Columns

SAN DIEGO – After the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Fla., Americans are eager to talk about guns.

Half the country seems to be saying that firearms deserve all the blame for tragedies like these, while the other half is trying to exonerate guns completely. Both arguments are wrong.

Not that Americans shouldn’t talk about guns – and gun control. We should. Now that 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz has been charged with killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, this is a good time to do it.

We need to keep high-powered rifles out of the hands of the troubled, alienated and mentally ill by requiring those who buy them to take a psychological test. We also must limit the number of guns bought by one person in a given year; ban the AR-15, which isn’t really intended for hunting unless you’re hunting humans; raise the legal age to buy a gun to 21; and strengthen background checks, as President Trump reportedly wants to do.

We also need to be more aggressive in monitoring gun sales to individuals who fit the profile. When the FBI pursues mass murderers and serial killers, agents often use a profile that suggests the suspects are white males. So, just like they have done with Muslim Americans in terrorism cases, the FBI should keep a registry of white males who stockpile high-powered weapons and subject them to extra scrutiny.

Americans do need to talk about guns. Yet, while we’re distracted by that conversation, here’s a list of other really important things we’re still not talking about:

• Whether America’s youth have gradually become desensitized to violence by blockbuster movies;
• Why our country is so bad at detecting individuals with mental health issues and getting them the help they need;
• Why some parents do a bad job of keeping tabs on their child’s behavior or keeping them away from dangerous things;
• Whether violent video games (especially first-person simulated shooter games) trivialize and encourage violence;
• Whether we should regulate content on the so-called dark web, especially if it advocates or teaches violence;
• How to make our schools safer without making them more like prisons, which could teach children to act like criminals;
• Whether we need metal detectors and/or armed guards on all school grounds, or whether that would make things worse;
• Whether these shooters are targeting schools because their own experience as students was often so negative;
• How to police social media to keep the public safe without giving government and law enforcement too much power;
• Why tech companies don’t seem at all interested in reporting those consumers of social media who might be dangerous;
• Whether being surrounded by technology makes young people feel lonely, depressed, alienated and maybe even violent;
• How gun enthusiasts are so hung up on their “rights” that they often neglect the responsibilities that come with them;
• Why there are so many more school shootings in the United States compared with other countries;
• Whether some of these massacres were “copycat” reactions to earlier attacks by people seeking their share of infamy;
• Whether powerful prescription drugs might fuel these attacks because doctors, in cahoots with Big Pharma, overprescribe them;
• Whether a fascination with guns is its own kind of psychosis, which distorts reality and trivializes lethalness;
• Why so many of these mass shootings are committed by white males with troubled backgrounds;
• How the red flags might have been brighter if, instead of a white male, the culprit were a Mexican, Muslim or MS-13’er;
• How it is that the FBI bungled its investigation of Cruz, who was practically begging to be arrested;
• How it is that, more than a year ago, a social worker from the Florida Department of Children and Families declared Cruz to be no threat;
• How a teenager with lots of behavioral problems could so easily buy an AR-15 military-style rifle and ammunition;
• Whether any number of these tragedies can break the vice grip that the National Rifle Association has on Congress;
• And how we need to stop reflexively saying “something has to be done” and actually do something.

But what can we do? Looking over that list, there is a lot that needs to be done – by many people and on multiple fronts. You can also see why Americans focus on guns. Some of the other issues are too difficult, too sensitive or too close to home.

And that is all the more reason to take them on.

SAN DIEGO — One of my Mexican grandfather’s favorite sayings was: Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres. Simply put, people judge you by the company you keep.

When we last tuned in to the sad but predictable telenovela starring Javier Palomarez, the president and CEO of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was taking fire from Hispanics for keeping company with President Trump.

Once an outspoken backer of Hillary Clinton, Palomarez went from publicly mocking Trump during the election to later meeting with Trump staff at the White House. At one point, Palomarez claimed that he had been invited to join the White House’s diversity council. The administration denied this. And when Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Palomarez resigned in protest from a council that it’s not clear he was ever part of.

Still, Palomarez was good at promoting Palomarez. So good that some thought he might be offered a position with the Trump administration.

It would have been a pay cut. In 2015, Palomarez’s reported compensation – including bonuses – was $611,015.

But suddenly that government job looks pretty good. Amid accusations of sexual harassment and financial impropriety — which came to light after a messy extramarital affair with a Latina businesswoman who sat on the USHCC board — Palomarez has been ousted.

