I then realized that I also had the history of everyone I’ve interviewed – going back to 1990 when I got my first job in television! As I looked at some of the videotapes, I wanted to reminisce and share them. I wondered if the people I’ve interviewed over the years remembered the interview. And I wondered if they too would like to look back on their lives and share that moment with friends and family.

So I asked my assistant to delve through the archives and prepare the video for sales – creating the Robinson Omnimedia Archives. The process is on-going as we prepare much of the video to be digitized and offered as an immediate download. New video is being added daily. Whether you want it for personal viewing, you want to share it with the world on your social media site or you want to use it to promote your brand – browse through our current video offerings to find your piece of history -and enjoy it!

Robinson Omnimedia Archives & Store

Love Deborah

————————————————-

Former President Jimmy Carter dared to verbalize what has been on the minds of many African Americans who have felt the piercing whispers of racism ever since we elected our first African American president. In an interview on NBC Nightly News, Carter said, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”

Everyone thought the election of an African American as President of the United States would show that America had healed from our past racial injustices. But racism, along with its other ism siblings, has its foundation in a more complex complex. One that is deeply rooted in our hearts and minds; hidden so deep it’s hard to recognize it when it shows up and it’s almost impossible to root out. It’s called the superiority complex. That is what we must uproot if we will ever stand as a Nation undivided. In ignoring its presence, we unconsciously apply it to every area of our lives. So, when we elect an African American president, this complex complex rears its ugly head and appears disguised, this time as patriotism.

I was told by one of my coffee shop friends that the changes African Americans want to see in America will take time. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said. This conversation was not taking place in the early 1600’s when Africans were brought to the United States as slaves. Neither was it taking place more than 150 years later in 1787 when it was written into the American Constitution that slaves were only three-fifths of a person. Nor was this conversation taking place almost 200 years after that during the Civil Rights era. This conversation was taking place more than 400 years since Blacks came to this Country, in the heat of the 2008 presidential campaign where an African American had a real possibility of being elected President of the United States.

Although a complex complex, the issue of superiority is quite simple to me – it’s about humanity. Simple humanity. It was even simple then. So, what now? Do some Whites in America still need more time to decide that every other race of people on this earth is just as human as they are – even the ‘illegal alien’ Hispanics that are crossing our borders? To me, it’s as simple as recognizing that we’re all human. Simply human. Period. So, not understanding what it could possibly be that some Whites needed more time for, I asked my coffee shop friend to please explain.

Using an example from his own life, he said, “I’ve accepted the relationship my daughter has with a Black man. He’s very nice. He’s a doctor; very educated and respectful. But my father will never accept it. He’s 82 years old. Every time I visit him, he asks if his grand-daughter is still dating that nigger; and he prays to God out loud that he will not live to see a nigger become a part of his family.”

“I don’t agree with him,” he continued. “But he’s 82 and there’s no need to argue with him or try to change him. It’s too late. Unfortunately, he and his kind will have to die off. That’s the time we still need.”

I thought momentarily whether this ‘dying off’ process was the answer to our complex complex. Then I thought, millions of racists have ‘died off’, yet this world still suffers from inhumane atrocities caused by one person or a group of people believing they are superior to another. So, really, why should some Whites still need more time to realize they are no better or worst than anyone else? I couldn’t buy in to his ‘die off’ theory. I believe it’s the hearts of the living that must change; and that starts with honest non-judgmental coffee shop confessions like we were having.

Knowing that my coffee shop friend is an interim Pastor at a small Methodist church, I asked him if he believed the views and actions of his father toward African Americans were sinful. He said yes. I then asked him if his father believed that anyone who dies in their sin will go to hell. He said yes.

After a moment of silence, we changed the subject.

Later at home, I cried. It was not just a quiet tear, but an uncontrollable weeping. I realized that I was not crying because my coffee shop friend’s father refused to recognize me as 100% human, equal to him in every way and with the same inalienable rights he is privileged to enjoy. I was crying because I believe that when this life is over we go exactly where we believed we would.

I pondered the craftiness of this complex complex. So intimidating and frightening that we would rather our countrymen ‘die off’ and go to hell, than uproot the evilness of superiority within our hearts and come to a place of repentance, healing and a righteous understanding of humanity.

The piercing whispers of racism concerning our President have become dangerous shouts of anger. Let’s get to the root of the real issues facing our Nation. It’s a complex complex.

Read Deborah’s Op-Ed
and Join the Live Discussion on Tuesdays
10:00 AM – 10:30 AM (Pacific Time)

Online Watch, Listen, Chat
512-400-4809  (Listen Only)

On-line Listen & Chat
714-888-7486  (Call in to the Show Only)

Today, I changed my mind. Although I’d teetered with the issues of illegal immigration and border control, I hadn’t fully resolved where I stood… until today. So, today, what happened to change my mind? And from what to what?

Today, I decided to stop and have a salad at my favorite deli, Jason’s Deli. As I pulled up, two police officers were talking with two young men who looked to be from Mexico. After about ten minutes or so, very calmly, one of the officers pulled out his handcuffs and gently took the right arm of one of the men. The man didn’t resist. Instead, he turned around and extended his left arm to the officer. He was handcuffed and within minutes, he was sitting in the back seat of the police car – arrested. Now I don’t know why he was arrested, but I imagined it was because he was illegally in this Country. But, the truth didn’t matter. He could have been wanted for murder or any less serious crime. The reason for his arrest was irrelevant to me at that moment. Only my thoughts of what could have been true mattered.

Tears welled up in my eyes as I considered the inhumanity of being arrested for simply ‘being’. ‘Being’ in a place where a group of people decided he didn’t belong. I began to feel overwhelmed as I walked by the police car, imagining what would happen to the young man in the back seat. Will he be deported and sent to a land he may not know? Will he be separated from his family? What will be the cost of his arrest?

Everything within me – my humanity – feels it’s not right to confine a human being to only one part of this vast land we live on. Everything within me – my humanity – feels it’s not right to build a man-made border across any part of this God-given earth. I know, I know, I know. I’ve heard all the arguments against open borders. I’m not even sure that’s what I’m saying. But, it’s what I’m feeling. Maybe I’m feeling the spirits of the Native Americans who believed they did not and could not own or prevent others from sharing the land they were blessed to inhabit. So, they welcomed the European immigrants, knowing that the land and natural resources were vast and plenty enough for everybody. If only we believed that way. I’m beginning to feel it. I haven’t worked it out in my head, but my spirit says the Natives were right. And it can never be too late or too hard to do what’s right.

I know you’re saying, ‘But, Deborah, if the young man was here illegally, he should be sent back to his country.’ Well, we determine what’s legal and illegal. My humanistic view on life puts humanity first above everything, even the law – especially the law. But to keep humans from breaking the law, maybe it’s time we decided that simply ‘being’ wherever you want to be could never be illegal.

Today, I changed my mind, because it can never be too late or too hard to do what’s right.

Read Deborah’s Op-Ed
and Join the Live Discussion on Tuesdays
10:00 AM – 10:30 AM (Pacific Time)

Online Watch, Listen, Chat
512-400-4809  (Listen Only)

On-line Listen & Chat
714-888-7486  (Call in to the Show Only)

Deborah’s Op-Ed – is brought to you by AtHomeLasVegas.com.
Log on now for 50-65% off vacation, extended stay and resort living in Las Vagas.  AtHomeLasVegas.com.  Your life.  Your style.  Your home.

Deborah Robinson is an award-winning journalist, author, producer, documentary filmmaker and television personality.  Her latest book is Legal Briefs on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country.  Her life’s passion is to reveal and communicate truth through the media.  Deborah’s media work can be found at www.RobinsonOmnimedia.com.

