steps that would make me happy, and I am sure you will know better what to start with. But waiting for the perfect solution is not working. There are people here who should be legalized, whose legalization would increase compliance with tax laws and other laws, and it should not matter who gets credit for the improvement of our laws. I believe Democrats and Republicans should work quickly to legalize many, if not all, of the people here. I hope there can be bipartisan and unity-promoting legislation. If not, Republicans can no longer use Democrats as an easy excuse for inaction; I believe Republicans could put something together themselves, and if it legalizes a large number of childhood arrivals then it would be surprising to see all Democrats oppose it. Maybe a fine for past non-compliance by some immigrants can satisfy those who feel a punishment is needed to move on. I will be grateful for any efforts my representatives make towards a better system.

To promote positive legal changes for immigrants, my wife and I designed a yard sign that says “We ❤️ Immigrants: and we support more accessible paths to citizenship.” I was concerned it might be divisive, but we have received no malicious comments, and several positive comments. One friend said she wouldn't tell us her thoughts on that topic, but made that comment very good-naturedly. Every other comment has been positive and multiple people have wanted to display the same sign of support. There is less antagonism than we thought. There is more unity than we realized. I believe efforts to improve laws for immigrants will be understood and appreciated by many Americans. Many politicians have talked vaguely and frequently about our broken immigration system. There has been a long wait for positive changes. Now is the right time to do the right thing with our immigration laws.

Do Something That Our Yesterminute Selves Would Be Fearful About Doing But That Our Faith-filled Selves Can Do Joyfully

Sometimes I doubt, like Thomas in the New Testament. Not willing to feel peace and excitement about something totally wonderful and exciting, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, until I’m totally sure. Or not willing to relax about a big event (giving a talk, having an important talk with somebody, social event, argument in court, etc.) until totally prepared (usually never, so not until the event is over). I’m happy I’m not called Doubting Rees, like how Thomas has sometimes been called Doubting Thomas. Because there is also faith-filled Rees. Like all people, I have better and worse moments. With this blog article, inspired by the Easter season, I am writing how Jesus Christ takes away my fears when I believe in Him.

Doubt is specifically mentioned in another story around the same time. In Matthew 28, Jesus starts an amazingly powerful and joyful injunction right after he senses some doubt among His apostles. Shortly after His resurrection, His eleven remaining apostles went to where Jesus had told them to meet Him. “And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted.” Those eleven had seen inspiring miracles, but had also seen the frighteningly harsh treatment He had suffered, and perhaps were worried that there was about as much bad stuff ahead as good stuff. “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He reassures them that He has all power. He let people crucify Him out of love, not out of a lack of power. To me He is saying that His power is much bigger than my doubt. And He is telling them it is time for His gentle and great power to be proclaimed to bless everybody. After stating the power He has, He immediately goes into encouraging His disciples to bless all the world with His covenants and teachings.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. - Matthew 28:19-20.

I believe we can have a similar experience every time we reach out to God in prayer. He can reassure us of His love, power, and confidence, and inspire us to do better than we ever have before. And so, if we feel a little anxious, about going to work, serving in church, helping a neighbor, getting through clean-up time with kiddos in a kind-natured way, etc., I think that we can, by believing in and relying on Jesus Christ’s power, get rid of our fear and be confident as we do what needs done.

God can help us when we have a natural confidence, when we’re feeling doubtful or fearful, or in all other sorts of conditions, even when we have particularly unlikeable or bad characteristics. I love quotes showing God’s love for sinners. I have been especially moved by a talk by Richard G. Scott, an apostle of Jesus Christ who died several years ago, emphasizing that God wants us to pray to Him even when we have such an unpleasant characteristic as arrogance:

It matters not our circumstance, be we humble or arrogant, poor or rich, free or enslaved, learned or ignorant, loved or forsaken, we can address Him. We need no appointment. Our supplication can be brief or can occupy all the time needed. It can be an extended expression of love and gratitude or an urgent plea for help. He has created numberless cosmos and populated them with worlds, yet you and I can talk with Him personally, and He will ever answer. - Talk by Elder Scott.

So, even if you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or your family member woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or if somebody deeply disagrees with the kind of person you are, God will hear you and love you. 

This morning I found this beautiful tulip hidden next to our shed. I really wanted to buy tulips this year. I called a flower shop ahead, and learned they’d be available in a week. Then I waited a few weeks and went, and they were gone! But this tulip, through the wonders of God’s power, popped up in an unexpected way. 

Similarly, trusting in God can help in hidden ways, like this morning, when I might have felt sort of wandering and sad, but by trying to engage with people and in good work like Jesus would, I felt happier. I think that we can “unexpectedly,” or in ways that might be surprising to our faithless selves, change our fear to confidence as we learn of, trust in, connect with, and follow Jesus Christ the best that we can. I know He lives and loves us.

