Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come; ‘Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far and Grace will lead me home. ~ John Newton Although he wrote “Amazing Grace” long after he had retired from being the captain of a slave ship, John Newton had continued in the trade for several years after his initial conversion to Christianity, a fact he greatly lamented later in life. But it was, perhaps, his guilt and shame for taking too long to reconcile his role in the slave trade with his new faith of Christianity, which drove him to become such a staunch abolitionist. While he is remembered mostly for the song he wrote, his greater legacy may have been the strong influence he had on a young English politician by the name of William Wilberforce, who spent 26 years leading the fight in parliament to abolish the British slave trade, culminating with the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which ended the slave trade and laid the moral framework for ending slavery. In the year 2000, the Republican-controlled congress passed The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and Clinton signed it into law. Three years later in 2003, the Republican-controlled congress voted to renew the measure and this time, Bush signed it into law. It was up for renewal again in 2006 and the Republican-controlled congress passed this same law for a third time, with Bush signing it for his second time. On December 23, 2008, a month before Bush left office, this same bill passed for a fourth time, with Bush signing it into law for his third time. Although the control of the House had nominally shifted to Democrats in 2007 as a result of the 2006 elections, every last one of the Republicans in congress voted for this fourth passage (as well as every Democrat). It was on its fourth passage that the law was renamed the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.” The law continually requires renewal because it has always – since its inception by Republicans – been passed as a part of the budgeting process, giving it a three-year life. In August of 2011, the law was allowed to temporarily lapse, as it was not included in the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama to end the national debacle of the Republican’s ginned-up debt-ceiling crisis and threat of sovereign default. In 2013 it was passed for a FIFTH time by the Republican-controlled House (and the Democratic Senate) and signed into law by President Obama – his first time of signing it. Although aimed at ending human trafficking, the law includes provisions which amend our immigration laws regarding deportation as it relates to unaccompanied children who come here from countries other than Mexico or Canada. The Wilberforce law REQUIRES such children to be turned over by ICE to HHS within 72 hours of being caught, so they can be “processed” which includes a hearing before an immigration judge to determine if they came here out of fear and whether they should be granted asylum. If we took every single US military tank and placed them end-to-end on the Southern border; if we took every US military plane, helicopter, and drone and constantly flew them over the border; if we planted every pair of US military boots on the ground at the border, this present crisis would not be affected. This crisis is not a result of “people coming here illegally” – they are walking up to the border guards with hands raised in the air, surrendering. It is not a result of a “porous border” – they are not getting by President Obama’s border guards, the largest number of border guards ever placed on the border by any president in US history. It is the fact that THEY ARE BEING CAUGHT, which has created the crisis. Because once they are caught, the Wilberforce law kicks in and due process must be followed. Yes, we can have expedited hearings so we can return many of them to their Central American countries. But there are 60,000 of the unaccompanied children and immigration officials already have a backlog of 350,000 cases. Processing takes judges, court reporters, interpreters, court security, facilities – all of which costs money. And yes, President Obama could take executive action, without congress passing a law to give him the money to alleviate the crisis. But they are already suing him for taking executive action, even though he has signed fewer executive orders than Reagan or Clinton or Bush. So Republicans in congress are in a dilemma. Do they refuse to provide the funding for this law which they have passed FIVE times, just so they can keep deceptively blaming President Obama for a crisis which THEIR law has created? Or do they do the right thing and provide the funds for this law (which is obviously very important to them), and thereby risk the wrath of their base for helping poor children making President Obama look good?
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:13:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015