It’s About Time, Arizona

The Recall Election of Arizona Senator Russell Pearce

On April 23, 2010, the day Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the infamous immigration bill — Senate Bill 1070 — I made a decision to travel to Arizona to work on a book and documentary on the subject of immigration.  Watching on the Internet, I was inspired by the student protests at the Arizona State Capital; reminiscent of the civil rights struggle of the 60’s.  I arrived in Arizona in time to attend the March in Phoenix, where tens of thousands of Latinos marched in protest of SB 1070.  Somehow, I felt a kindred spirit.  This was the civil rights movement of my generation.  So, I engaged.

But after the march – nothing happened; nothing on the side of those who opposed Senate Bill 1070, that is.  Even with the support of the President of the United States, nobody seemed to DO anything about the legislation and other bills being proposed to rid Arizona of all undocumented Latinos.

Election time came and I was hopeful that Arizonans would realize their power at the polls and fire the politicians who sponsor and support anti-immigration legislation.  But Arizonans gave Governor Jan Brewer a second term and re-elected Senator John McCain for the fifth time.  I talked to many Arizonans at the grass roots level who felt they had no power against the anti-immigration machine that ran the State.  I talked to my Latino friends across the country, trying to understand why they wouldn’t simply unite in the example of the African-American civil rights movement.  But, no one could explain the complacency.

So when I got an email the other day seeking support for the recall of Senator Russell Pearce, Tea Party favorite, author and sponsor of Senate Bill 1070 and now Arizona Senate President, I decided to write about it and entitled the blog ‘It’s About Time, Arizona.’  A few days later while researching for the blog, I visited the site of the organization responsible for the recall, Citizens for a Better Arizona.  And there on the front of the website were the words.  ‘It’s About Time.’

Amazing!  All of this time, I thought I was the only person on this earth who wondered why Arizonans wouldn’t just stand up and DO something.  But as noted on their website, CitizensForABetterAZ.org, since January, 2011, they had been working to gather signatures for the recall of Senate President Russell Pearce.  In the end, they gathered more than 18,000 signatures; more than double the signatures needed to force a recall election and more signature than Pearce received when he was elected Senator.  Citizens for a Better Arizona co-founder and Phoenix Republican activist Chad Snow explained their purpose, “We want to send a message to Senator Pearce, to every legislator down here at the Arizona legislature, that this kind of extreme, ideologically driven policies will no longer be tolerated in our state.”

I love Arizona.  It is one of the most beautiful states I’ve ever visited.  On their website, the organization paraphrases Dr. Martin Luther King and reflects my sentiments exactly, “True progress does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability.  Things do not get better with the mere passage of time – from one day to the next or from one year to the next.  True progress occurs when people – through their hard work, determination and sacrifice – make a decision to ACT.”

Calculated or not, notably missing from the reasons for the recall is Pearce’s anti-immigration legislation.  Snow makes it clear that the two main issues that Pearce has worked for – immigration and gun control – are not the reasons for their recall effort.  He said, “We don’t take a stand on any of those issues – immigration, gun control.  We think those things are irrelevant.  We think the most important things for Arizonans is putting our economy back on track and creating jobs.  We think that Russell Pearce has a horrible track record and those are not his priorities.”

This historic special recall election is set for November 8, 2011.  Never before has an Arizona Senator been recalled and never before has a Senate President, in any state, been recalled at any time in the history of the United States.

Joining the efforts to recall Senator Russell Pearce is independent pollster Michael O’Neil of O’Neil Associates Inc. in Tempe, Arizona.  Risking the future of his business and livelihood, O’Neil started Citizens for a Sane Arizona and a website, SaneArizona.com.  O’Neil defended crossing the line of neutrality in this statement; “I did this after a great deal of thought because I’ve maintained a position of absolute neutrality.  This case presents such a harm to the state that I basically concluded that it’s time for Mike O’Neil, citizen, to step up.  I decided this case was just too extreme and just too much to ignore. The harm that’s being done to this state, the level of hate and scapegoating just called for stepping up, and damn the consequences.”

Go Arizona!  It’s About Time.  Now, who’s next?

Join the Live Discussion on
Deborah’s Op-Ed on the Recall of Arizona Senator Russell Pearce
Tuesday, October 25^th
10:00 AM – 10:30 AM (Pacific Time)
(Watch, Listen, Chat)
512-400-4809  – PIN 9008894  (Listen Only)
714-888-7486  (Call in to the Show Only)

Deborah’s Op-Ed – is brought to you by AtHomeLasVegas.com.
Log on now for 50-65% off vacation, extended stay and resort living in Las Vagas.  AtHomeLasVegas.com.
Your life.  Your style.  Your home.

Deborah Robinson is an award-winning journalist, author, producer, documentary filmmaker and television personality.  Her life’s passion is to reveal and communicate truth through the media.  Deborah’s media work can be found at www.RobinsonOmnimedia.com.

There are so many reasons why Herman Cain Can’t Win the race for President of the United States of America, that instead of one article – which would not have been sufficient – I decided to provide you with portions of my research on the Tea Party Republican  Candidate.  Each news report and video tells why, each within itself, and even more so combined, it should give you sufficient evidence for you to actively assure that Herman Cain Doesn’t Win!

Here’s Why Herman Cain Can’t Win…

Read Deborah’s Op-Ed
and Join the Live Discussion on Tuesdays
10:00 AM – 10:30 AM (Pacific Time)

Online Watch, Listen, Chat
512-400-4809  (Listen Only)

On-line Listen & Chat
714-888-7486  (Call in to the Show Only)

Deborah’s Op-Ed – is brought to you by AtHomeLasVegas.com.
Log on now for 50-65% off vacation, extended stay and resort living in Las Vagas.  AtHomeLasVegas.com.
Your life.  Your style.  Your home.

Deborah Robinson is an award-winning journalist, author, producer, documentary filmmaker and television personality.  Her life’s passion is to reveal and communicate truth through the media.  Deborah’s media work can be found at www.RobinsonOmnimedia.com.

We are upon the 10^th anniversary of the horrific event that took the lives of 2,819 people and changed the lives of every American forever.  Every day at 9:11, my heart goes out to those who lost a loved one.  But I don’t feel the sympathy for America that comes every year at this time.  Why not?  Because I value every life the same, whether it’s an American life, a Palestinian life, a Jewish life, a Christian life or a Muslim life.  I value humanity and it doesn’t matter if that human lives in Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa or America.

So, what does that mean?

That means that the Arabs and Muslims that have been killed in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank are just as human as the 2,819 that died on American soil on 9-11.

That means that the 56,000 military plus 3,500 civilians – all Muslims – killed in Desert Storm were just as loved by their families as the 2,819 that died on 9-11.

That means that the 32,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan since 2001 were just as valued by their country as the 2,819 that died on 9-11.

That means that the 100,000 people who have died due to UN sanctions on Iraq were just as important as the 2,819 that died on 9-11.

Every death is equally important.  No more.  No less.

So, when we – Americans – speak of 9-11 as if that one incident started the war on terror or signaled the end of the world, those in other countries who know what terror really is and those who know what war and the end of the world really feels like because they live in it every day, wonder why we –  Americans – can’t see the hypocrisy, the arrogance, the elitism and the national supremacy that is so obvious in how we look at what has been happening to them over many of their lifetimes compared to what happened to us on that one day – September 11, 2001.

When we, the most powerful country in the world, begin to value life – every life – as much as we value an American life, others will do the same.  They will value American lives just as they value their own lives.  Maybe then we can prevent another terror attack on American soil.

This is Deborah.  And that’s the way it should be.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/27/obama.birth.certificate/index.html?hpt=C1

John King gets Donald Trump’s reaction to the White House releasing President Obama’s birth certificate and whether Trump is really running for president. Tune in to “John King, USA” at 7 p.m. ET Wednesday.

