Las Cruces Rises to the Challenge of Increasing Numbers of Refugees

Hosting 2,200 refugees in two weeks is an unexpected challenge. Our community is responding beautifully. 

For months, nonprofits and churches have been helping a steady influx of Central American refugees. Then the feds started releasing so many that the City made Meerscheidt Rec Center a temporary shelter and authorized substantial expenditures. 

Fleeing grave dangers, the refugees are applying for asylum, legally, under U.S. laws and treaties. They have court cases elsewhere, and family or volunteers waiting to house them. Some stay here 24 hours or less. Most are families. Many are children. 

Firefighters, church members, city employees, and volunteers cheerfully cooperate on logistical problems including food, housing, clothes, medical care, and travel. 

The refugees spent Easter weekend at Las Cruces High. At around 6 p.m. Saturday, firefighter Nicolas Palma showed volunteer Kari Bachman around gyms full of cots. Kari, whose Spanish is impeccable, would spend the night. Palma, who would return early the next morning, had been there all day. So had the school principal – and at 7 p.m. she was sweeping a floor. County Treasurer Eric Rodriguez was handing out bottles of water. Outside stood a Salvation Army “emergency kitchen” truck, overseen by Salvation Army ministers Michael and Norma Evans. A woman rushed to hug them, recalling their past disaster-relief efforts. (She's an FBI agent, but was volunteering here.) The school's computer lab was a travel agency, ably managed by a retired FEMA employee.

Kari said of her 14-hour night, “Being in charge was kind of daunting. But the other volunteers were incredible. We had fun, laughed, and worked well together. Best of all were the asylum-seekers. They were amazing. There were 174 of them overnight, and to a person, they were extremely kind, personable, and calm.”

She didn't ask about their suffering, but heard moving stories anyway. One woman returned from the hospital with her young son. While fighting off an attacker in Mexico, she'd fallen on her two-year-old son's leg, breaking it. 

“They were really warm and engaging, would always share a smile and talk. I was moved to tears so many times through the night. Watching a sick kid smile, and the mothers cuddling with the kids and reading little books to them. It was powerful.” One “very spiritual” indigenous Guatemalan man kept saying how grateful he was they'd made it and that he just wanted to be in a place where he could work without fear.

Sunday morning, Chris Van Inga and Phinneas Phogg (parrot-at-large, familiar to farmers' market denizens) put sudden smiles on the faces of kids and adults alike, as Phinneas barked, meowed, somersaulted, played dead, and perched on the palms of little hands. Former federal prosecutor Peter Ossorio (serving as “towel boy”) remarked that he wished national media could see how dangerous these people are. He pointed out a table in the corner where the owner of Trini's Nail Creations was doing refugee women's nails – on Easter.

There's no end in sight. Thursday the City leased the old armory to house refugees, and authorized spending up to half a million dollars. 

Las Cruces didn't ask for this challenge. But in working together on unfamiliar problems, and meeting wonderful people, Las Crucens have found satisfaction and even joy.

But this ain't sustainable. We need an administration in Washington that can comprehend the problems forcing people to flee their homes and will deal with those problems – or at least stop exacerbating them.

                                                    -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 28 April 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[Internet storms over the city's involvement in this refugee problem have been a little puzzling.  I get it that some folks want a border patrol, and/or hate on sight anything the city council does; and I think our laws, policies, and procedures need serious re-examination; but on the immediate issue of what the city council should be doing, I've posted a simple question: given that the Feds proposed to dump 150 people a day here, what ought the city council to have done?  Ignored these people, which not only would have been inhumane but would likely have exacerbated the impact on the community and cost us more in the long run, as many of these people lacked language skills, funds, cell-phones, food, adequate clothing, routine medical care, etc., and would have stayed longer and needed more services?  Most of these folks have court dates and friends or family and, with a little help, could be on their way quickly.  So should we have ignored them?  Started a gun-battle with the Feds?   Put them all in jail for vagrancy? Left 'em on the street, vulnerable to sexual predators, pederasts, and violent nut-cases?  None of us takes great joy in seeing half a million bucks leave our treasury; but what was the viable alternative that was better?]

[Make no mistake: the situation in Central America and the influx of asylum-seekers is a problem.  A federal problem that needs a federal or international solution.  But we won't help solve it by spreading lies and myths that these refugees are inherently bad or dangerous people.  Two dominant themes in talking with folks who've worked with the refugees: wonder at the cooperative ways they've solved problems and, above all, respect and even affection for the refugees.]

