President Donald Trump isn’t opposed to only illegal immigration; he opposes most legal immigration as well.

Figures from 2017 and the first half of 2018 show that the number of legal immigrants to the United States is on course to decline about 12 percent in Trump’s first two years in office, according to an analysis by the Washington Post.

The numbers for refugees – immigrants fleeing violence, persecution and death – tell a sadder story, according to the Pew Research Center. The number of refugees allowed to come to the U.S. dropped from 97,000 in 2016 to 33,000 in 2017.

The immigration trends, coupled with White House proposals for even more drastic reductions, run counter to good social and economic policy.

They damage our nation’s ability to remain strong, innovative and adaptive in a world that will continue to change – whether we want it to or not.

And they come as Trump and his relatives continue to hire foreign workers for low-wage jobs. This year, Trump’s businesses in Florida want to increase the number of foreign maids, waiters and cooks hired for seasonal jobs.

Recently, Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach told a group in Wichita that the way to create jobs for Americans is to deport illegal aliens. How Kobach’s economic theories mesh with Trump’s claim that he can’t find American employees is unclear.

But a look at the Kansas labor situation provides good reason to think immigrants are part of the solution – not the primary problem – with the Kansas economy.

In June, according to state officials, Kansas’ unemployment rate was 3.4 percent. It was even lower in many western counties, where employers have trouble filling jobs. State officials also bemoan the lack of skilled labor in Wichita; they say businesses there can’t find enough qualified workers for jobs.

At the same time, the state’s labor pool – comprised of Kansans working or looking for work – continues to shrink. So as jobs grow, the number of Kansans who want them declines.

The numbers refute those who argue that the reason Americans can’t find or keep good jobs is because immigrants are being hired instead. And even though Trump’s own hiring practices reinforce that fact, the president and his supporters are adamant in their efforts to stop not only illegal immigration, but most permanent legal immigration as well.

Why they are so adamant might answered in a couple of ways.

Some of the president’s critics claim bigotry is a primary reason. They point out that most of Trump’s anti-immigration moves target Muslims and people of color. The report from the Washington Post notes that while immigration from Europe has increased slightly under Trump, numbers of immigrants from Africa, Muslim-majority nations and Central America have dropped significantly.

In contrast, Trump’s supporters point to American workers as the primary reason for current immigration policy. Like Kobach, they see a need to protect American jobs.

Their view is not shared by most economists, who think reductions in immigration will slow the economy.

“In general, the consensus of economists is that immigration on average has a strong positive effect on the American economy,” Giovanni Peri, the economics department chairman at the University of California at Davis, told the Post for its article. “The big picture really is that this cut in the number of all immigrants — high- and low-skill — is going to have an impact by slowing the economy.”

Perhaps Trump thinks more businesses should follow his lead: Bring foreign workers in temporarily, then ship them home when they don’t need them anymore.

That kind of labor force creates social tumult, as well as a class system that most Americans, at least in the past, have rejected.

The U.S. needs permanent workers who become part of our culture, even as they help shape it. We need an ever-changing, adaptive workforce to continue to be a vibrant yet stable economy.

In the past – despite some periods of anti-immigrant fervor – we have been that kind of country. We have been a nation where immigrants, regardless of their status or income, could build a better life for their families.

We are no longer that nation. And not only would-be immigrants will pay the price. We all will.

 

Lots of Kansans skip primary elections, which are used by Republicans and Democrats to pick candidates for the November ballot.

Four years ago, for example, about 20 percent of registered voters in the state participated.

Compared to many states, Kansas makes it hard to vote in primary elections. The state restricts participation to registered party members and has early deadlines for switching party affiliation.

The restrictions are unnecessary rigmarole designed by partisans to boost their control over Kansas politics. They create more hoops for many of us to jump through, but the exercise is worth it.

August 7 will be a pivotal day, not just for candidates, but for Kansas.

The governor’s race is especially important, and it features lots of candidates.

On the Democratic side, leading candidates include former Wichita mayor Carl Brewer, state legislator Laura Kelly and Joshua Svaty, a former legislator and state agriculture secretary.

If you choose a Republican ballot, the top contenders are Gov. Jeff Colyer and Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach. Former legislator Jim Barnett and insurance commissioner Ken Selzer are among other candidates still in the race.

Hot-button issues – abortion, gun rights, legalization of pot – tend to get attention, but here are some other important issues:

Education

Regrettably, few candidates have provided specific figures and plans about K-12 schools and higher education.