Washington (CNN) — The White House released copies of President Barack Obama’s original long-form birth certificate Wednesday, seeking to put an end to persistent rumors that he was not born in the United States.

The certificate states, as Obama’s advisers have repeatedly said, that the president was born at Honolulu’s Kapiolani Hospital on August 4, 1961. Doubters insist Obama was born overseas — possibly in his father’s home country of Kenya — and may be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.

PDF: See a copy of the certificate

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” Obama told reporters at the White House. “I’ve been puzzled at the degree to which this (story) just kept on going.”

Trump to vet Obama’s birth certificate

Obama shows original birth certificate

Tuchman: ‘Trump is wrong’

“Normally I would not comment on something like this,” the president said. But the country has “some enormous challenges out there” and that it will not be able to effectively meet “if we’re distracted.”

“We’re not going to be able to (meet those challenges) if we spend time vilifying each other,” he stressed. “We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

Obama released a shorter, legally binding “certification of live birth” in 2008, but failed to persuade members of the “birther” movement.

The administration had to make a special request from the state of Hawaii to get the long-form certificate released, White House legal counsel Bob Bauer said. Typically, the state only releases the shorter, computer-generated live birth certification when people request such documentation.

While the president has tried to make light of the controversy, the question has remained political red meat for some of his critics. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll showed that nearly 75% of Americans believe Obama was definitely or probably born in the United States. More than four in 10 Republicans, however, believe he probably or definitely was not born in America.

What’s your take on the birth certificate release?

The U.S. Constitution says only “natural born” citizens can become president — a vague clause that followers of the birther movement contend disqualifies Obama from the presidency, since they believe he was born overseas.

“The president believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said. “It may have been good politics and good (television), but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.

“At a time of great consequence for this country — when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, D.C., was once again distracted by a fake issue,” Pfeiffer said. “The president’s hope is that with this step, we can move on to debating the bigger issues that matter to the American people and the future of the country.”

Pfeiffer told reporters that the birther debate has been politically damaging to the Republican Party. Regardless, the issue remains potent in GOP circles. Potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently seized on the issue, saying he had doubts about the president’s background.

Trump stands by “birther” claims

Following the White House’s release of the long-form certificate, Trump told reporters in New Hampshire that he is “very proud” of himself for helping to bring about the release of the document.

“I’ve accomplished something nobody else was able to accomplish,” Trump said. “I’d want to look at (the birth certificate), but I hope it’s true so that we can get on to much more important matters.”

Obama “should have (released the certificate) a long, long time ago,” he said.

Trump, a billionaire business tycoon and reality television star, blamed the media for repeatedly bringing up the issue. Trump, however, has frequently raised questions about Obama’s birthplace during his climb in recent GOP primary polls.

Allegations that Obama was not born in the United States have been repeatedly discredited. A recent CNN investigation turned up no evidence to support the birther claims.

“This has long been a settled issue,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The president acknowledged Wednesday that the release of the long-form certificate won’t satisfy a “segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest.”

“But I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press,” he said. “We’ve got better stuff to do.”

Watch this interview in two parts at www.YouTube/DeborahInterviews.

With so much debate on illegal immigration, we rarely discuss legal immigration—our laws and policies—and how they can be used to lessen the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. I recently interviewed Attorney Gary Endelman about his contribution to the book, Legal Briefs on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country. In his Legal Brief, The Tyranny of Priority Dates, Endelman shed light on a complex part of our legal immigration system known as Priority Dates. He likens this U.S. policy to institutional racism. But before I ask him what he means by this charge, we talk about why he believes immigration is ‘demographically inevitable’. Endelman is one of the top legal minds in the country and the former in-house immigration counsel for BP America Inc., where until recently and since 1995, he handled all U.S. immigration law for the BP group of companies throughout the world.

Here’s my interview with Attorney Gary Endelman.

DEBORAH: You say if America had a more rational system of legal immigration there would be fewer undocumented immigrants. What’s irrational—what’s wrong—with our immigration system here in the United States?

ENDELMAN: First of all, I think we have to realize that more immigration is a demographic reality. What do I mean by that? In the United States, as in all advanced industrialized countries, you have an aging population and you have a birth rate which is falling as women have more education and employment opportunities. Especially with my generation—the baby boomer generation, retires—there is going to be a tremendous pressure on the system. You will have fewer and fewer workers paying social benefits for more and more older people. Since the birth rate will not provide the additional workers to help deal with this, whether it’s the United States or anywhere—all countries, not just the U.S. —are having to look to the only place where we can get additional people in the prime of their working lives. And that is through immigration. Whether we like it or not, whether we want it legally or illegally, more immigration is inevitable from a demographic point of view. There’s no other alternative to get workers to pay for a larger and larger percentage of the population that is retired and living longer.

DEBORAH: Let’s go back for a moment to what’s wrong with our immigration system. Yes, it’s inevitable from a point of view, but what’s wrong with our system now that we have a problem with illegal immigration?

ENDELMAN: There are two things to say about that. One reason that illegal immigrants stay in the United States is that they are afraid to go home for fear they won’t be able to return. They don’t particularly want to stay in the U.S. If there was a circular pattern of migration the way there used to be in the 1950’s, people would come here illegally to find jobs and they would return home; they would not stay. It’s only because they are trapped by our immigration system—fearing that they won’t be able to get back—that they’re not leaving. So, we are in effect producing the very problem we claim to be concerned about. That’s one issue. The other issue in the reason that people come illegally is that there is an economic need for them, but that they cannot come legally because the system does not allow for it. There are comparatively few Green Cards awarded to workers who are—quote unquote —unskilled. And so they come illegally because there is still a need for them to come to work in our fields, to pick our food, to work in our factories and to work in our nursing homes. If there weren’t an economic need for it, they wouldn’t be here. But the law does not allow a legal means for them to come. So since there is an economic need for them to come, they come illegally because that’s the only way they can come.

DEBORAH: So, we need reform. Every president has promised it. Who’s responsible to bring about reform? Congress won’t act. The courts are acting in response to states. And the President is fighting the courts and waiting on Congress. Who’s really responsible to do something about our immigration laws?

ENDELMAN: Well let me just focus on legal immigration because people tend to think that immigration is just about the immigrants and it’s really about us. We have a situation right now where there is a global competition for the best and the brightest; a global competition for talent. We are no longer the only game in town. We are no longer the only place that the best and the brightest can come. They can stay in their home countries where there’s an economic rebirth. They can go to other countries. It used to be that the United States was the only place a person of talent could come. That’s no longer the case. So, you have a situation where in the 21st Century, in a global economy, that country will prevail, will lead, will dominate that has the best talent, the best human capital. Just the way in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Countries that had the best natural resources—physical wealth, physical assets—dominated. Now, it’s talent, human capital. And what is happening here. We have the best and the brightest coming from all over the world because we have the best graduate schools in the world because this is where the exciting research and innovation is happening. And then when they come and get their education here, when they are most valuable to us, our immigration system forces them to leave and forces them to work for our competitors who are in a better position to take jobs and industries out of the United States. It makes no sense. It’s counter-productive to our economic interests to have the immigration system that we have. We should be welcoming people with advanced degrees in science and technology, engineering and mathematics, not making it difficult for them to stay.

DEBORAH: Let’s look at it from a public perspective. Many of the attorneys have the same opinion, definitely, immigration is inevitable. But that’s not very palatable to most of the public. Why?

