40 Acres and a Mule…and a couple of low income apartments, and a nice tax break, and…

The Fall of Charlie Rangel

If you know anything about Congressman Charlie Rangel’s legacy, you have to ask yourself why, after more than four decades in the US House of Representatives, and numerous allegations of wrongdoing, did Mr. Rangel’s colleagues vis-á-vis the House Ethics Committee, wait until now to bring his alleged wrongdoing to the fore? Granted, Mr. Rangel has consistently employed his usual tactic of belligerence dressed up with a touch of charm and a measure of incredulity to beguile his foes and delay the Ethics Committee hearing, the timing of the hearing is suspicious. In my opinion, Mr. Rangel and his benefactors thought it best to wait until after the crucial midterm elections in order to soften anticipated voter outrage. On the one hand, had Mr. Rangel lost his bid for reelection, the charges would be mute, on the other; however; with a win, the Rangel Camp hoped to ride the wave of voter excitement to achieve an indefinite adjournment, if not an outright dismissal. Unfortunately for Mr. Rangel, the larger than expected Democrat losses in the House of Representatives motivated the committee to proceed with the hearings with uncharacteristic fervor and swiftness. Rangel’s delay tactics appeared to have backfired.

Among Mr. Rangel’s numerous delay tactics, was the dismissal (firing) of his legal team mere days before the hearing commenced, then appealing to the Committee to grant him additional time to retain new Counsel. Following the Committee’s denial of his last-minute bid for an adjournment to allow him to retain new counsel, Mr. Rangel suggested that an undisclosed group of New York attorneys would represent him pro bono. When the Ethics Committee informed Mr. Rangel that accepting free legal services amounts to an ethics violation, he promptly held a press conference at which he castigated the Committee; suggesting they had it in for him. Mr. Rangel did not specify whether Democrat or Republican Committee Members [or both] had it in for him. And in keeping with the Obama tradition, Mr. Rangel has even raised the specter of his race as a motivation for his ethics charges. This tired old tactic reminds me of my favorite quote from Mark Twain: “if you are ever being run out of town, get out in front and make it look like a parade.” The image brings a wider than normal smile to my face. I say, strike up the band, let’s have a bunch of parades; there are a few scoundrels in need of some motivation.

Mr. Rangel’s consistent misbehavior speaks volumes for the potency of the singular malady suffered by the career politician‒the loss of all concern for doing good, and a hyper greed fueled by the ever-present lure of easy money. Keenly aware of the potential for moral corruption, the founding fathers struggled with the concept of refreshing the body of elected representatives with freshly elected citizens who, by virtue of their newness would be less prone to succumbing to the entrapments of political power. Furthermore, these freshly elected representatives would, by virtue of their recency among the populace, tend to be more in-tuned with the actual needs of the constituency.

Irrespective of your political or ideological position, Mr. Rangel’s blatant disregard for the most basic of rules speaks volumes for his contempt of the House and its processes. Worst still, his willingness to hide behind the Race Card is shameful. I am not a gambler, but I would be willing to speculate as to the verdict if he were to be tried before a jury of his [citizen] peers. I am also certain that many of his fellow Democrats, who ultimately voted to convict and censure Mr. Rangel, did so only after witnessing the carnage that befell the Democrat party in November’s elections. Ironically, of the 12 members on the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, the only other African American on the committee, G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina cast the only vote to acquit Mr. Rangel. Surely, he did not buy Rangel’s racial conspiracy dribble; you have to wonder. But considering the frequency with which Race has been used over the past two years to explain abhorrent behavior, I have come to expect it.

Charlie Rangel, at long last, has had to face his misdeeds. To hear Mr. Rangel explain that “mistakes were made,” (a clever play on words intended to cash the shadow of blame elsewhere) one can only conclude that Mr. Rangel is clueless as to the state of his personal and professional affairs. If, by his own admission, Mr. Rangel is so out of touch with his own financial affairs then he lacks fiduciary competence to effectively represent the people of the 15th Congressional District of New York.