How Trump's Criminal Trials Are Different From Politics

        I am incredibly excited about Donald Trump’s criminal trials. I love our criminal justice system, usually from my perspective as a defense attorney. But this time I’m part of the indignant public whose desires I so often disdain as inferior to the ideals of our defendant-protective Constitution. So, it has been intriguing for me to reflect on how awesome our criminal justice system is, regardless of which side you favor. The long-standing criminal rules, statutes, and constitutional principles are a refreshing break from some of the negative features of politics and social media. I’ll discuss four principles in our criminal justice system that lead to more accurate information than you might see in just any old social media post or news article.

For one, the most extreme voices can be eliminated during jury selection, with both sides having an equal opportunity to remove them. Unlike on social media, where a tiny percentage of people with extreme views drown out the more moderate majority, the most extreme jurors are removed. In fact, any jurors who happened to post extreme things on social media are certain to be off the jury, because the attorneys would easily have found those posts.

Second, there is nothing like “fake news” in a criminal trial. Both sides must have disclosed exhibits and witnesses ahead of time, and thus research by the opposing side can be done to, where possible, disprove falsities before the trial is over. Knowingly providing false evidence can lead to harsh penalties for known witnesses and lawyers (the anonymity so common online is not allowed). And hearsay rules prevent people from sharing false information and blaming somebody who is not in the courtroom for any lack of truth in the evidence. Thus, there is an extremely strong incentive for the evidence to be legitimate.

Third, jurors must listen to both parties, and both sides are fully entitled to challenge every bit of evidence presented by the opposing side. When I was a law clerk, one of my jobs was to pass a note to the judge when I saw a juror seeming to doze off, so that the judge could let them stretch their legs etc. to ensure they were processing the evidence. Of course, there is no guarantee that every juror is as open-minded as he or she is instructed to be, but at least they can’t get all their information from a news outlet that never varies in its attacks/defense of certain people (Trump, as is particularly relevant here). I wish our elections could be more open-minded (in fact, I recently signed a petition for open primaries, which might be a good step, reach out if you are interested). I wonder if our elections would turn out differently if every voter had to listen to both sides like jurors. I certainly don’t have energy after my three little kids go to bed to carefully research both sides of every issue; it’s probably good that jurors aren’t allowed to bring their kids to court.

My fourth and final point is related to but distinct from my third: jurors must listen to and deliberate with each other. Again, no guarantees about open-mindedness, but the judicial and social pressure to discuss all of the evidence creates a decision-making process that is very different from how somebody establishes her position while alone on Facebook or talking with family or friends. Juries include a wide array of perspectives and an obligation to at least talk with each other; in fact, in a serious or complicated case, if a jury were to come back with a verdict too soon, the judge may order that they deliberate longer.

Those are all amazing features of our criminal justice system, and mean that both sides have a fair shot at achieving their goal (conviction or acquittal). And it leads me to have some respect for either outcome given by the jury, even where Donald Trump is involved.

Now, some might say that a conviction, even if fairly proven during the trial, is unfair because he shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place since others would not have been prosecuted for the same thing.

Even some anti-Trump folks are concerned that Trump is being prosecuted for things that other people would not be prosecuted for. I’ve read that Reagan and Biden both kept some confidential documents that they probably should not have kept. So prosecuting Trump for the same thing shows that the whole prosecution is a joke, right? Only to the extent that you think most prosecutions are jokes. I would say it is more of the rule than the exception for a criminal defendant to feel unfairly singled out, or to complain that somebody else was not also prosecuted. A man may complain that his wife verbally and even sometimes physically abuses him, and that it’s unfair that he is charged just because she called the police. A parent may complain that only her child was charged with battery, when the other child had been bullying and provoking for months. Several kids may goof off together, but only the kid appearing early in the investigation is charged; later evidence inculpating others may be ignored because the dramatic feelings leading to the initial charge have pittered. Just because the defendant wasn’t necessarily the only one to blame, doesn’t mean there is no case or evidence against their behavior.

Often what matters in the decision to prosecute (unlike with the jury’s conviction/acquittal decision) is whether a victim, or the public generally, creates pressure to do so. Officers often ask victims if they want to “press charges,” a legally meaningless phrase given the victim has no direct decision-making authority in the process, but their voice is practically quite meaningful. It is an appropriate part of the system that prosecutors, who are elected or otherwise highly accountable to the public, use their initial discretion in accordance with public will and respond to public outcry. Clearly, Trump’s behavior has caused an exceptional amount of public outcry, and it is natural that prosecutions have followed.

        Fortunately, our court system usually prevents just any prosecution from succeeding, by ensuring the crime charged actually occurred. Then the defendant, if found guilty, will have the opportunity to explain the full situation to the judge, and see if perhaps it persuades the judge to be lenient in sentencing based upon the variety of factors that merit mercy.