ENDELMAN: Because I think we’ve done a very poor job on our side of explaining that immigration is in the national interest, not just in the interest of the alien. And that’s because most immigration advocates and most immigration lawyers are pro-immigrant and not necessarily pro-immigration. What do I mean by that distinction? I mean the reason that I support more immigration is not because I think it is good for the individual immigrant, but because I think it’s good for the United States. My focus is on the ability of the immigrant to enhance the national economic interests of the United States. My focus is nation-centric not so much immigrant-centric. I don’t think immigration should be what I think many immigration advocates think it should be and that’s sort of like enhanced international social work. We should always have an element of our immigration policy dealing with refugees and asylees, but the focus, it seems to me, should be on using immigration the same way we use tax policies and the same way we use all other types of national policies; to advance the economic and strategic interests of the United States. So for example, our immigration policy should not be geographically neutral. Right now, India, for example, gets the same number of Green Cards as Liechtenstein. China gets the same number of Green Cards as Monaco. It makes no sense. India is extremely important to the United States right now. We want access to the Indian market, to their economy. Well, they want VISA’s. It seems to me that there is a mutuality of interests there and the United States should use immigration to advance its own national interests. If we don’t have that focus on it, I think we’re doing ourselves a disservice and that’s the reason—to come back to your question—that Americans really don’t understand why more immigration is in the national interest.

DEBORAH: Let’s talk a moment about Priority Dates because you believe that until we really have reform, we need to look at the laws we have and how we might be able to change them or work within them. One of those areas is in Priority Dates. This could really be a difficult discussion, but I want to keep it in laymen’s terms so we can kind of understand what Priority Dates are all about. So, I’ll ask you three questions. What are priority dates? Why are they important to immigration? And what’s tyrannical about them?

ENDELMAN: The United States has a system of so many Visa’s or Green Cards being awarded each year. For example, in employment, it’s 140,000 for the whole world. Not a lot. Each country gets 7% no matter how big the country is. As I was saying, China gets the same as San Marino. Within that 7% it’s broken down into certain preferences or categories. Each category gets a certain amount. The law says that in order to apply for the Green Card, you have to have a Green Card number immediately available to you; you have to be at the head of the line. It’s like when you go to pay for something at a store, you have to be at the head of the line in order for the sales person to take your purchase. It’s the same thing in immigration. You have to be at the head of the line where there’s a Green Card number immediately available to you in order to even be able to apply for the Green Card. Now in some countries, like India, China, Mexico and the Philippians, where there is a very, very, heavy and sustained demand to come permanently to the United States, that has resulted in huge waiting periods. Huge. Enormous. And those places in line are called Priority Dates. Priority Dates are a way to arrange people in line who want to get a Green Card. To put it in simple terms. Now if you have, let’s say, an advanced degree—a PhD.—in engineering from India, and you have managed to persuade the U.S. Government that your work is in the national interest, so they’ve approved a petition on your behalf, it will take 8, 9, 10, maybe longer, years for your priority date to become current. Meaning, in order for you to even apply for the Green Card, even if you’ve been able to demonstrate that your work is in the national interest of the U.S., even if you’ve been able to demonstrate that there aren’t Americans to do your job, it will take years before you can even apply. That is because of the inadequate immigrant quotas and the Priority Dates system which says you cannot even apply for the Green Card until you get to the head of the line.

DEBORAH: You liken Priority Dates to institutionalized racism. Can you explain that?

ENDELMAN: There used to be a law that was passed in 1924 by Congress that was called the National Origins Quota. It was passed after WWI to keep Jews and Catholics from Southern and Eastern Europe from coming to the U.S. It was the law until 1965 when things were made geographically neutral. There used to be laws in the 1880’s that lasted until WWII that excluded Chinese from permanently coming to the United States, making them ineligible for citizenship. It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act. Now we don’t have those laws, overtly, right now. But, the effect is still the same. The Priority Dates system is such that it is becoming almost a mirage—almost a cruel joke—for people from China and India to hope to immigrate to the U.S. They might as well have a ‘do not apply’ sign because that is the effect of the Priority Dates system.

DEBORAH: So, what’s the answer to the Priority Dates system? How can it be corrected outside of Congressional reform?

ENDELMAN: That’s really the answer because we have inadequate quotas, but short of that, there are enormous possibilities for remedial action in the law as it now exists—through Executive action and regulation—that would not wait upon Congressional action or be dependent upon Congressional action. There is enormous flexibility in the law. The Executive, through Executive Order, through regulation, through administrative action, can do many, many of the things that legislation could do. I’ll give you one example. In the summer of 2007, in July, there was a dispute between the immigration authorities and the State Department as to this whole system of Priority Dates; which ones were current and which ones were not. So they compromised and they said for one month, all Green Card categories based upon employment were current. Everyone could apply regardless of Priority Dates; regardless of how many people were in line ahead of you. For that one month, everyone could apply. There was no change in regulation. Congress never acted. They decided this as a matter of interpretation and administrative fiat. They could do the same thing today. We could let people informally submit their applications, not technically apply, but have a provisional submission, giving them many of the benefits in terms of travel and employment that they would get normally as part of an official Green Card application. But, the cases would not be approved unless and until the Priority Dates actually came current. That way, people who are in the United States—who are not going home, whose talents we need—could be allowed to get on with their lives and we as a country can get the benefit of their talent and their energies and their commitment.

DEBORAH: What is the likelihood of that happening?

ENDELMAN: I think it’s very unlikely, although several months ago a memo was written to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas basically arguing for the same thing I’m arguing for now. The memo was leaked by opponents of this who wanted to create a political controversy and defeat the approach. If the administration had the vision and the political will to do it, they could do it now. They could do it tomorrow.

DEBORAH: As a corporate attorney for many years, how have you seen Priority Dates affect the corporations in America?

ENDELMAN: Let me give you an example. It is becoming increasingly difficult for technology-oriented companies to attract the best and the brightest talent which they need and which America needs. And what’s inevitably going to happen—and you’re already seeing it now to some extent with companies establishing R&D centers outside the United States by countries more than eager to have them—if you cannot get the talent you need into the United States because of antiquated and irrational immigration restrictions, then companies will increasingly send those jobs out of the United States to be done at research and development centers where the talent can be employed. And inevitably we are going to weaken our national economic competitiveness by that. And it’s happening now.

Deborah Robinson is co-editor and publisher of Legal Minds on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country.

Watch this interview in two parts at www.YouTube/DeborahInterviews.
Read more about Deborah and Attorney Gary Endelman at www.25LegalBriefs.com.

Deborah Interviews Bill Ong Hing
(Immigration Reform Series)

America has a Debt to Pay to Mexico

America’s relationship to Mexico is often downplayed in the midst of the immigration debate.  In the upcoming documentary, Reasonable Suspicion, we explore that relationship as we travel to Mexico City.  So, when one of the contributors to my latest book, Legal Minds on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country, decided to write about that relationship, I was anxious to read what he had to say.  Professor Bill Ong Hing’s legal brief, Thinking Broadly About Immigration Reform by Addressing Root Causes, hints that perhaps America should look in the mirror when considering the illegal entrance of our neighbors south of the border.  Hing is a Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches Immi­gration Law and Policy, Evi­dence, Negotiation and Rebellious Lawyering.

Hing’s positions on immigration could be considered rebellious.  He advocates for a North American Union that could lead to open labor migration, he supports amnesty for the over 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States and he calls Mexican migrants ‘economic refugees’.  One of his most controversial contentions in the  legal brief he contributed to the book, is that America should take some responsibility for illegal immigration due to its foreign policies.  He goes one step further writing, “There is a good argument that the U.S. has an historical debt to pay for what it has done to the agricultural sector in Mexico.”

I interviewed Hing and that’s where I started.

DEBORAH: The U.S. has a debt to pay to Mexico.  Explain.