Having faced his colleagues in the Well of the House was for Mr. Rangel just another day in the office. His record is such that he typically faces the aftermath of his charges with what resembles conciliation and contrition. Similarly, Mr. Rangel’s record is such that, in very short order, it would be business as usual. Mr. Rangel’s behavior is reminiscent of a [long oppressed] Third World Dictator who upon his ascent to power behaves much like the proverbial “kid in a candy store”—stuffing his pockets with as much loot as possible. These individuals leave a legacy of carnage and debauchery; haven’t the people of Harlem endured enough?

Now, Mr. Rangel closes the year under yet another cloud of ethics violations; here we go again. On the heels of these new allegations, Mr. Rangel has appeared somewhat more conciliatory in recent days. Absent his usual taunts and jabs, one could conclude Mr. Rangel knows there is more substance to this new set of charges. Mr. Rangel should save himself and the Democrat Party any further humiliation by following President Obama’s earlier suggestion and step down. He should think of the people of Harlem and allow for a younger generation to take the reins of leadership. If he is to be believed when he professes his love for the people of Harlem, then he would do the right thing and step down now.

Enemy of the State, Part II

Siege at the O.K. Corral

Now that we have weathered to Post Obama election cycle, the American electorate have spoken in a profound and unequivocal fashion: they disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies; including his administration’s opposition to and, his legal challenge of SB-1070. Punctuated by the election of Jan Brewer to a full term as Governor, the people of Arizona have also spoken.

News reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Arizona is well within its rights (as prescribed by the Constitution) to pursue enforcement where Federal Laws fall short. Governor Brewer’s summary of a Ninth Circuit Court Hearing on SB 1070 provides the relevant facts of Arizona’s argument. Arizona’s efforts are a last resort attempt to navigate the broken immigration enforcement system.

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma; I risk betraying my predecessors by announcing my unequivocal support for Arizona’s [new] immigration enforcement law. With that, I am compelled to state that I am a naturalized American citizen. I emigrated to the United States in the 1970s with my family in pursuit of a “better life.” When I took my oath of citizenship, I swore [on the Bible] to adopt America as my home and to “forsake all ties” to the land of my birth (somewhat like a vow of marriage). I further swore to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—that is, all laws not just the ones I like. Thus, I must obey the law which requires me to maintain a speed at 30 MPH when driving in a residential neighborhood with the same zeal with which I obey the law that restrains me from robbing my neighborhood bank because I am broke and hungry. The President is likewise obligated to “support and defend” the laws of the land. By agreeing to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Mr. Obama and the Justice Department are similarly compelled. It is; therefore, puzzling to see the zeal with which The Administration has attacked Arizona.

It would be hypocritical of me to deny my sensitivity to the plight of immigrants; however, it would be equally hypocritical of me to condone lawlessness by looking the other way while lawbreakers breach our borders with reckless abandon and contempt. These are “crimes against the people,” of which we are the people. Moreover, how can the American people (the We) justify the efforts and diligence of those individuals, the world over, who visit American embassies daily, in pursuit of a LEGAL pathway to American residency and citizenship? These individuals and families have chosen the legal route to American residency and should not be punished. Lawbreakers should be punished; not rewarded with the prize of their illegal pursuit. To be fair, Arizona is not the only breech point for illegal immigration, nor is Mexico the only country whose citizens seek to violate US Immigration laws. Those seeking to enter the United States do so for two basic reasons: to seek a safe harbor from political and ethnic violence, and pursuit of better economic conditions that are characteristic of the US.

Like many would-be immigrants, I too was captivated by the myth of American streets being paved with gold. In retrospect; however, the gold metaphor could be said to be true; instead of bits of precious metal, the true commodity is one of opportunity. Agreeably, the United States, like no other nation on earth offers endless opportunities for success in just about any endeavor to those with the vision, courage and fortitude to have a go at it. At the risk of over simplification, whether one pursues an education, commerce, invention or philanthropy, the only limitations are likely to be self-imposed. A short walk down any American street would validate this observation. Nowhere else on the planet do opportunities to improve one’s condition exist as they do here.

From its earliest days, America has served as a beacon to the world through its open and [somewhat] liberal immigration policy, yet reports of illegal immigration paints the opposite picture. Whether Irish, Italian, Eastern European, or in recent times, African and [Southern Hemisphere] Hispanic, recent migrants frequently encounter hostility from the largely immigrant populace.