[Donald Trump's sly solution may be the evisceration of all environmental regulations protecting us from the excesses of big corporations.  Give him time, and the mercury in the water and the gas-polluted wells, plus climate-change-caused lost drinking water (and land) in Miami and exacerbated drought in the Southwest, will make things pretty unappealing here.  Only problem is, it'll be worse in Mexico and Central America.  So greater numbers of refugees will be crossing the border to join us on our way to Canada.]

home again

It's great to be home. 

To step outside to the mild weather and relative quiet of Las Cruces in April, hear the familiar chabbling of the hens, and reassure the cat that we still love him. (Yeah, I invented “chabbling” to suggest babbling, chattering, and occasional squabbling.) 

Everything suddenly seems simple. It helps that I was away from Facebook and most email for a week. 

Some of my friends are still screaming about U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez's “socialism” – kind of like saying “You have cooties!” when we were six. Meaningless, but effective. At that age, anyway.

Others are pointing out again that progressive states are and should be looking at state banks, a concept North Dakota implemented in 1919, and has used successfully for a century. Oh, but that'd be socialist, the bankers will shout – as Republicans shouted that social security would be socialist, and later that Medicare would lead to socialist dictatorship.

So, the Trumpists are screaming that socialism leads to dictatorship. The non-Trumpists are screaming that Trump seeks to create a dictatorship. Maybe all governments lead to dictatorships. Governments – whether monarchies or oligarchies, nominally socialist and/or democratic – seem to work for those who control them. Those in control tell us we need them, and that because someone (Muslims, Jews, Communists, Capitalists, Koch Brothers, George Soros) is trying to hurt us we had better forgive or forget the sins of those in power. 

Trumpists seem delighted to have a president that Russia (or at least its dictator, Mr. Putin) put a high priority on convincing us to elect. You'd guess patriots would be unnerved by that, unless they imagine either that Mr. Putin has our best interest at heart or that he is witless. I've seen no evidence of either.

What's not so simple is writing a column. 

When I left I was looking into whether or not the Las Cruces City Council violated the open meetings law by discussing in secret the recent policy of having certain officials sign special “at-will” employment agreements. The mayor's own reported statement after the closed meeting, that the policy was erroneous and would be corrected, suggests that the council did so; but several time zones away, on holiday with friends and family from Japan, it's hard to force oneself to pursue such an investigation. Same with several other issues people had been talking with me about.

While I was away a thousand refugees came through town. I was sad that I wasn't here to help with that. I wanted to write a column about the people busting their butts helping refugees, about what else was needed, about my love of this community; but knew little. (“Never stopped you before!” I imagine a reader or two snorting.) I look forward to discussing Las Cruces and refugees with City Councilor Gabe Vasquez Wednesday morning on KTAL-LP community radio, 191.5 FM.

Nonetheless, being elsewhere for a week is instructive – not least because a newspaper there too is busily reporting who's winning council elections, who's been appointed chief jailer, and how well or poorly various public institutions are performing. (Except that the names mean nothing to me, with no perspective on the problems being analyzed. Without perspective, it all sounds like hens chabbling.) Is it all meaningless, since the world will go on, like the sea, while we ride the waves and imagine we know stuff?

Anyhow, it's great to be home.

                                        -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 21 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG (Wednesday and Saturday) and on KTAL-LP (Thursday), 101.5 FM -- Las Cruces Community Radio.]

[Not sure how well the column said what I meant it to; and, as always lately, when I turn to making a radio version of the column, usually on Sunday morning, shortening the piece and changing it from something people read into something people hear, the process forces me to deepen my focus on what's essential and what's not.  Meanwhile, a host of other thoughts and experiences -- and even reactions to the written column -- intrude.  For example, since sending this in Friday we've celebrated Earth Day, I've watched an interesting film on climate-change, and I spent an interesting couple of hours Saturday evening at Las Cruces High, with volunteers and officials working to deal with an unrequested and unforeseen refugee influx.]

Good Fun for a Good Cause

Last weekend, I played in the 2^nd Annual Aaron Gifford Memorial Pickleball Tournament. 

It was fun. Met many enjoyable people from eleven different states, on two beautiful New Mexico spring days, and ran around a lot. Healthy exercise, and a chance for local pickleballers to play with referees and strict rule, and play game after game in the hot sun, even when they felt tired or dehydrated. There was even a court for beginners to try out the game and learn. If some of those folks got hooked, the exercise could improve their health and even their longevity. 

It was also a good event for a good cause. 

Aaron was a beautiful young man, inside and out. He served three tours of duty in Iraq. He returned with PTSD – more troubled than he admitted, sleepless at night, restless. He didn't get help. Maybe it wasn't manly; maybe he underestimated the enemy inside him; or maybe he just didn't want to bother anyone with his troubles. In the end -- as 22 veterans do each day -- he killed himself.