HING: NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that was signed into law by Canada, the United States and Mexico in the early 1990’s.  The American public was lead to believe that it would resolve the undocumented immigration challenge, thinking it would open up markets—not just in Mexico, but in the United States—for Mexican manufactures and Mexican producers.  Everyone thought the jobs would be created in Mexico.  The problem, and one of the foremost examples, is that behind the scenes and in the small print in NAFTA, the United States was permitted to continue to subsidize U.S. agriculture, corn farmers for example.  Mexico was not able to continue doing that.  As unbelievable as it may seem, today, some 15 years after NAFTA has been in effect, Mexico now imports over 95% of its corn from the United States.  Mexican corn farmers have not been able to compete.  They have actually gone out of business.  Their workers are left without work.  So, where do they look for employment?  They look north of the border.

DEBORAH: So, you’re saying that has done what to immigration in the United States?

HING: It has increased the push factors from Mexico for people to come to the United States looking for work.  NAFTA’s just one example.  The World Trade Organization, which the United States encouraged Mexico to also join, also hurt Mexico in terms of manufacturing.  Manufacturing plants in Mexico have closed over the last dozen years or so.  China and other countries in Asia have cheaper workers than Mexico.  If Americans look at the clothes they have on their backs, they’ll have to admit that a lot of the clothes they have have been imported from Asia, not Mexico.  That’s another example of how Mexico has been caught into this trap of worldwide globalization and the economic impact has affected its workers.  They have lost work.

DEBORAH: What do we do now?  How do we pay that debt?  How do we make it right?

HING: First of all, I wish people would calm down when it comes to the flow of undocumented workers in the United States.  The reason I wish they would calm down is because I think if they understood the reasons the folks are coming here, because of economic pressures that are well beyond their ability to control their own lives.  You are absolutely right when you said that I am for a North American Union that would lead to labor migration.  You’re right that I’m for legalization or an amnesty program for the 10 to 12 million undocumenteds.  But, I’m actually more for the right of Mexican workers to stay home to work in Mexico.  So, when I talk about a North American Union, I think of the European Union, which is not a perfect example, but when the European Union allowed in poorer countries into the European Union such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, before they allowed them in, the wealthy nations infused big investments into those countries so that those countries could create jobs of their own.  And guess what?  Whenever those poor countries were allowed in, labor migration was open to all those countries.  But in the EU today, fewer than 2% of people born in the EU, live in another EU country; they would rather stay home.  And I feel the same thing would happen if we really developed a North American Union where we worked on the economies of all three countries.  Mexicans, when you interview them, the vast majority would rather stay home.  They would rather be home and feed their families with employment at home.  So, yes, I’m for a North American Union.  Two things would result from that, open migration, but more jobs in Mexico and less of a pressure to leave Mexico to come to the United States.

DEBORAH: When we talk about NAFTA, when we talk about the North American Union, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who say that the government is conspiring to bring the three countries together—Mexico the United States and Canada—for that North American Union.  I know some people are advocating for it, but do you see that happening?  Is the government going that way?

HING: I don’t think the government is going that way in the way that the conspiracy theorists are thinking.  I do think that there are smart people in Canada, the United States and Mexico that understand that it’s important to help Mexico develop jobs and work on its economy.  Listen, I’m the first critic of Mexico as well.  I think that the Mexican government has had some history of corruption and ineptitude.  I certainly would not just throw money at the government of Mexico.  I think we need to sit down and figure out how to do this in a way that will put pressure on the government of Mexico.  It’s not unprecedented.  When the World Bank gives money, they try to put pressure on governments.  In the EU again, serious pressure on countries to adopt economic policies, human rights policies and environmental policies before they’re allowed into the EU and before they’re allowed to accept the cash.  I think we need to at least study; at least develop a commission to figure out how this can be done.

When I’ve given this pitch and I talk about bailing out Mexico, people always say to me, “How can you bail out Mexico when the United States is having its own problems?”  I understand that.  Everybody’s caught in this economic decline.   But if we don’t start at least seriously talking about this, we’re never going to resolve this challenge.

When I talk about amnesty or legalization for undocumenteds, I don’t actually talk about that in isolation.  Unlike many of my immigrant rights friends in Washington who are pushing for amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, I’m pushing for legalization—amnesty—at the same time as we look at what’s happening with the Mexican economy.  If we only grant amnesty and put more money at the border for border enforcement, in a few years, we’re gonna have another undocumented problem.  We cannot just grant amnesty.  We cannot just throw money at border enforcement without talking about how to help Mexico with its economy.  Otherwise, we’re gonna be in the same situation again in a few years.

DEBORAH: You call Mexican immigrants, ‘economic refugees’.  That’s pretty strong.  Explain that for us.

HING: It’s actually a term that I borrowed from another academic named George Lakoff.  He coined the phrase.  But, I think he’s absolutely right.  People who are coming from Mexico are trying to feed their families.  They’re not coming here to commit crimes.  They’re not coming here to rip off the welfare system.  They are coming here to find work for the reasons that I outlined at the beginning; because of the economic pressures that have been put on them to migrate.  To me, it’s very much akin to political pressures of people who are fleeing communism, fleeing repression in other forms.  Those folks are labeled refugees.  I believe the same thing is happening in Mexico.  Because of those economic pressures, people want to flee in order to put money in their pockets and food on the tables of their families.  To me, it’s very, very analogous to being a refugee.  And these folks are economic refugees.

DEBORAH: Those who would say that we need to decrease the number of immigrants in the United States, not just illegal, but legal as well, say that’s not our problem.  What Mexicans are experiencing in Mexico, or any other race of people is experiencing in their home countries, is not our problem and we can’t take on everybody else’s issues.  But, when you look at what’s really happening and how America is infused with our neighbors south of the border, what do you think the real issue is with those who say, “go home”’ to the Mexicans?  What is the real issue with a North American Union and with the free flowing of migrants throughout the 3 countries?

HING: Let’s be honest.  The people who tout the anti-immigrant line, they are made up of a diverse group of individuals.  Some of them are mislead by the economic arguments.  They think that immigrants hurt the economy.  All major empirical studies demonstrate that the economic argument doesn’t hold.  In fact, immigrants help our economy. Even today, in the bad economic decline, there are still many, many jobs that Americans don’t take that only low-wage immigrant workers will take.  A lot of people who are on that anti-immigrant side, they believe people come here and don’t want to learn English.  Again, that’s not true.  Community colleges have long waiting lists of people who want to learn English.  I wish people would talk more to immigrants.  When you interview immigrants, you find out that they want to learn English.  They want their children to do well in school.  They want their children to learn English, of course.  So, that just doesn’t hold.  Unfortunately, there’s an element in the anti-immigrant community—let’s face it—that doesn’t like the race of the folks that are coming here.  And I’m talking about legal and undocumented immigrants.  There are some folks who continue to look at America through a white western, northern, European lense.  That’s what they think America has been and should continue to be.  They don’t really believe the United States is a land of immigrants beyond western and northern Europe.  To those folks, I say it’s inevitable, unfortunately for them.  Things are gonna change through legal immigration and through refugee policy.  It’s already started.  We waste a lot of money through enforcement.  We waste a lot of time and effort bickering through all this and what we ought to be doing is embracing the change and working with immigrants so we can work on inculcating them on the values we call American values and work with them about integrating into our society.  That’s how we really should spend our time.

DEBORAH: But why can’t they simply come to America—legally—like any other immigrant before them?

HING: When people ask me that question, “Why are they all undocumented?”, what you don’t realize is there are numerical limitations, backlogs, and there are quotas that are very difficult to satisfy.  The waiting list for many categories such as for siblings and for sons and daughters—those backlogs—run anywhere from 5 to 25 years in some cases.  Some of the categories from Mexico and the Philippians are 15 to 20 years.  So, it’s just not that simple to fill in the forms and become an immigrant overnight.

