Ask someone whether or not Title 42 should be repealed, and you will get one of two answers. Both answers are flawed.
One would be: “Hell yes. It is a stupid Trump law designed to deny immigrants entry into the United States. It only bolsters his White Supremacist constituency. Repeal it.”
The other answer would be: “Hell no. Biden wants to repeal it so he can flood the country with illegal aliens, increase dependency on government handouts, and enroll more Democrat voters. Do not repeal it.”
Both answers miss the point entirely. Take a deep breath and look at the facts.
The law, established in 1944, gave the U S. Surgeon General authority to deny non-citizens entry into the United States. The law was intended to prevent the spread of infectious disease.
In March of 2020, with Covid-19 out of control, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to implement and enforce Title 42, thus giving Customs and Boarder Protection agents authority to turn back immigrants seeking asylum.
Today the pandemic is less of a national emergency. Though not completely under control, it is clearly less threatening. Restrictions have begun to be relaxed. President Biden has indicated it would now be appropriate to repeal Title 42.
Repeal it or keep it? Is it possible that these divergent points of view have both been tainted by politically motivated exploitation? Of course it is. Not just possible but likely. Rahm Emanuel said it best when he proclaimed, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
True, but we need to do better. If our comments and observations are to be meaningful, we must push aside the tendency to seek political advantage at every turn. Consider the following two alternative answers to those cited above.
“Hell no. The pandemic might be less of a national threat than a year ago, but other countries have not been as effective in managing the crisis. We need to be vigilant when letting other people enter the United States. Do not repeal it.”
Or, “Hell yes. Customs and Border Protection lacks the staff and equipment to effectively manage enforcement. Even if the necessary resources were available, the law could not be administered in an even-handed manner. Repeal it.”
Either answer could be deemed correct. Both have merit. More to the point, neither answer uses the words, “Trump” or “Biden.”
Are you able to objectively consider verifiable facts and resist the temptation to fall back on simple name calling? Not easy in today’s world but worth a try. Whatever the issue, your credibility will be magnified if you are able to resist the tendency to politicize every discussion.
Now that would be refreshing.