His mother, CeCe Hunter, has turned that unspeakable loss into a win for others. With the help of her family, and a family of pickleball players, she created this Tournament. 

Last year, the Aaron Gifford Tournament donated to Mission 22, started by veterans, named for those 22 daily tragedies, and designed to decrease that number by helping fellow vets. Mission 22 (and the tournament locally) spread the word that psychological help is available and can be effective with PTSD. Many vets doubt that anything can help them. If one vet who needed help got it because s/he heard about Mission 22 through this Tournament, or Mission 22 used Aaron's contribution to help someone avoid emulating him, that's a huge win.

This year, seeking to do something locally meaningful, the Tournament assisted the Community of Hope to get homeless vets into homes. This excellent local program can house a homeless vet for $3,000. Even before we played, the Aaron Gifford Memorial Tournament had presented Camp Hope with a $6,000 check. The final tally could include another $12-$15,000. That'd be six or seven homes for men or women who served their country.

Energized by the task at hand, CeCe also appeared on radio shows and wrote an op-ed in this newspaper. She not only has helped spread the word to vets and their families that help is available, but has created some of that help.

A huge military-looking vehicle, nicknamed “The Punisher,” stood near the NMSU Tennis Center during the Tournament, a stark reminder of both the dangers of war and the camaraderie between soldiers. (It was built by a local Marine veteran in honor of Chris Kyle.) Many players were vets, some wearing caps identifying the nature of their service. “Thank you for your service” was an oft-heard phrase. 

I have disagreed with politicians sending young folks into some wars; but our country has a clear duty to do our best to repair the damage war does to those who serve. It's appalling how poorly we meet that obligation. It's a sad irony that the politicians who shout loudest for war are sometimes the most unwilling to spend actual dollars to help the veterans (victims) of those wars. 

Credit CeCe and Camp Hope for stepping up – and please consider contributing to Camp Hope in Aaron's memory.

                                             -30-

[The above column appeared Sunday, 14 April 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on KRWG's website.   A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio ( )www.lccommunityradio.org).  I was too far away from my keyboard to post this Sunday morning, so I'm doing so now.]

To the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Dear Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:

Please rethink your heavy-handed warning that you'll boycott any consultant who works with a primary challenger to a Democratic incumbent. 

Primaries are how we choose our candidates – and leave everyone feeling s/he had a fair shot. Involvement in primaries can strengthen ties to the Party. Telling us we can't try weakens those.

Political parties aren't mentioned in our Constitution. The two-party system has done both good and harm. Our government has grown so complex that the parties function almost as an unofficial arm of the government. The parties have tremendous power – and, I would argue, some obligation to use that power wisely – but are not subject to constitutional restraints on governments. 

Consider the context: heavy criticism of the Party for allegedly tipping the 2016 scales toward Hillary against Bernie, and criticism of DCCC assistance to favored primary candidates in 2018. Your heavy-handed effort to help retain incumbent Democratic congresspersons risks increasing disaffection among Democrats and independents. 

Wresting control of government back from the orange-haired narcissist and his cynical enablers is critical for our nation's future – and perhaps for our continued existence as a democratic republic.

I understand your desire to run the strongest candidates in general elections, and to avoid the expense and potential rancor of primary campaigns.

I understand your desire to run the strongest candidates in general elections, and to avoid the expense and potential rancor of primary campaigns.

But as a Democrat, I wish to be free to run for Congress or to support the best candidate. We have a wonderful Congresswoman; but if we had a corrupt or incompetent congressperson, I would actively seek a better alternative. Your duty is to maintain the majority – which your rigid commitment to established figures may endanger. If you think Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is hurting the party, I've got some interesting video to show you.

While I understand that supporting a challenger won't endear me to the incumbent, formalizing that pressure to conform is repugnant and unethical. Since the Democratic Party is not a government entity, you may not be violating the U.S. Constitution; but you're taking a stand against liberty. (Ironically, in the political arena you're acting in a manner the antitrust laws might not allow if you were capitalists seeking unfair profits.) 

I don't favor term limits. A senior congressperson can use contacts and knowledge of the system to be highly effective, and seniority increases power; but many voters distrust politicians; and rigging the primaries to give incumbents an unfair advantage will encourage the rest of us to counter with term-limits to level the playing field.  

Public faith in our system has been weakening for decades. Trump, Putin, and Jerry Mander have it on the ropes, drooling. Why knock it into the second row?