DEBORAH: So what do we do?  We know that reform has been discussed and talked about, but we don’t have it yet.  Every president has promised it.  Obama promised it within his first year.  That first year is gone.  He said OK, first term.  He’s got two years left.  What do we do about immigration to work within the laws that we have to rectify this problem we have with illegal immigrants, now?

HING: What I’m proposing of course is that we sit down and look at a long-term solution with respect to Mexico and its economy.  But, that’s not gonna solve the problem overnight.  Unfortunately, there’s nothing that’s gonna solve the problem overnight.  I think that every year—even under this administration, the Obama administration and especially under the George Bush administration—there have been billions and billions of dollars expended and appropriated for interior enforcement and border enforcement and it hasn’t done anything to slow the flow of undocumented folks coming into the United States.  That’s why states are doing what they’re doing trying to keep people out of the states.  But most of that is gonna be thrown out as unconstitutional.  The answer to your question is in order for something to get done in the next couple of years, people are gonna have to wake up and realize that what we’ve done in the past isn’t solving the problem.  Let’s roll up our sleeves and figure out how to open the Visa system a little bit more to let in the workers that we need.  But, in my opinion, even that isn’t gonna be enough.  We really are gonna have to sit down and work on helping to create jobs on both sides of the border and get Canada involved; Canada is very interested in this proposal.  Get them involved to once and for all address the root causes of immigration pressures.

Deborah Robinson is co-editor and publisher of Legal Minds on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country.

Watch this interview on www.YouTube/DeborahInterviews.

Read more about Deborah and Professor Bill Ong Hing at www.25LegalBriefs.com.

I decided to stop and have a salad at my favorite deli, Jason’s Deli.  As I pulled up, two police officers were talking with two young men who looked to be from Mexico.  After about ten minutes or so, very calmly, one of the officers pulled out his handcuffs and gently took the right arm of one of the men.  The man didn’t resist.  Instead, he turned around and extended his left arm to the back.  He was handcuffed and within minutes, he was sitting in the back seat of the police car – arrested.  Now I don’t know why he was arrested, but I imagined it was because he was illegally in this Country.  But, the truth didn’t matter.  He could have been wanted for murder or any less serious crime.  The reason for his arrest was irrelevant to me at that moment.  Only my thoughts of what could have been true mattered.

Tears welled up in my eyes as I considered the inhumanity of being arrested for simply ‘being’.  ‘Being’ in a place where a group of people decided he didn’t belong.  I began to feel overwhelmed as I walked by the police car, imagining what will happen to the young man in the back seat.  Will he be deported and sent to a land he may not know?  Will he be separated from his family?  What will be the cost of his arrest?

Everything within me – my humanity – feels it’s not right to confine a human being to only one part of this vast land we live on.    Everything within me – my humanity – feels it’s not right to build a man-made border across any part of this God-given earth.  I know, I know, I know.  I’ve heard all the arguments against open borders.  I’m not even sure that’s what I’m saying.  But, it’s what I’m feeling.  Maybe I’m feeling the spirits of the Native Americans who believed they did not and could not own or prevent others from sharing the land they were blessed to inhabit.  So, they welcomed the European immigrants, knowing that the land and natural resources were vast and plenty enough for everybody.  If only we believed that way.  I’m beginning to feel it.  I haven’t worked it out in my head, but my spirit says the Natives were right.  And it can never be too late or too hard to do what’s right.

I know you’re saying, ‘But, Deborah, if the young man was here illegally, he should be sent back to his country.  Well, we determine what’s legal and illegal.  My humanistic view on life puts humanity first above everything, even the law – especially the law.  But to keep humans from breaking the law, maybe it’s time we decided that simply ‘being’ wherever you want to be could never be illegal.

Today, I changed my mind, because it can never be too late or too hard to do what’s right.

If you missed the week-long media reports, here’s the story  in a nutshell:  Four young men from Bishop Eddie Long’s church filed lawsuits against Long, his church (New Birth missionary Baptist Church) and their youth ministry (Longfellow Youth Academy), accusing Long of sexual misconduct with the knowledge, support and assistance of certain church and youth ministry administration and officials.  The lawsuits state:  Bishop Long has utilized his spiritual authority as Bishop and leader of Defendants’ ministries to coerce certain young male members and employees… into engaging in sexual acts and relationships for his own personal sexual gratification.

Things are quiet now.  The media has abandoned the story for the latest political news leading up to the November elections.  They must have agreed with Long that “…this should be dealt with in a court of justice and not by public opinion.”

I also agree.

If guilty as accused, legally, Long did nothing wrong.  As a society, we have agreed, at least in the State of Georgia, that 16 year olds are able to have consensual sex with adults, no matter how much older the adult is.

If guilty as accused, morally, Long did nothing wrong.  As a society, we have agreed, at least in popular opinion, that sex between two people of the same gender is morally acceptable.

So, I agree with Long.  He should not be tried in the court of public opinion.  If he is guilty as accused, the ‘public’ per se is not who he has offended.  It is the young men and the spiritual/Christian/religious community whom he has offended, and that is where the trial should be.  The Bible says that when a brother offends another, bring it before the Church.   I’d like to see this case brought before the Christian community, especially the African American Christian community, and have it discussed, debated and tried there.  But, to do that, we will need access to the evidence.

Unfortunately, I do not think the real evidence will ever see the light of day.  I believe it’s only a matter of time before Long settles the cases.  And as part of the settlement, any evidence will be locked away.  Civil suits are about money.  So as long as the money exchanges hands, there is no need for a trial.  But, a trial is exactly what the Christian community needs to see the evidence.

Why is trying this case important to the spiritual/Christian/religious community?  Because it brings up so many issues that the Church needs to deal with:  homosexuality, worshiping pastors and the exorbitant lifestyles of preachers, just to name a few.  This could be an important teachable moment for the Church, allowing the discussion of the important spiritual issues of our times.  If the evidence is covered up or locked down, we will miss this opportunity to save others like the four accusers and abuses from the pulpit will continue.  Very soon, the Christian Church will have the same stain of sexual improprieties as the Catholic Church.

Robinson, LeGrande, Parris and Flagg, I urge each of you and your attorney not to settle these cases.  Your ‘pain’ as one of you said, was not in vain.  This is an opportunity to change the very foundation of the Church, especially the Black Church.  Stick it out.  Don’t settle for the money.  Your trials were ‘for such a time as this.’  Continue through the process and allow the Christian community to have the truth behind your cases.

Do not allow Long and New Birth to hide behind the law with statements like “With the advice of counsel I am not going to address the allegations and attack levied against me.”

Do not allow Long and New Birth to hide behind his faith with statements like, “I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man, but I am not the man that’s being portrayed on the television.”

Do not allow Long and New Birth to hide behind religion with statements like, “I feel like David against Goliath.  But, I got five rocks and I haven’t thrown one yet.”

Do not allow Long and New Birth to hide behind the truth with statements like “I’m going to fight and fight very vigorously against these charges.”

Please keep these cases before the public and the church and force Long to either deny the accusations outright or repent and ask his heavenly Father and those he has offended for forgiveness.

I know victory is what you’re after, and truth will get it for you.  But, if Long settles these cases and the Church is not allowed to see the evidence, it might be a victory for each of you, but Long will continue to preach and his ministry will grow even larger.  And if he is guilty as accused, it is only a matter of time before another young man is offended.

Settling without having the evidence made public not only puts more young men in danger, but it endangers the spiritual lives and faith of the tens of thousands of Christians who attend New Birth, and the millions of the faithful who watch his international ministry on television and buy his books and tapes.  Preventing this should be your driving force.  In the end, you all will be rewarded.  (And I’m sure you’ll get paid, too.)