About half of our state budget is devoted to education, so the need for a plan is obvious.

Also, education is the biggest factor driving Kansas’ well-being and economy, so we need to hear how that plan would benefit the state and its residents.

Without such plans from candidates, voters must resort to puzzling over rhetoric. And they should beware rhetoric from extremists.

Candidates who suggest that the governor and legislators should flout court orders regarding school funding are a threat to schools and our constitutional rights.

And those who indicate they can cut hundreds of millions in school spending, but won’t say specifically where and how much, are adding to the danger.

At the other extreme, those who claim they will add hundreds of millions of new funding – without specifying sources for new revenue – don’t have a sensible plan, just political ambitions.

Taxes and spending

Kobach has been the most strident in his calls to cut taxes and spending, but he hasn’t said where he will cut, or how much.

If voters buy this quackery again, Kansas may never recover.

Under former Gov. Sam Brownback, the state cut taxes and spending, creating an annual, billion-dollar crater in the state budget. The state’s universities, roads, credit ratings, law enforcement, prisons, health facilities, and K-12 schools all paid the price.

Kansas taxpayers will be paying off the added debt foisted on them by the fiscal crisis for at least another generation.

Kobach wants to do it all over again.

Any candidate who espouses significant tax cuts without offering specific spending cuts to match should be rejected. Just as candidates who advocate significant spending increases without offering specific tax increases to pay for them should be rejected.

Leadership

To be an effective governor, you must lead and manage people.

A good leader creates an administrative structure to facilitate well-communicated plans. He develops a culture that prizes initiative, integrity and problem-solving.

Voters should check gubernatorial candidates’ records for examples of such abilities. Without competent leadership, Kansas will continue to flounder as state officials take their cues from special interests that want control of our state.

Respect for U.S. law

Officials who have indicated by their words or actions that they won’t comply with court orders or laws with which they disagree should be rejected.

Many politicians across the country are choosing to further their campaigns by undermining trust in the judiciary and federal law enforcement agencies. They hope to succeed politically by attacking the integrity of all who disagree with them.

Kansas voters should not entrust our state to someone who thinks he can pick and choose which of our constitutional rights he’ll respect.

You can learn more about the candidates running in Kansas by going to https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_elections,_2018

 

 

 

If you have worked as a news reporter or editor at a newspaper, it’s likely that you have been threatened.

Probably more than once.

I can’t speak for every reporter, editor or newspaper, but in my experience, the threats came from a variety of people. A sampling over 30-some years would include:

A pedophile who sat in my office and argued (correctly) that I did not understand the motives and minds of child molesters; A dozen or so business owners angry because the paper did do a story about something they didn’t want done, or because it didn’t do a story on something they did want done; A similar number of people irate about publication of their drunken driving convictions; A woman peeved by an article about parents who kidnap their own children rather than comply with custody orders.

Some of the threats were plain, others hedged. Some people threatened lawsuits or said they would get me fired. A handful threatened bodily harm.

Talking to people still working at newspapers, it’s apparent that threats are now more frequent and their tone more violent.

That’s not surprising given the tenor of discourse in our country. Republican and Democratic leaders rally their troops with hate.

On the left, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters wants Americans to harass White House and cabinet officials whenever they appear publicly.

On the right, President Donald Trump accuses Democrats of being traitors. He has repeatedly called journalists disgusting, losers, scum and the enemies of the American people.

Following his lead, supporters at his campaign rallies call reporters vile names. One of his more infamous supporters, Milo Yiannopoulos, recently told two reporters he couldn’t wait until people started gunning down journalists.

When a man in Maryland did just that, Yiannopoulous clarified: He was joking.

As for the president, he apparently was joking, too. In the aftermath of five dead newspaper staff members in Annapolis, Maryland, Trump said he has lots of respect for reporters.

That, obviously, is not true.

And while the president isn’t obligated to respect journalism, he should be expected to act with a modicum of decorum, a patina of decency. That he does not, and that his supporters are fine with that, does not bode well.

Not for journalists.

Not for the rest of America.

Political leaders on the right and left are encouraging a kind of incivility that paints their foes as lesser humans, or not human at all.

If we portray those who disagree with us as inferior – morally, intellectually, religiously – it becomes easier to treat them meanly, inhumanely, even violently.

At the same time, we as a nation continue to make it easier for criminals and the mentally unstable to possess guns, which also makes violence more likely.

That doesn’t mean Trump or the Second Amendment is to blame for the murders of five staff members of the Capital Gazette. But both exist as part of an environment in which guns and incivility are celebrated – something we aspire to have and to be.