And the reputation of the country’s oldest Hispanic business group — which claims to represent 4.4 million Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States that contribute at least $700 billion annually to the U.S. economy — is in shambles.

You can chalk this up to the #MeToo movement, if you like. But Palomarez’s troubles began when he got too close to Trump, which opened him up to heightened scrutiny.

A little context. For Hispanics, these are not normal times, and this is no ordinary president. Having gone out of his way to woo white voters by antagonizing America’s largest minority, Trump is to Hispanics in 2018 what Alabama Gov. George Wallace was to African-Americans in the 1960s.

Thus any Hispanic who aligns himself with Trump sacrifices his credibility and distances himself from the community.

A lot of Americans worry about ‘fake news.’ But if they tune in to cable TV and see someone with a brown face supporting Trump, they’ve caught a glimpse of a fake Hispanic.

Sometimes all it takes to end up on the outs with other Hispanics is to express support for a policy proposal put forth by Trump, such as his recent 3-for-1 swap on immigration.

The president has said that he will support legal status and a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers if he gets $25 billion for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the elimination of the diversity visa lottery, and an end to so-called chain migration.

That’s a good deal — especially since Democrats don’t have a serious counter-proposal. As a columnist, I can say that.

Apparently, one person who can’t say it is Roger Rocha, who serves as the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens. After Rocha sent a letter to Trump in support of the swap, LULAC members and the heads of local chapters demanded Rocha’s resignation. Under pressure, he put out a press release saying that he regretted sending the letter. But he has not apologized for the content, which suggests he still supports the deal.

Meanwhile, Palomarez isn’t offering any apologies either. He probably should. He made mistakes, even if he won’t admit it…”

SAN DIEGO — If President Trump and the nativist wing of the GOP succeed in their suicide mission of cutting legal immigration to the United States, who’s going to win all the Olympic medals?

Consider the heartwarming story of Chloe Kim, the 17-year-old snowboarder from Torrance, California, who won the gold medal in the women’s half-pipe this week at the Winter Olympics in PyeongChang. Kim racked up a near-perfect 98.75 on her last run.

Kim’s parents were born in South Korea and emigrated to the United States two decades ago. Every weekend, they made the five-hour drive from their home in Southern California to the mountains so that Chloe — who won her first competition at 6 — could attend a training program. Imagine what went through their minds as their U.S.-born daughter — secure in the knowledge that she had won Olympic gold — hopped off her snowboard and wrapped herself in the Stars and Stripes.

“I’m so used to America,” Kim said recently. “But obviously I have a Korean face … I can’t walk around people like I’m, like, straight-up American; … I’m Korean American … [but] I identify more with the American culture.”

Or reflect upon the inspirational tale of 24-year-old Mirai Nagasu, who leapt into the record books in the figure-skating team competition when she became the first American in Olympic history to pull off a triple axel jump. After making 3 1/2 rotations in the air, Nagasu landed solidly and flashed a winning smile. She told reporters that she awoke at 4 a.m. that morning because she was nervous about delivering for her teammates. She did. The U.S. skaters won the bronze. She also said, “I wanted to make America proud.” She did that, too.

The U.S.-born daughter of immigrants from Japan, who run a sushi restaurant in Southern California, Nagasu was for a time a dual citizen of Japan and the United States. But Japanese law required that she choose one or the other before her 22nd birthday. She chose U.S. citizenship.

Are these the people we’re supposed to be afraid of — legal immigrants like the parents of these two Olympians?

Trump, White House adviser Stephen Miller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Republican Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue think the American Dream is a zero-sum game. They yammer on about ending what they derisively call “chain migration” and argue for a point system that rewards “merit.”

The problem is that no one knows what that word means.

But I know what it doesn’t mean. Though this may come as news to people like Trump, Miller, Sessions, Cotton and Perdue, merit doesn’t mean being born on third base and prancing around like you hit a triple. And though Sessions recently let it slip — in remarks to the National Sheriffs’ Association — that what sends a tingle up his leg is the “Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement,” merit doesn’t mean having white skin. And in depressed areas like the Rust Belt, merit doesn’t mean letting yourself off the hook for bad choices by claiming that you’re the victim of bad companies, bad trade and bad policies.

As the grandson of a legal immigrant from Mexico, I’d say merit is something along the lines of a monster work ethic, passion, optimism, determination, perseverance, fresh thinking, and the unquenchable desire to be the best at whatever you do.

Luckily for America, this kind of merit is transferable to the next generation. It’s time for Americans to quit our whining — and count our blessings.