        What one judge decides as a sentence is not going to affect my overall opinion of Trump much. But I will take a jury’s decision (at least if it is unanimous) as a relatively legitimate piece of evidence that, in that situation, he did or did not break a law, one that the people of New York or Georgia or the U.S. thought to be felony behavior. To be honest, I’m unlikely to be swayed by acquittals to vote for him, though if his main opponent in the election has been found guilty of more felonies than him, I'll be quite open-minded.

 

Letter to Representatives Regarding February Senate Border Bill

Dear Senator,

I was disappointed to see you did not support the bipartisan border security proposal earlier this month. The bill is clearly progress. It increases the administration’s capacity and obligation to enforce the law, creates a clear and legal point at which the border can be shut down entirely, and allows more applicants for asylum to work legally (as opposed to the current system where they must work illegally for six months or rely on public support). If you are concerned that the current administration simply will not enforce the law, it is surprising that more legal challenges have not been pursued. Last year, in U.S. v. Texas, a majority of the Supreme Court, including justices nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents, expressed there would likely be standing to sue “if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities” related to immigration. A clearer law allowing a shutdown of the border would make that case even stronger. 

I am not convinced, however, that the current administration is willfully allowing chaos to reign at the border, and in fact it seems clear that getting a better handle on the border would improve approval ratings for the president. I fear that Representative Nehls’s response to the bill may reflect the response of some senators: “I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man’s dismal approval ratings.” Or worse, some senators may simply fear criticism of former President Trump. It is sadly ironic that the former president, who supposedly has border security as his strong point, may be the reason that a bill to improve the border is not passing. Donald Trump, and those who follow his lead, apparently only want an improved border if Donald Trump will get credit for it.

Some Republicans clearly fly figurative (or literal) pro-Trump or anti-Biden flags above the American flag, and perhaps you cannot do right by them unless you do whatever increases Donald Trump's chances of winning. But as stated by James Madison in Federalist 10, our constitutional system is set up to “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”

Perhaps the situation is more complicated than I realize, but it seems to me that a simple policy of supporting bills that improve the law would do a lot of good for our country. The game of waiting for a bill that does “enough” to improve border security seems to be a never ending game.

As for me and many individuals that I know, including many other Republicans, we would like to see improvement of the immigration laws even if a perfect solution cannot be reached yet. I sadly see what James Madison hoped would be alleviated by our constitutional system, that leaders “of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.” We must be above simply going along with antagonistic attitudes, avoiding “factions” as the Founding Fathers would say.

The current chaos at the border has real negative consequences on real people.  Fentanyl and other dangerous drugs flood our country, killing many young people before their prime.  Cities previously unaffected such as New York City face devastating economic and logistical problems. True asylum seekers are swallowed up in a clogged system.  Border states are overwhelmed without the help they deserve from the federal government.  If this deal is weaker than some wish, and Donald Trump can do better, he should win an election and work with congress to make another bill that strengthens the border even further.  But until then, Congress should do its job and stop playing politics with people’s lives in order to appease Mr. Trump.

I feel this bill, or something similar that could be accepted by a bipartisan majority, would save lives of people around us, by decreasing dangerous drugs that cross the border, and would help people fleeing persecution to start their lives here in a responsible and safe way—working legally for an employer who follows immigration and labor laws. I believe these people are children of God, and deserve to have us work for these changes, not months down the road when new legislators and administrations might do something that one party thinks is even better, but right now.

Thank you for your service, and I will pray for you in your efforts to help our country.

Rees Atkins

Pros and Cons of Fake-it-til-you-make-it

For many years I have been interested by the idea of fake-it-til-you-make-it. I get hung up on binary moral questions, so perhaps it has caught my attention because I’m wondering “is it good or bad to fake-it-til-you-make-it?” Faking is usually bad . . . but smiling and having good actions is usually good. Of course, when and how this particular catch phrase should be applied is nuanced, and I thought it would be worth my time to dive in.

For succinctness, we'll say fityomi (fake it til you make it).

An example of an extreme (though unfortunately not uncommon) adherence to fityomi would be never talking about your stresses, not even with God, because you hope that by pretending things are good they’ll be good. When I was on a mission to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in Guatemala, I had an experience that helped me learn to be open with God, including sharing my negative feelings. We had something called a zone conference, where our mission president gave us instruction and encouragement. At one particular zone conference early in my mission, he encouraged us to stop every family we passed to share the gospel with them. That felt very overwhelming to me, because we passed a lot of families, and had a lot of places to go. He also laughed about another piece of advice that was given at the conference, advice to avoid stress to help our health. He commented that life is stress, or something along those lines. That evening, one of the families that my companion and I stopped was the Piche family; we got their address, and I’ll share more about them later. 