I received a research DVD on Friday and this morning, I sat down to watch the two-hour documentary that on the surface had nothing to do with immigration. It was sent to me by one of our producers in an effort to add to an angle we’re chasing answers to. For two straight hours, I cried. Not a silent tear, but a gnashing, snotty weeping. In the midst of the tears, all I could say was “God, what are they doing?”

This issue of immigration isn’t what it seems. It’s much more. I am… more than ever before since starting this Reasonable Suspicion documentary… Reasonably Suspicious about the issue of immigration.

Stay connected for details.

This new law requires police agencies across Arizona  to  investigate the immigration status of every person they  come across whom they have ‘Reasonable  Suspicion’ to  believe is in the country unlawfully.

Reasonable Suspicion’… that’s where I believe the  problem lies.

‘Reasonable  Suspicion’ is like the 1954 decision in  Brown VS the Board of Education where the Supreme Court  ordered states to integrate schools with ‘Deliberate  Speed’. Well, for some southern states, ’Deliberate   Speed’ took three years and longer. It took  President  Eisenhower sending federal troops to Little Rock -  bringing federal troops to the south for the first and  only time since the Civil War, to help Arkansas define  ’Deliberate Speed’ to mean ’integrate  now.’

So, if ‘Reasonable Suspicion’  gets interpreted too  loosely, like a young lady with brown skin, or a van  with more than two people in it, or a young man with a  bandana and baggy pants named Francisco, maybe President Obama  should  show the strong arm of the Federal government – as  Eisenhower did – and federalize the Arizona National  Guard so they can help law enforcement in Arizona define  ‘Reasonable Suspicion’  and assure the Governor’s promise  that she will not tolerate racial discrimination or  racial profiling – is kept.

Now, I can’t say everyone who  supports this law is  racist. But I have ‘Reasonable  Suspicion’  that the results of this law will produce racism.

What this law really reminds me of are the Black Codes -  the various legislation passed by Southern states at the end of the Civil War to control the labor, movements and  activities of newly-freed slaves. It also reminds me of  the Jim Crow laws that states and cities enacted to  continue the racial repressive practices of segregation.  Then, and now, there were different laws for different  people. One law for Whites. Another law for Blacks. Now,  in Arizona, they have one law for Whites and another law  for Mexicans.

If Arizona really wanted to assure their law  was not  discriminatory, why not require that everyone in Arizona  or visiting Arizona carry proof of citizenship and be required to show it at any encounter with a law enforcement officer. With that, the interpretation of  ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ would be removed from the call of  officers and everyone would be treated the same. But  that version of the bill would never have passed because  everyone would never agree to suffer the inconveniences  of having to carry ‘papers’ proving  citizenship and the  possibility of jail if you happen not to have the papers  on you.

When will Americans accept that we are all -  Whites,  Blacks, Asians, Africans, Mexicans – all of us – legal  and illegal – human and equal in every way? We must stop  using nationalism, patriotism and even legalism to cloak  racism. We must live up to our Declaration of  Independence and realize that all men are created equal,  that we are endowed by our Creator with certain  unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty  and the pursuit of happiness.

Now isn’t the pursuit of  happiness what most immigrants  come to America for?

Thanks Crystal Andrus for the beautiful tears this movie to your new book brought me.  Can’t wait to read it!

Peter Egner, now 88 years old, was born in the former Yugoslavia. He came to the United States in 1960 and received citizenship in 1965. Egner lived for many years in Portland and moved to Bellevue to be near family after his wife died in 2005.

Egner’s case goes back to 2008 when the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Investigations, which hunts war criminals, filed a lawsuit against Egner and requested that a federal court in Seattle revoke his U.S. citizenship based on evidence of his role in a Nazi mobile killing unit that participated in the mass murder of more than 17,000 Serbian civilians during World War II. A revocation of Egner’s citizenship would pave the way for his extradition to Serbia, where he would stand trial.

I contacted Egner’s attorney, Robert Gibbs of Seattle, to request an interview with Egner. Of course it was denied. Gibbs did confirm however, that Egner still lives in Bellevue. When pressed for a response from Egner on Serbia’s arrest warrant, Gibbs replied, “He’s being criminally prosecuted and he’s not going to make a public statement.” Although he acknowledges press reports, Gibbs says they have not received nor seen any documentation from Serbia concerning the arrest warrant.

In a 2008 response to the Justice Department’s suit, Gibbs gave account of Egner’s involvement. Gibbs stated that Egner knows nothing about the brutal Nazi-run Serbian police unit that rounded up Jews, political prisoners and other enemies of the Third Reich in the wake of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1940s. Gibbs said the closest Egner came to “interrogating” prisoners was acting as an interpreter in the public lobby of a Belgrade police station.

Not being able to talk directly to Egner, I immediately thought about a conversation I had with an American Veteran on the streets of Tacoma. His name was Stevon. I didn’t get a last name. His story was so captivating, I asked him if I could videotape his comments.

Watch Stevon’s interview BELOW.

This interview with Stevon gave me a personal witness to what I’d felt intrinsically about Egner’s fate.

When countries declare war, and in essence give orders to kill, who is at fault when the end goal is accomplished? Is it the soldier who carried out the order or is it the Country that declared war?

Serbia, leave Egner alone and allow him to live out his remaining days in a retirement home here in Bellevue. He, like Stevon, was only following the orders of his Country. And if he did indeed carry out the orders of his Country, like Stevon, I’m sure he’s now fighting mental demons in a hell unimaginable to those of us who have never been to war.

Interestingly, the arrest warrant comes within days of Serbia’s hotly debated apology for Srebrenica, the 1995 massacre of about 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Serbian forces and the greatest single massacre of civilians in Europe since World War II.

During the time of the war crimes Egner is being accused of, Belgrade was occupied by German forces. If Serbia wants someone to answer for these evils, it should issue an international arrest warrant for Germany.

This Sunday morning I decided to take a walk in downtown Tacoma.  When I first moved to Tacoma, I would ask everyone I came in contact with which way and when could I see Mt. Rainier.  “It’s over there,” everyone would say, pointing.  But it wasn’t ‘over there‘.  I was never able to see it.  I was told that it sometimes hides behind the clouds.

But this morning as I walked the trail I’ve walked many times before, 1 block from my home, I looked ‘over there‘ – and there it was!  Mt. Rainier in all her glory!  Perfectly perched seemingly in the middle of the street.  It was so huge, it looked as if I could walk there; although I know it’s really about 45 miles away.

So, the most prominent mountain in the United States decided to show itself today.  Giving it more thought, the clouds actually decided to make way for it to show itself.  (The mountain didn’t move, the clouds did.)  The clouds and who knows how many other forces of nature had to work in conjunction this morning for Mt. Rainier to bless us with her glory.

Amazing how nature seems to mimic humans – or humans mimic nature… (thus human nature?)

For example, many people have to work in conjunction to accomplish anything worth accomplishing.  Interestingly, both those who work for and those who work against the outcome - are working in conjunction to accomplish the outcome.

And just as I did not look at Mt. Rainier this morning and thank the clouds, many of the people who make it possible for others to shine are never thanked.  But always remember, Mt. Rainier’s glory would forever be hidden, if the clouds – forgoing their own beauty – did not graciously stand aside to reveal it.

The body broker collected $1.5 million by selling cadaver parts to private medical research companies. A juror also faults the university for ‘allowing something like this.’

The bodies were donated to UCLA for medical and scientific research at the university. The scandal over the sale of the body parts became public in 2004 and prompted the closure of the program for more than 18 months.

Prosecutors said Nelson hatched the scheme with the director of the willed-body program, Henry Reid, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to commit theft. Reid received checks from Nelson totaling $43,000 in return for giving him access to the bodies, prosecutors said. Other payments were allegedly made in cash.

