Listening to the current debate on immigration within the Republican ranks, one would think that demons occupy either side. Proponents of amnesty or quasi-amnesty (or anything that could even marginally be construed as any form of amnesty) are targeted with insults challenging their conservative credentials and sense of justice. On the opposite extreme, hard-liners are labeled “haters”, “heartless”, and anti-immigration, their compassion questioned and grotesquely distorted.

Both of these extremes do great disservice to the party. Conservatives need to avoid painting caricatures of each other. These insults weaken the party, prevent reasoned debate, and offer Democrats potential talking points like Christmas presents wrapped with silver bows.

The immigration debate involves many principles worthy of serious discussion. The two most important—often exaggerated or underestimated by opponents and the media—are justice and compassion.

The principle of justice is intimately connection to the rule of law. Those who prioritize justice above all focus on the following question: Does a sovereign nation like the United States have the right to set immigration policy and, as a result, remove any and all breakers of immigration law, even if certain persons have lived in the United States for decades, have contributed to society, and attend church? Hardline conservatives answer with an impassioned and simple “yes”.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the primary concern in the immigration issue should be compassion. Presumably, many consider it immoral to deport whole swaths of people from their homes, especially those hardworking and otherwise moral people who have resided here for decades and who have contributed something important to society. Many undoubtedly are interested in garnering support specifically from the Latino community, hoping that the fastest growing minority voting bloc could be swayed by compassionate immigration policy.

The crucial point here is that for those whose number one priority is justice, compassion is not unimportant. Conversely, those who emphasize compassion generally do not dismiss the rule of law. It appears that Newt Gingrich, for example, seeks to prioritize both. Many hardline conservatives appeared crestfallen by their interpretation of his immigration policy, which equated a plea for compassion with amnesty. But Gingrich never suggested that compassion should trump justice—only that it should be a crucial consideration.

(more…)

“We inherited a mess…”

How many times have we heard this tired mantra, usually offered as a rebuttal to suggestions that Obama and his party are responsible for our ongoing economic doldrums? It seems reflexive, almost unconscious. How else can one explain how liberals continue to defend themselves against the indefensible?

The explanation is both psychological and political.

Psychology has long sought to comprehend and explain these tendencies. One of the hallmarks of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory is the concept of defense mechanisms. These are unconscious maneuvers that a person’s ego utilizes to protect one’s personal sense of integrity. Students who passed  Psychology 101 likely recall some of the well-known defense mechanisms: denial (such as Jay Carney’s  recent insistence that “The economy is vastly improved…”), regression (the infamous tantrums of Rahm Emanuel and Alan Grayson), and repression (Harry Reid conveniently “forgetting” that he had railed against raising the debt limit just a few years ago). But the most infantile— and therefore common— defense of the Left is projection.

(more…)

By now, you likely have heard of Dr. David Ludwig, Harvard professor and child obesity specialist at Children’s Hospital in Boston. He and attorney and research partner Lindsey Murtagh authored a piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that severely obese children might require the government to remove them from custody of their parents.

If this doesn’t convince you that liberals support a nanny state, nothing will.

As a child psychologist with over 20 years of experience, I can say with supreme confidence that taking a child from his or her parents is almost always traumatic. Sometimes it is justified, of course; in cases of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, the child is sometimes far better off living without the offending parent. Similarly, when a parent evidences a profound inability to provide the basic needs of a child, the child might be safer with a relative or, rarely, with a foster parent. But removing a child from the home because the parent doesn’t adequately assist the child in losing weight? This is nothing short of ridiculous.

Such a proposal includes several dangerous messages. First, the messages to children: your parents are so screwed up that they can’t take care of you. They aren’t good enough for you and you aren’t good enough to stay with them. Second, the messages to parents:  ultimately, you do not control the destiny of your child; the government does.  Also, the state has the right to take your children away if you don’t get their weight (or other variables) under control. Third, the message to departments of child protective services: now you have more power to control parents and children. Finally, the message to taxpayers: you will now bear the burden of paying for a state-run juvenile weight-loss program.

(more…)

The Supreme Court of the United States today struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority, with Justices Breyer and Thomas dissenting.

One can just see the headline now: “Supreme Court Determines Violent Video Games Are Great for Kids!” Or, “Justice Scalia’s Children Must Be Embarrassed by His Utter Disregard for Parents’ Rights.”

Superficially, this appears to be a failure of government to support parents in their quest to protect children. Shouldn’t we applaud governmental restrictions on games that depict violent rape, dismemberment, and sickeningly graphic murder? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court want to help parents protect their children from this satanic drivel?

Well, not really. Scalia wrote that the gaming industry already does assist parents in this regard by providing useful rating systems for games—a system that experts consider far superior to our current movie rating system. The Court argued that states cannot create laws to deny children access to objectionable material.

(more…)

To the Honorable Jose Longoria,

Recently, you sentenced a mother, Rosalina Gonzales, to five years probation, a fine, and parenting classes after being convicted of a felony charge. The heinous crime? Spanking her own child.

As you recall, the prosecution admitted that Ms. Gonzales did not use a belt, a switch, or anything else other than her hand. She didn’t hit her child in the face, head, chest, or anywhere but her rear end. She didn’t draw blood, break any bones, or even leave bruises—only some red marks. There was no injury.

This decision is manifestly absurd.

First, it represents an egregious judicial overreach. You should know the law: in Texas, spanking is not against the law. Your state’s Attorney General has even stated that disciplinary spanking confined to the buttocks, done with an open hand, and not resulting in injury should not be considered abusive. Ms. Gonzales evidenced self-control with all of these variables.

Before sentencing Ms. Gonzales, you chided her, “You don’t spank children today. In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children. You understand?”

(more…)

The Obama administration has planned a new $500 million early learning initiative, designed to deal with children as young as five who can’t sit still in a kindergarten classroom.

As a clinical psychologist with 20 years of experience evaluating and treating children, I am expert at understanding five-year-olds who can’t sit still. I am also a parent of a Kindergarten student. I am here to inform taxpayers that this program is a colossal waste of money. I can save the government—meaning you, the taxpayer—a half billion dollars by solving this profound problem right here.

Spending $500 million to get five-year-olds to sit still is like getting a Democrat to stop spending other people’s money. In theory it sounds good—really good—but it simply goes against nature. The natural inclination for most five-year-olds is to be extremely active. Normal pre-schoolers spend much of their day practicing their gross and fine-motor skills, with boys being especially active learners. They are not inclined to sit still, shut up, and listen to a teacher for anything but short periods of time.

(more…)