That night as I prayed, I openly shared with the Lord that I felt stressed. It was somewhat out of character for me. I had given thanks, and prayed for help in my duties, and for comfort, and for forgiveness, for something. This time I just shared my current real feelings. I felt enveloped in love, and like things would be okay.

Visiting the Piche family with my family

We ended up teaching the Piche family, and I have returned to Guatemala twice to stay with them, and to this day they are some of my best friends. Relevant to this article, I needed the stressful encouragement from my mission president to stop more families, because I would very likely not have stopped them without that encouragement, and I was not mature enough to take that encouragement without it being stressful. But that does not mean that I needed to endure my feelings alone. The Lord was more than willing to comfort me, meet me where I was, and lead me along.

That experience and others, especially with sharing concerns with my wife and receiving her support and comfort, lead me to believe that fityomi is bad insofar as it stops us from sharing openly and receiving support from those who are close to us.

All of that said, while writing this article my overall conclusion is that a little more fityomi would actually be good for me. I vigorously tried it one night when my wife and I were having some tension. We were on the verge of a downward spiral of both feeling misunderstood. I think my normal response to the situation would have led to many tears from my wife and frustrated or guilty feelings by me, with a potential make-up talk happening long after I wish I was in bed. Instead, I acted happy, kind, and non-defensive, the opposite of what I was feeling, and the feelings quickly lined up with my behavior so that we could have some pleasant time together and a reasonable bedtime.

Do we sometimes learn from experiences of both sharing negative feelings, eventually arriving at more understanding of each other, and rejoicing in having overcome the negative experience? Yes, but sometimes what we learn is to act in a way that avoids a repeat of the same experience, perhaps by temporarily discounting our negative feelings. So, when negative feelings are hot and I think to myself “things like this will never stop if I don’t let her know how I’m feeling right now,” I can recall that speaking in anger has not been the best option in the past, and that a little fityomi can get me to a better point.

Outside of marriage, fityomi comes more naturally, since I have my guard up more with those I’m less close to. Having my guard up has pros and cons. I’m less likely to give destructive criticism to somebody, but I might lose the opportunity to grow close to others. Fityomi might need to be reduced to allow me to share what is hard for me, being vulnerable, to promote a relationship where each person can help the other with struggles. Fityomi might need to be increased to prevent me from, for example, always acting in accordance with the rushed feelings that I often have at work. Asking a thoughtful question to a coworker, even when I’d rather be getting a to-do done in my office, helps with our long-term working and personal relationship. 

With my children, my default feelings tend to be a little lower energy than is ideal, so a little fityomi can help me get out of a sleepy slump and start enjoying some precious playtime with them. Every once in a while, however, if sick or extremely exhausted, I find that sharing sincere affection and then requesting a lower-energy activity like reading a book or crawling on a couch-laying daddy is acceptable to them.

I sometimes cringe from acting more positive than I'm feeling. I know certain people who I admire but of whom I've witnessed brief moments of off-putting forced or strained kindness. But perhaps their habit of seeking to be kind has led them to be the generally admirable and sincerely kind people they are. Certainly, occasional shortfalls in ourselves or others shouldn't stop us from trying to act better than we're feeling.

I believe that fityomi can be one way of exercising faith in Jesus Christ, not just faith in myself, and repenting. It acknowledges that my current feelings are not as important as my ongoing commitment to follow Jesus Christ, and my belief that He can change me from who I currently am into somebody more like Him. Jesus overcame temptation, doing what was right even when there were reasons to be more harsh or unresponsive. I don't know what He felt, but I believe thinking of Him and acting like Him will help me have feelings more like His, feelings of love, compassion, and an eventual fullness of joy. 

Like other helpful principles, fityomi is better when not taken to an extreme. These two scriptures from The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ help show the balance. The first is about overcoming some of our natural tendencies, and the second is about recognizing our current level of strength as we set our pace. 

“[T]he natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” (Mosiah 3:19).

“And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.” (Mosiah 4:27).

Over time, I believe our commitment to follow Jesus Christ will transform us into authentically kind people, true friends with Jesus Christ and each other.

We the People, Our Principles, and Our Immigration Law

I used to think our immigration law was bad mostly for economic reasons, that society would have more things if we'd loosen the immigration restrictions. But I recently began working with immigrants as an attorney, and I have realized that our immigration laws' effects on people are more . . . personal. The immigration code's flaws affect society's view of immigrants, immigrants' view of themselves, and immigrants' ability to participate fully in society.

My goal with this article is that you'll contact your representatives and encourage them to promote a simpler and less harsh immigration system. There are links to help you do that at the bottom; let's see if I succeed!

The Constitution begins with "We the People," in much larger font than the rest of the document. We revere those words because we think it is important that we are responsible for making our own laws. There are currently some major contradictions between our immigration law and some principles and statements that many of us acknowledge as true and important. I think we should be welcoming to immigrants from a variety of backgrounds, and I think you'll be surprised at how unwelcoming our law is. My intention with this post is to bring to light some of the contradictions between our law and basic good principles like equality, economic freedom, and treating others as we would be treated. I believe that "we the people" can move towards having laws that better reflect our values.