A recent conversation with my brother, an attorney with a sizeable immigration practice, shed some light on this phenomenon. Historically, American immigration policy and laws have tightened against targeted ethnic groups as they sought entry into the US. For example, in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Irish immigrants were met with twofold obstacles; hostile incumbents and equally hostile immigration laws. Similarly, once the Irish were adequately assimilated, they in-turn discriminated against the incoming wave of Italians. With discrimination came the inevitable legal obstacles that at a glance, reeked of anti-Italian sentiment. This phenomenon has repeated with incredible consistency over the ensuing years; and continues today with the current wave of immigrants, thus blurring the line between opposition to illegal immigration, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

As a diplomatic tool, immigration serves two essential functions; the first is economic and the second, humanitarian. When applied for the economic benefit of a nation (such as labor force expansion), both the recipient nation and the immigrant benefit from the resulting economic intercourse; however, when applied for humanitarian reasons, the immediate beneficiary is likely to be the immigrant.

I suspect, it is this latter application that engenders hostile emotions in incumbents. A closer look at the current immigration debate, especially as it pertains to Mexico, reveals coexisting humanitarian and economic triggers to the immigration wave. While Mexicans flee deteriorating economic conditions, and increasing drug violence, they make ideal targets for American anger, especially in communities hardest hit by the recent global economic downturn. Nowhere is the disruption caused by the economic slump starker than it is in Arizona. With state by state unemployment ranging from 4% to 12.9%, Arizona is near the top at 10% of its workforce unemployed. Furthermore, Mexican citizens who receive medical care in the United States, effectively shift the burden of health care cost from one failed Welfare State (Mexico), while threatening to create another (Arizona). A review of Arizona’s government support systems, revealed that utilization by Mexicans outstrip that of native Arizonians and non-Mexican immigrants in 8 of the 9 categories reviewed. Allowed to continue, the daily influx of illegal immigrants will, in short order, overburden the State of Arizona, while inflaming anti-Mexican sentiments. With this approach, everyone loses—the taxpayers, by having to shoulder the burden of inflated social programs (including law enforcement costs); and the illegal immigrants, by perpetually settling for substandard living conditions and recipients of the wrath of angry citizens.

A solution to the illegal immigration dilemma will come only after those responsible for devising one, take the time to understand, fully, the historical and behavioral nature of the debate. This is only achievable with a dispassionate approach to the situation. Unfortunately, if Washing’s emotional response to Arizona’s SB1070 is any indication of the intended approach, this debate will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.

Historically, there have been periods when the United States was compelled to relax its immigration policies in order to accommodate displaced and economically deprived peoples. We saw this during the industrial revolution, where in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, large numbers of Europeans, fleeing economic distress, migrated to the United States. As fate would have it, the United States was also in the throes of its own economic crisis. Then, as now, new immigrants received much of the blame for the state of the economy. Are we to, once again, head down the same road, that of knee-jerk tightening of immigration laws? Or are we better off seeking a solution that, once-and-for-all, puts the on-again, off-again debate to rest. Immigration has the potential to catapult a nation to social and economic heights never before imagined. Tragically, however, immigration does not always lead to redemption. Whether as a result of misapplication, or mismanagement, immigration can, equally, account for the destruction of a culture as it can for its advancement. By failing to equitably enforce existing immigration laws, the United States faces such a danger.

In the final analysis, consistent and equitable enforcement of existing immigration laws would go a long way to quashing the racial tensions that fester around this topic. In addition, a solidly bipartisan effort to derive a legislative solution is mandatory. To be effective, any solution must be made to remain intact with every coming wave of immigrants. The legacy of shifting policy to stem the current tide is wrongheaded and immoral. In the words of Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq., “we create illegal immigration by not allowing legal immigration.” This is tantamount to social cannibalism, and betrays the legacy of what makes America exceptional—its “melting pot” of diverse cultures operating as one harmonious body. Stephens further emphasized the need to include cultural education in primary and secondary schools. By learning what makes us different [culturally], we can better understand and accept what unites us socially.

GOD bless America.