The private sector gets it. A poignant 60-second commercial about the heritage of Olympic athletes deserves its own gold medal. The spot — for the online genealogy site ancestry.com — recalls the 1980 upset victory of the U.S. hockey team over the Russians in Lake Placid, New York. As it points out, the American players came from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds.

At a time when Americans have been infected by their leaders with the absurd idea that immigrants are ruining this land of immigrants, the commercial — titled “America’s Greatness Comes from Everywhere” — is a dose of penicillin.

Are we blind? The U.S. team at the Winter Olympics looks like a miniature United Nations. It’s the genius of America that it takes in throwaways and runaways from what Trump calls “shithole countries” and — in a generation or two — turns their offspring into the pride of the world.

You can see them honored in the days to come during the medal ceremonies in PyeongChang. You can’t miss them. They’ll be all decked out in red, white and blue.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — It’s hard to remember a time when a simple four-page memo caused so much trouble.

Depending on how you feel about President Trump, the memo in question — which was compiled by staffers in the office of Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — is either a smoking gun showing misbehavior by agencies during the Obama administration, or a giant “nothing burger.” The truth is probably somewhere in between.

For me, the memo — and the frenzied reaction to it by all sides — provides a chance to reflect on how broken our public discourse has become and how the media helped break it.

As an opinion journalist, it’s not my job to persuade people to my line of thinking or act as a mouthpiece for either political party. Frankly, both political parties are driven by self-interest and appear to be filled with people willing to lie to cover up wrongdoing.

My role is to simplify the complicated, put the news in context, and help explain a crazy world. Yet I can’t even begin that task until I help clear the air by taking in piles of information from a variety of sources, and sifting through them to separate the helpful from the hogwash.

In recent months, I’ve met many smart people who want to be good citizens and stay informed, but they find the process of sifting to be so exhausting that they’ve turned off their TV. They tell me that they don’t know whom — or what — to trust. They just want the facts. And all they see is fog.

I get it. Taking in too much media can be harmful — to your sanity. We live in strange times where, the more newspaper articles and TV news you consume, the more confused you become.

Now we have something else to sift through: hundreds of texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, those lovestruck and loquacious FBI employees who were chatting about the investigations of both Hillary Clinton’s private email server and alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The fog is unbelievably thick. And every day, there is more. What there isn’t a lot of is answers, only questions.

Like this one: Did the FBI and the Justice Department mislead judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court by relegating to a footnote in a surveillance request the fact that an intelligence dossier was paid for by political opposition to Trump? If so, wouldn’t it have been better to say outright in the requests — which started under the Obama administration — that the funding came from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee?

Legal commentators — from across the spectrum — insist that this distinction matters and that the agencies should have divulged more information.

And on the other side, shouldn’t Trump supporters – even if they believe there was no collusion – be asking themselves why, in all the Trump-related scandals, so many roads lead to Russia? There are other countries on the globe, you know. Meanwhile, beware of all the misinformation that is out there. When law firms, public relations agencies, and political operatives start manipulating language, the goal isn’t to inform but to muddy the waters.

And the media only makes things muddier. Try this at home. Spend 30 minutes flipping between CNN and Fox News, spending a few minutes on each channel. Not only will you hear radically different perspectives on the same issue, but you’ll also see that the networks — who have chosen sides between the political parties — will often downplay stories that hurt their team and play up stories that hurt the opposing team.

Of course, media bias is nothing new. But, somehow, in the Trump era, it seems uglier and more sinister in both directions. The new norm — especially in broadcast media — is agenda-driven lobbying that gets disguised as journalism.

As a citizen of the republic, I have to ask: What happened to reporting? Why can’t news people just tell us what happened — the “who, what, when, where, why” litany that they used to teach in journalism school — and let us decide for ourselves what it all means? Why are they constantly trying to force feed us their point of view? And, if they are really after the facts — like they’re supposed to be — why not try to open doors rather than shut them?

Here’s a friendly reminder for my colleagues: We don’t work for the parties. We work for the people. And the best way to fulfill our duty is to serve the truth — straight up.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — Dreamers may have done the immigration debate a big favor by killing the ‘a-word.’

As they try to shoot down plans to legalize the undocumented, immigration restrictionists in both parties love using a certain term. For many of these folks, anything that allows illegal immigrants to lawfully remain in the United States — by giving them permanent legal status, with or without a path to citizenship — amounts to amnesty. Pure and simple.