Equality

The poem by Emma Lazarus, which has been at the base of the Statue of Liberty for 120 years, says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

However, we the people say you should be less likely to get to be here if you are too young, too old, or too medically needy, and we ask that you or a sponsor in our country have far more money than the average family in the country you come from. (See 22 CFR § 40.41 - Public charge.)

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold 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."

But We the People say that if you are an unmarried 30-year-old Canadian with a permanent resident parent, wait about eight years to get a visa; if you are an unmarried 30-year-old Mexican with a permanent resident parent, wait 22 years. See The Department of State's Visa Bulletin for Feb. 2023.

Jesus "denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female." See The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. 

We give high priority to "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." We also give priority to "outstanding professors and researchers," "certain multinational executives and managers," and "members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability." We give no path to citizenship or permanent residence to a "typical" single mother from a poor country who may want to join her son who is living undocumented in the United States so that he can send her enough money to get by. Even if boosting our easily measurable economy was all that mattered, which of course it is not, we do not take account of the fact that a parent who does not fit our ideal employment categories may raise children here who do.

Several parts of The Declaration of Independence make clear that the revolutionists were not making up new rights they thought they should start to have, but that they largely wanted the rights that people in England enjoyed, such as Trial by Jury. Have we slipped back into only caring about our own rights and economic well-being, and ignoring the well-being of the more than ten million undocumented residents? Perhaps the colonists could have moved back to England to more fully enjoy liberty, but that would needlessly inhibit the spread of political and economic freedom.

Economic Freedom

Many in the Republican party, which is the larger culprit in stopping immigration liberalization, claim to support a free market. Becoming free from England's restrictive economic policies was part of what inspired the revolution and founding of our country. Adam Smith is known as the father of modern economics, with his most-cited idea being that of the "invisible hand." He explained in The Wealth of Nations that a person working  as he thinks best (not as the government thinks best) is "directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." Milton Friedman, a famous economist and advisor to Ronald Reagan, argued that "[u]nderlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

The immigration code has hundreds or thousands of provisions trying to manipulate and guess about economic situations, giving restrictions and special spots for certain kinds of workers, and it seems nonsense to me to think that the incomprehensible mess has some helpful economic purpose, and many decades after most of the immigration act was passed, perhaps all of us would agree the immigration code is not economically smart. Of course, it creates jobs for immigration lawyers and others who are needed to apply the law, but that is not good economics. Little to no credit is given in the code to the idea that when an immigrant seeks his own best interest, or that of his family, he is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention" and is the best for society. I will give just one example from the code that defies free-market economic principles. For certain immigrants to work here, there must be a certification that "the employment of the alien in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed." Unless the immigrant is truly an alien from another planet whose skills do not compete with or substitute for the skills of employees already in the United States, an immigrant's labor will ALWAYS, at least in some way or for some period of time, adversely affect the wages or working conditions of workers in the United States. That is simply how markets work: offering labor or other goods will lower the price (wages in the labor market) of what is already in the market, but the benefit of lowered prices to consumers and market as a whole is greater than the harm to the labor and product-sellers that were previously enjoying higher prices/wages. Given the nonsensical standard of not being allowed to have any adverse effect on wages, the line between those who can and cannot come to work must be arbitrary. I think there is "a lack of belief in freedom," specifically, a lack of belief that current workers here can adapt and learn new skills to adjust to a change that may occur if we have a free market that allows immigrants. If more people are given freedom to immigrate to the United States, individuals will adapt and innovation and efficiencies will occur.  This will eventually result in lower prices and more products. For example, some immigrants may be able and willing to make food at a lower cost, and may fuse cooking ideas from their country with ours.

The Golden Rule: Loving Others as Ourselves

Jesus said to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Matthew 22:39. The basic rule of our immigration system is to allow immigrants only through a route intended to benefit a close family member already here or an employer. This means that somebody already lawfully here must petition for somebody to come, and that is just the beginning of the restrictions on admission. A common bar to admission comes from being here without documents authorizing an immigrant's presence here. If an immigrant comes here and stays for more than a year, then even if the immigrant marries a U.S. citizen the immigrant must, unless he or she gets a special waiver, leave the country for 10 years before becoming a lawful permanent resident. Getting a waiver requires showing that there would be extreme hardship to somebody who is a "qualifying relative," which would be a lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. So when a lawful citizen petitions for her husband to become a resident and he has been here unlawfully for over a year, they must show that denying residence to the husband would create extreme hardship to the citizen wife in order to avoid the husband needing to wait outside the U.S. for 10 years prior to obtaining residence, and hardship to anybody else is not considered. To make this clear, a line from the policy manual of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services says to "consider an applicant who is married to a U.S. citizen with whom she has a 5-year-old child with a disability. Unless the relevant waiver allows for her child to serve as a qualifying relative, the USCIS officer may not consider the hardship to the child if the applicant is denied admission." Related hardship to a "qualifying relative" can be considered, but wouldn't we want hardship to ourselves and our child considered if we were in the immigrant's shoes or citizen child's shoes? If by some means we ended up in a country without documents and without the right to vote, either because our parents took us there or because we chose to come long ago to achieve a better life, wouldn't we want the neighbors around us, voters, laws, and government officials to consider our plight?