Prosecutors said Nelson acted as the middleman, selling hundreds of body parts to various research companies around the country, including pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. The conspiracy was uncovered when a state health investigator grew suspicious that Nelson was fraudulently claiming that the parts had been screened for infectious diseases before selling them.

“This was a man for whom money was more important than the safety of doctors and other medical technicians,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Marisa Zarate, one of two prosecutors on the case. “He was willing to go into a willed-body program and cut up body parts for his own personal financial gain.”

The jury took about a day to convict Nelson, who faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Reid, an embalmer from Anaheim, is serving more than four years in prison.

Prosecutors said they decided not to call Reid to testify, saying he would have been an unreliable witness. “He is a liar. He is a thief. He is a cheater,” Zarate said outside court.

A juror said after the verdicts that there was overwhelming evidence against Nelson, but that the university also was at fault for failing to provide better supervision of the willed-body program.

“UCLA played a major role in allowing something like this,” said the juror, a 48-year-old paralegal who spoke on condition that his name not be published.

Spirituality Talk Show Goes Nationwide
spirituality.com
Meg Dendler

“Taking Talk Higher” is the motto of Deborah Interviews, which premiered on PAX Network November 3, 2003. With a talk show format, Deborah Robinson discusses with guests their connection to the divine and how it governs their lives. She also shares her inspirations in Journey to Purpose: 31 Days of Faith Declarations. (See link below.)

spirituality.com recently spoke with Deborah about the show, her life and how she hopes to help others reconnect with God.

“We are talking spiritual,” she says. “We don’t proselytize. We don’t want to say what to believe in, other than that we know one thing—that there is a God. Now, let’s look at people’s lives and see how they have found Him and see how we can all be enriched and learn and get closer to God through that.”

“We can seek Him together.”

“We can seek Him together. On the show, if I can bring on somebody who can give me some part of the truth of who God is, that’s a blessing. We want to have a relationship with our Source—the Creator, the Giver of all life—we want to stay connected. That’s a natural desire for all of us.”
Growing up in Little Rock, Arkansas, Deborah was one of five daughters of Essie Bradford, a woman who had to leave school after third grade to work in the cotton fields and was devoted to raising her children. Her commitment to her family inspired Deborah so much that she dedicated Journey to Purpose to her.

After graduating from the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, Deborah became the youngest television station manager in the country at Channel 14 in her hometown. She would go on to win cable industry’s prestigious Crystal Award as a producer, a Regional Award for VH-1 for a story on parents in prison, and a national award from the Arts & Entertainment Channel for her coverage and story of civil rights heroine Daisy Bates.
“She feels God led her to strike out on her own.”

After serving as Arkansas Correspondent for Black Entertainment Television News, Deborah produced and anchored several television programs. When she began to feel limited in what she was able to produce, she feels God led her to strike out on her own.

“When I left the station—that was my calling. I never remember, per se, having a relationship with God prior to that. Coming out of Church of Christ, you learned the Bible. You learned the religion of what we were doing. But I didn’t feel like I had a relationship.”

“So I was really seeking for something more. I was feeling depleted, spiritually. So I started saying ‘Okay, God, who are you? I really want to know you.’” In 1994, she founded Robinson Studios with the goal of producing documentaries and programming that would really make a difference in the lives of the viewers.

She worked on developing her relationship with God.

Over the next few years, she worked on developing her relationship with God—listening and praying. Then one afternoon, she felt the Holy Spirit tell her to go to Nashville. She didn’t know anyone there or have any connections, nor did she know what she was supposed to do once she got there. But she had felt the Spirit leading before in her life. “I knew that ‘Go to Nashville’ meant, Go to Nashville!” So in 1998, she did.

Once there, she spent much of the next two years at home allowing God to give her a new vision of what she was supposed to be doing. From this time of listening, Deborah Interviews was born.

“The whole purpose of it is to get people to seek God for themselves—to live their lives to the fullest and to walk in their purpose. I think it’s my own desire leading each show because every time I go into an interview, I always have an issue I’m wrestling with.” She chooses her guests from people who have expanded her own ideas of God and blessed her life.
Deborah remembers an interview she did with Yolanda Adams, a gospel songwriter and singer. That day Deborah was just tired. She needed peace. She sensed from Yolanda such a sense of peace she wanted to find out more about where that came from. So that’s what they talked about.
Peace comes from following God.

Yolanda said in the interview that peace comes from following God. “Yolanda said, ‘God is not going to give you anything that you’re not ready for. If you don’t go ahead and do what He’s calling you to do, He’ll use somebody else. It won’t get undone. The universe will continue, but you won’t be fulfilling what you were supposed to do.’”

Some days Deborah feels like it would be fine if He’d call someone else! But she also feels the calling she has followed is not something exclusive to her as Deborah Robinson. “There are probably thousands of women out there, and men, who had the vision that I had for Deborah Interviews. The question is—who’s going to answer the call? He has a call out to humanity, to all of us, to seek Him. To lead people to Him. It’s not a matter of being chosen, it’s whose answering.”

How to answer the call has evolved, too. When the show began, Deborah had a more dogmatic attitude—that she knew God and was going to share Him with the world. But as she progressed in her journey to know Him better, she found herself questioning everything.

“I can’t dare ask or think or question my beliefs.”

“I remember sitting in my bed writing, and being afraid to write down real questions that I had for God because they so challenged what I thought I believed about Him. It was a scary thing! I remember writing and crossing it out as if to say, ‘Please forgive me. I can’t dare ask or think or question my beliefs.’”

“My question was, ‘What if I remove everything that I think I know about You—I remove everything that everybody has ever told me—I remove everything that was everybody’s explanation off You?’ Because that’s what religion is. Religion is simply somebody’s explanation of who God is and how He wants you to be—the rules, the guidelines. And for me I said, ‘What if I removed all of that? What would I have?’” She realized that it would leave her with God and His laws—the things that are outside of human control.
She just opened herself up to God.

When she removed what people have manufactured, she could allow God to speak right to her and reveal His nature. She just opened herself up to God. Through this opening up, the show changed also. It became clear that her job was not to tell people about God, but to walk along on their journey with them.

While the specific guests may not be someone well-known or a celebrity, the real draw of the show, Deborah feels, is the topic of discussion. For instance, Kim Thomas, author of Even God Rested, will appear on a show focused on the fact that people need to find time for rest in their lives: physical, emotional and spiritual.

“You may not know Kim Thomas, but I bet you need to rest!” Deborah says confidently. Thomas’s ideas are based on the Biblical account of creation in Genesis that concludes with the fact that God rested. “Well, God didn’t need to rest,” Deborah says, “it was His model for us of combining activity with peaceful time. We should learn from that instead of letting things build up in our lives.”

“We can talk about the spiritual side of you that needs to rest.”

“People working too much and doing too much is something you’ll see on Oprah. But taking it higher, we put God in it. We can talk about the spiritual side of you that needs to rest.”

Deborah is clearly proud of the show and what it will accomplish. “We’re not going to say ‘Here’s how to do this.’ We’re going to show people who are living a life that is successful in a certain area because of what they believe”—people who are successful because they understand their connection to God and walk in it.

“Without a fresh Word from the Lord daily, I have no direction,” she says. Every morning she turns to prayer and searches for the divine presence to lead her day and direct her actions.

“Allow yourself to get to know God.”

“More and more every day I think that the call to communicate truth starts in my own personal life—me making decisions every day that totally line up with my peace with God in me as He’s leading me to do right and be right. To live life to its fullest.”

What advice does Deborah have for other spiritual seekers? “Allow yourself to get to know God again on top of what you already think you know. Open yourself up to the possibility that there could be more.”

“That’s what spirituality is about—experiencing God.”