So when President Trump recently unveiled a plan that would legalize 1.8 million undocumented young people known as Dreamers, it should have come as no surprise that right-wing media site Breitbart reflexively labeled the commander in chief ‘Amnesty Don.’

On the left, writer Mickey Kaus tweeted disapprovingly that Trump was offering ‘a big, immediate amnesty’ for the Dreamers in exchange for promised changes to legal immigration that might not materialize for many years.

On the right, conservative writer Ann Coulter wrote that the headline about Trump’s immigration plan could have read: ‘TRUMP ANNOUNCES SAME FAILED AMNESTY DEAL WE HAD 30 YEARS AGO.’

Coulter was referring to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which was signed into law by President Reagan and which ultimately gave permanent legal status and a path to citizenship to nearly 3 million people.

It still sticks in the craw of many conservatives that Reagan gave away so much to the pro-amnesty crowd — and appeared to get so little in return.

Today, a new generation of conservatives worries that Trump is likewise being taken to the cleaners — and offering a full-fledged amnesty.

But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, it’s worth asking: What does the ‘a-word’ really mean, anyway? According to Merriam-Webster, amnesty is ‘the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.’ Collins Dictionary of Law defines it as ‘an act of a sovereign power waiving liability for a past offense.’ And Black’s Law Dictionary defines amnesty as ‘a sovereign act of pardon and oblivion for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses.’

Do you know to whom much of this doesn’t apply? Dreamers…

SAN DIEGO — I must be a bad American. At the very least, I’m a tad heartless and running a quart low on empathy. After all, until Donald Trump came along, I just had no idea that so many of my fellow Americans had it so tough.

That’s one of the takeaways from President Trump’s economic message, which has gone from a frown to a smile and then back to a frown.

First, Trump got elected by convincing Americans that they were in bad shape and that – due to trade deals, lost jobs, falling wages, excessive immigration and other afflictions — they were hurting and hopeless. Then, after one year in office, the president pivoted and used the State of the Union address to list the ways in which Americans are better off now than they were before he took office. Yet in the same speech, when he laid out his plans for the years ahead, Trump reverted back to his earlier gloomy mood as he talked about how government should come to the rescue because ‘Americans are dreamers, too.’

This is how bad it has gotten in this country: Native-born U.S. citizens seem to envy illegal immigrants for having lives that appear much easier than theirs. In fact, the grass is so much greener on the immigrants’ side of the fence that Americans want in on the action and a share of the attention. And, to get it, they won’t hesitate to co-opt a cool nickname.
We’ve taken a curious turn all right. For years, the undocumented aspired to be like Americans. Now, Americans want to be like the undocumented.

It’s easy to see how everyone got confused. Consider the false and malicious narratives that politicians advance about those who don’t have their paperwork in order. Supposedly, these people don’t have to follow the rules, either when they come into the country unlawfully or once they get here if they seek ‘sanctuary.’ They either don’t work, collect welfare and get tons of freebies — or they take jobs from U.S. workers, don’t pay taxes and steal what they need because, like all foreigners, they’re prone to commit crimes.
Democrats paint illegal immigrants as helpless children who are totally dependent on liberals and government for a shot at the American Dream. Republicans portray them as parasites and predators who take what they need from the allegedly better educated and more skilled native-born.

Either way, we are told, illegal immigrants are living on Easy Street while native-born Americans drag themselves to work every day like suckers.

Poor us. It really is quite a gantlet that Americans have to run from birth to death.
Sure, we get a free education. But we’re stuck in mediocre public schools without the luxury of a voucher that would allow us to transfer our kids to an elite private school at taxpayer expense.

Sure, for those interested in higher education, there are affordable options and financial aid available. But we can’t always get into the college of our choice — especially if we must overcome ‘reverse discrimination’ because we’re white.

Sure, there are jobs aplenty and ‘Help Wanted’ signs as far as the eye can see. But we have to compete for our employment — including against illegal immigrants.

And sure, we live in a constitutional republic where the people come first, and that’s something that a lot people around the globe would fight — and die – for. But we get upset now and then with elected officials and frustrated with our government.

Is this really as bad as it gets, folks?

SAN DIEGO — The entire immigration debate — over who comes, who goes, and who should stay — has funneled down to one thing: ending the legal and bureaucratic nightmare caused by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

What ended the government shutdown after only two-and-a-half days?

My vote goes to a devastating 30-second ad that arrived on the scene with the subtlety of an airstrike.

“Democrats.” “Murder.” “Illegal immigrants.”