 

Jesus set an example of praying with loving words like "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." He taught that ". . . of you it is required to forgive all men." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines forgiveness between mortals like this: "As people forgive each other, they treat one another with Christlike love and have no bad feelings toward those who have offended them."

We say that if you came without documents and lived peacefully here for decades, you must leave our country for ten years before gaining status, with exceptions only for those with citizen or lawful permanent resident spouses or parents (as mentioned above, hardship to a citizen child receives no consideration) who would face extreme hardship if you were deported. If you did more than come once, like say you went back to your home country to visit a dying parent and then came back, then you are permanently barred from obtaining legal status here. It does not matter that you have children who were born here, you must choose between 1) uprooting them to go to a country where they have never been and may not be welcome, 2) abandoning them, or 3) continuing to live here undocumented.

All of the immigration laws that I have referenced in this post involve no criminal convictions whatsoever. This means that there has been no showing of mens rea (evil/bad intent or knowledge) and no jury of one's peers to make factual determinations. So, similar to how sometimes I "forgive" my wife to overcome my own negative feelings, and in hindsight I realize she did nothing wrong at all, it may not be accurate to say we should "forgive" immigrants when wrongdoing has not been well-proven. But even if you think something wrong was done, does that make a 10-year family separation or uprooting the right answer? 

Cruel and unusual punishment could surely deter certain actions, but that doesn't make it right. 

If you think some penalty should be paid for an illegal entry decades ago, perhaps it could be financial. Or perhaps we just forgive it altogether. Do I think that it is wrong to punish crime? No. But like I said, the immigration penalties I have mentioned do not involve proving any crime. And while this may not be very scientific, use the "straight-face" test regarding the definition of forgiveness I mentioned earlier. I could say with a straight face to somebody who crashed into my car while under the influence, "I forgive you and do not have bad feelings towards you, but I do think a jail or probation penalty should be served." I do not think we could say with a straight face, "I do not have any bad feelings towards you, but I think that because you came here without documents 20 years ago you should leave your five U.S. citizen children here for ten years and then you can try to come back." I especially could not say that to a friend, or to the parents of my kids' friends. You might think, "well, that makes it sound more personal than it really is, government officials are the ones who enforce the law." But We the People make the law and are responsible for it. It is personal. These laws affect real people. These people live with anxiety about their status, they are often viewed differently and are less included socially, they can't vote or serve on juries, progressing careers is difficult, and in some states they do not have driver's licenses.

Perhaps you think that more legal routes should exist, but in the meantime laws are laws and must be followed. Instead of punishing somebody for violating an unjust law, why not change the law to make it more just? If a child rashly demands that her sibling comply with their assigned role in a game of pretend or get smacked, do we tell the child "you better follow through with what you threatened" or ask the child to apologize for making the threat? (Or would it be okay to pretend I don't hear . . . ?) Our bad immigration laws did not come from above, but from We the People, and we have the responsibility to change them. If "ye have no king; [then] if these people commit sins and iniquities they shall be answered upon their own heads." Mosiah 29:30.

All this said, I know it's not my role to try to guilt people into doing what I think is best; I'm just trying to give a new viewpoint by emphasizing the power of "We the People." Reasonable people may disagree, and if you find this more divisive than helpful, please comment and share your views! If you agree with me on any of these points, just spend 5 minutes writing your U.S. representative or one of your two U.S. senators (or 10 minutes to send to all three!). It could be as simple as "I think the immigration system should be simpler, less harsh, and less restrictive." Some conservative representatives may want the system to be simpler, but are afraid of lowering restrictions, and maybe some letters from constituents will help. I have had a few occasions where it is clear that at least somebody in the office had actually read my letter. If you feel extra passionate, doing a paper copy and cc'ing the legislative assistant over immigration will help your viewpoint get to the relevant people.

Here are some links that might help you (and just Google search if the links don't work😁):

U.S. Congressman Simpson, for Idaho's 2nd District (Mini-Cassia, Twin Falls, eastern Idaho, and some of Treasure Valley): https://simpson.house.gov/contact/

U.S. Senator Crapo for Idaho: https://www.crapo.senate.gov/contact/email-me

U.S. Senator Risch for Idaho: https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email

Find your representatives in the Idaho legislature (for issues like the recent Republican proposal to give a driver's license to anybody who passes the driving test or amendments to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution): https://legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/whosmylegislator/

Not in Idaho?