As part of that aspiration, we raise ourselves up by putting our foes down.

They are scum, enemies, low-IQ, and losers.

They are fascists, mean-spirited, racists and inhumane.

The argument that both sides use in defense – that the other side behaves even worse – drags all of us further down.

The way to raise ourselves up is to elevate our opinions of one another, to understand the human-ness of even those we detest.

The day after the newspaper killings, hundreds of Annapolis residents took to the streets to march in memory of the victims.

One of those participating told a reporter: “The people who made our newspaper are people we felt we knew, even if we had never met them before.”

Community newspapers are like that. The names of reporters and photographers become familiar because they so often interact with us and people we know.

The mentally unstable and quick-to-rage will likely always be among us. They shouldn’t be encouraged to violence by reckless rhetoric.

It’s time to act on a truth we all know: Insults, denigration and threats don’t make us a great country, or even a better person.

 

 

It’s that time of year when we celebrate our nation’s birth, typically with loud, colorful fireworks and patriotic displays of red, white and blue.

It’s also a good time to think about the people who made the United States great – historical figures who helped found our nation in 1776 and moved it forward in the years since.

Some are famous. Others, not so much.

In that “others” pile are many Americans who demonstrate American innovation, constructive dissidence, generosity and tolerance.

Norman Borlaug, an agronomist from Iowa credited with saving millions of lives, is one such example.

Borlaug’s career was dedicated to developing new grain varieties that helped people and nations struggling with poverty and starvation. His work in Mexico, Central America, southeast Asia and Africa also included onsite research of farming methods to improve yields and reliability.

He’s the only agronomist to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.  When officials called to notify him that he was the 1970 winner, they were unable to reach him because he refused to leave the field in Mexico where he and associates were collecting data.

His fame may not have stuck, but his contributions to the world are enduring and profound.

Another scientist who deserves mention is Rachel Carson.

Admittedly, Carson is viewed unfavorably by many in farm country for her attacks on pesticides used in agriculture. Her 1962 book “Silent Spring” was instrumental in calling attention to the detrimental effects that chemicals can cause to both the environment and human health.

A marine biologist who had previously worked decades for the U.S. government, Carson was attacked by the chemical industry as a Communist and hysterical woman. Chemical companies pulled advertising from media outlets that dared discuss her claims.

Carson challenged the status quo, which is part of our heritage. Rebellion, after all, is what won us our freedom.

At least for white Americans. For black Americans, freedom and equality required a longer, more arduous battle. And among the lesser known but important warriors was W.E.B. Du Bois.

His achievements are too numerous to recount here, but as one of the founders of the NAACP, he was instrumental in setting civil rights goals for not just black Americans but all Americans.

More importantly, he challenged the popular belief of the early 1900s that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. He rejected totally the common notion that blacks were suited for menial jobs, and, at best, should aspire to vocational training.

The idea that anyone, with hard work and persistence, should be able to climb social and economic ladders is a tenet of American ideology.

It’s easy to discount the role luck can play. Or the necessity of education.

The success of Andrew Carnegie demonstrates how all the pieces could come together for a poor immigrant family.

After leaving Scotland and settling in Pennsylvania with his family, Andrew Carnegie went to work at age 12, while also going to night school.

Through a series of jobs, small ventures and impressed bosses, Carnegie climbed the ladders until he was able to start a steel company. He had looked ahead to anticipate where economic opportunity might lie; steel looked promising.

He made a fortune, and in 1901, he sold out to J.P. Morgan.

Carnegie spent his remaining 17 years giving away money to what he deemed good causes.

Education was a priority, which is why nearly 30 Carnegie libraries were built in communities across Kansas and 2,500 libraries were funded across the nation. And Carnegie’s generosity wasn’t limited to libraries. He funded other facilities and causes, including universities, scientific research and peace initiatives.

He believed those who accumulated great wealth had a duty to use some of it “for the improvement of mankind” through philanthropy.

Carnegie was far from perfect. In today’s hyper-critical, intolerant era, many on the left condemn his business practices and lifestyle.

Similarly, many on the right reject Carson and Du Bois as examples of great Americans.

Too often we fail to recognize that our United States was built on often-conflicting motives and efforts of diverse people.

Every one of us comes with frailties and flaws.

Our greatest Americans weren’t perfect Americans. That doesn’t make them less worthy of admiration, but demonstrates how much even imperfect people can accomplish.