Find U.S. representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Find U.S. senator: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

If you do reach out to a representative, please comment on this blog or on my Facebook post so that I can tell if posts like this do any good! : )

Mid-life Identity Crisis

First, my wife says I'm not mid-life yet, so we'll say I'm talking about the middle 40 years of my life. 

When I was younger, like high school and undergrad years, I viewed myself very differently than now. I thought I was extra smart, hardworking, healthy (even athletic, though too busy or disinterested to act on my innate talent), kind, social, and active in church. Extra is intended to modify all of those adjectives. By extra, I mean really great in my own eyes, and better than most I knew. 

I assumed those exceptional attributes would lead to being rich and publicly powerful. I may be exaggerating to make my point, but only slightly. I spoke openly about my expectations of getting rich. At least some members of my family commented they thought I'd be the richest, as an orthodontist or with another high-paying career. 

Now I'll break down how each of those identities have . . . broken down. 

Rich

I recall talking with my wife around the time we married about some of our concerns for the future. We knew so many good people with such fancy, big things. Big, nice houses in particular. We worried that, someday, we'd fall into that trap. I worried that, as my income flew wildly out of control, I wouldn't be able to help our expenses from keeping pace. That name-brand cheese and fashionable suits would be too easy and attractive to pass up. Before we knew it, we'd be in a fancy, big house like all the other rich people. How could we discipline ourselves enough to set aside most of our income to save for future missions or other generosity? Our lives would be fraught with the moral dilemmas of people aspiring to be humble but awash with too much wealth.

Now a few years later . . . you could double my salary, and I assure you I could find ways to spend all of it on just my family with no moral qualms whatsoever. I simply don't see anything frivolous about replacing our section of carpet that smells like urine (and surrounding carpet to match), adding a second bathroom, letting a child or two have lessons of some kind, buying a futon, making progress on books my wife and I want to publish, recieving some counseling or therapy, flying to see some friends and family, going to Harry Potter/Disney World for the first time while visiting Orlando family . . . okay wow this is easy, maybe I should be talking about tripling my salary. 

We just recently bought a home. We looked at a lot of options. Not a single option was eliminated because it was too fancy or big. They were eliminated because they were too expensive or too dingy. That's right, too dingy. We discovered that we're uncomfortable without a certain niceness. 

She excitedly builds her fancy house as he accepts he can't afford such a house

The difference between my younger financial expectations and current reality, while it feels stark sometimes, came about gradually. As I was considering law school, I was warned by many people that I wouldn't make much money, and I was advised that an MBA would be better. I believed them, but decided I still wanted to be a lawyer. Some of this change came from meeting my wife. Although most Americans descend from great-depression era scrimpers, she talks about and carries on that legacy more than anyone I know. I'm yet to find a spec of being materialistic or wanting to seem rich in her. So anyway, I started law school with slightly dampened visions of getting rich. Then at some point I recognized that I didn't fit the mold of an attorney set up for "big law" that would pay better than other attorney jobs. One honest and good-humored professor said about being on law journal that it looks good to law firms because it shows you're willing to do a lot of work for little compensation. I missed the deadline for getting on law journal, but that was a relief and felt meant-to-be for my baby daughter and overwhelmed wife. Later, I took advantage of a school-paid-for trip to LA to interview with a big firm. I thought that the interviewer, through her curriculum vitae and appearance, possibly spoke an Asian language, so I took a shot at saying a line in the language I thought she might have spoken. She didn't understand. I think I felt my chances at a job like that were low enough that I'd rather have the chance to get some language-learning in than slightly increase my chances at getting the job. 

After being a judicial law clerk (slightly boring sometimes) and then public defender (never boring and often stressful), I realized that both of those jobs easily met the threshold for excitement and fun, and I should probably seek the most boring job possible while making enough to get by. In summary, I have realized I am very unlikely to accomplish or even seek being as rich as I used to anticipate.

Healthy

I distinctly remember a few times my sister who is a runner (she has run 100 miles in less than 30 hours, enough said) saying that I could be such a good runner if I cared enough. And at the beginning of my relationship with my wife, I remember my wife commenting on how infrequently I got sick. Even though I didn't care enough about these things to try to become a super athlete, it made me feel like a super person, perhaps thinking I'd live extra long or simply could do anything I set my mind to. A few years later . . . I have had celiac disease for several years, so my body doesn't absorb nutrients like most bodies, I can't eat what I used to think of as the ultimate healthy (whole wheat spaghetti with whole wheat toast), I have frequent digestive problems, I feel like my kids and I are sick with bugs about half the time, and I get body aches when I am not gentle with my body. So I don't have the lack of physical pain and the physical confidence that I had when I was younger.

Smart

I think I have viewed smartness as the ultimate prover of coolness. Maybe somebody chooses a less lucrative career, but if you went to Harvard then you're still forever cool. This was probably my earliest crushed identity, starting with the ACT, a standardized college acceptance test that I took during high school. Nothing like one big number to reflect exactly how many students you're dumber than.

Hardworking

This identity lasted longer than my smart identity. I figured, I may not be smart, but I work hard to get good grades and be awesome. Then my law school grades were not as great as undergrad's, and I have seen that doing a stellar, perfectly thorough job on certain work projects requires more time away from my family than I want to spend. And I simply run out of steam before I can use hard work to make our house as clean as I'd like.

Good-looking

Just kidding, I've never thought I was super good-looking. Though once my sister was looking at the newspaper section about people leaving on religious missions and said something like "who is that good-looking guy? Oh my goodness, it's Rees!" She didn't do it on purpose. Happiest day of my life up to that point (though clearly the picture didn't look much like me).

Active in church

I went many years (perhaps my entire adult life before children?) never missing church on Sundays. Then with COVID and my family's subsequent regular illnesses it feels like we are home half the time. I sometimes find myself missing the days when I knew everybody in the ward and never missed anything.

Kind

Yup, I've discovered I'm unkind. Okay so perhaps easy-to-get-along-with would be a better way to describe that identity; I still haven't given up on kindness. I used to enjoy wowing my close friends and family with how I could get along with even people with difficult characters. The break-down of this identity started with feeling thoroughly disliked by some of my mission companions. Turns out that saying nice things about somebody is easier than making decisions with somebody and being with the person 24/7. This further broke down when I began practicing law, with some opposing attorneys or parties finding what I think is ethical and necessary zealous representation to be excessive and disagreeable.

Social

I used to be a social butterfly, who struggled a little to have really close friends but had lots of friendships. Now I have reverted to a caterpillar, though fortunately I snatched a wife-caterpillar and wrapped her and our kiddos into a group-cocoon. Sickness and other busyness has simply made hanging out and visiting with others difficult.

Takeaway: Consistently Doing Small Things to Show My Love for Jesus is More Important Than My Short-term Feelings and Identities

So what is my takeaway from all of this? Some identities don't last forever, but I have thought more about my most important eternal identity, as a child of God and follower of Jesus Christ. A few weeks ago, my daughter woke up with a fever. We had just gotten over another sickness a few days earlier, and we were excited about my daughter getting to sing a song she loves, called Thankful, with the primary children during our congregation's Sacrament meeting. I was very frustrated and downright grumpy with . . . life? And with my wife. As I was in the shower I was trying to remember some key to being better. I was trying to remember some trick that I had thought of relating to how I should respond when something hard is happening. I couldn't remember the trick. So I thought, "okay, what is even more basic?" In my religion, the most basic principle we are taught is faith in Jesus Christ. While not remembering this exact quote, I remembered the gist of this concept taught by President Nelson: "[A]ct in faith. What would you do if you had more faith? Think about it. Write about it. Then receive more faith by doing something that requires more faith." I thought "what would I do because I believe in Jesus Christ?" with the implication that I would not do it if I did not believe in Him. For some reason, that inspired me to think "I should say something nice to my wife." That started to change my thoughts, and then I said something nice to her, and it helped. I think I had begun to tie my identity less to someone who gets through a sickness and quickly returns to health, or someone whose daughter gets to sing the fun things that she and her parents look forward to, and even less to someone who feels perfectly good-natured about happy expectations being dashed because of his innate kindness and optimism. Instead, I was tying my identity to being a follower of Jesus Christ, one who tries to follow Him in whatever circumstances/feelings/state I might find myself in.

As a more general point, I have learned that a lot of the identities that I, at some point, have created for myself are not really important to what matters most to me. I want to be a loving follower of Jesus Christ. And I can show that to myself and God by small and simple choices. I do not need to worry, at least not in every moment, about my overall life experience and how I feel about it and how awesome or horrible my repeated successes or failures are. I can just choose to follow Jesus in this moment. I recently read a good article from 1977 about "what makes a person loving." It talks about several actions that a loving person does. None of the actions require having certain feelings at all times. Rather, regular efforts to show affection, accept others, and give of oneself are the focus. This is much more inspiring to me than thinking that I need to feel and look like who I used to think I was, but simply am not. The journey can still be hard though, so it is wonderful to remember that Jesus knows how I feel. Because He chose to take upon Himself my sins and afflictions, and conquer them, He knows what it feels like to have money hopes dashed, suffer from celiac disease, have mediocre intelligence, run out of steam, struggle to get to church, feel accused of being heartless, and not get to be with friends or family as much as one would like. He helps us in our feelings, and guides us to keep growing closer to Him. Knowing Him is the ultimate purpose in life.