Your abuse of power will be self-defeating in the long run. For most of us, there's a tension between strict party loyalty and viewing our party association in the larger context of our political beliefs and values. There's both a gravity holding us in the party, and a centrifugal force. You are embittering many of your best people, particularly the all-important younger generations. Consider that the Party's great strength is its openness to change and to different ethnicities and genders; closing primaries to young challengers undermines that strength. 

Absent some compelling justification of your conduct, I will contribute nothing to the DCCC, find other ways to support appropriate candidates, urge others to avoid the DCCC, and mark all your emails as spam. 

                                                                                         -progressive old fart seeking a party

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 7 April 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM 9www.lccommunityradio.org )]

[Also wanted to say, but couldn't fit it into the column, that DCCC is undermining its own "Let's unify for the general election" refrain.  In 2018, when Xochi won the nomination and election, a woman named Mad Hildebrandt had been campaigning for the CD-2 seat for months, probably a year.  Mad looked good, sounded good in the speeches I heard her make, and deserved some credit for jumping into the race early, even before Steve Pearce announced he'd be running for governor instead.

Understandably some Democrats got fairly attached to her.  Xochi won the primary.  My message to my friends who'd backed Mad was, Democrats have got to unify to have any chance to win this seat -- and winning it is critical because we now have Mr. Trump in the Casa Blanca.   Some folks were annoyed because they felt the DCCC had favored Xochi over Mad, although I don't think the DCCC actually put money into the primary race.

In any case, I recall the bitterness.  I just don't think punishing folks for contesting primaries is going to strengthen that "Unity!" message.  Rather, I'd have a hard time in 2020 saying the stuff I said in 2018; and I wouldn't expect folks to listen as much.  Yeah, it'll still be true that we should maintain control of that seat.  But I might need some reminder myself as to why the folks who act like the DCCC are better than some other crooked bunch.]

[The Party may not see the consequences of this in 2020.  The urgency of wresting back control of our country from Trump and his enablers is still high; but like termites, people's irritation with the DCCC will eat away at the Party. ]   

[I do sympathize with the desire to avoid costly and sometimes rancorous primary fights; but occasional primary fights come with the territory if you're a political party.  It'd be interesting to discuss with top Democrats whether, on balance, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is good or bad for the Party.   She's in some ways what the framers of our Constitution envisioned: an everyday citizen bringing her view to a legislative body of diverse views, speaking up vigorously, and representing her constituency.  I don't agree with everything she says; but I don't have to.  I don't suggest she be our president; but I could make the case in a debate that she'd be far better at it than Donald Trump! ]   

[My father was a Democrat and a passionate admirer of Adlai Stevenson, for whom I wore sandwich signs at the tender age of 5.  My first real interest in the whole thing was really Jack Kennedy against Richard Nixon.  I went to a school where about 70-80 per cent of the students preferred Nixon, but I liked Kennedy.  I worked passionately for LBJ against Barry Goldwater in the fall of 1964, was disappointed in his escalation of the Viet Nam war, and worked for a peace candidate challenging the Democratic establishment's preferred candidate for U.S. Representative, but got disgusted by both parties, and had a particularly strong reaction to the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.  Driving a New York City taxicab, I often opened conversations with passengers by asking, "Which of the three little pigs are you going to vote for?" (Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace) and cast my own first vote in a presidential election for the eminent Eldridge Cleaver -- so I do understand people feeling that both parties suck.  (But by 2000 I was appalled by old ally Ralph Nader's distraction from the Gore-Bush race, and had vigorous discussions with my daughter regarding her support for Nader.] I suppose I was registered Democratic when I initially lived in New Mexico; in California I registered as "Declined to State" (and forgot that fact and tried to vote in a presidential primary in 1984), then registered Democratic when I returned to New Mexico.  

I think for myself.  I'm a Democrat because that party approaches my views more closely than the other folks, because in this part of New Mexico you're missing half the fun if you can't vote in Democratic primaries, and because the Republican Party has moved so far right over the past few decades.  I don't believe stuff because Democrats say it, although my initial reaction to anything Donald Trump says is that it's probably inaccurate. Still, I look into it further, usually.

At this moment, I am concerned about the future of the Republic.  Donald Trump and the folks who manipulate him are dangerously short-sighted and belligerent, and dishonest, and must be opposed, vigorously, and the Democrats do that -- although they themselves are too much dependent upon money, so that I sometimes feel the Republicans represent the Kochs and the other oligarchs, the Democrats represent a managerial class that runs a lot of companies and other entities, and no one represents the average working folks, although  Democratic policies toward the economy and the environment than Republican policies; but that's damning with faint praise.

Someone did ask me to be "Parliamentarian" of the county Democratic Party a while back, and I went to meetings for a year or two.  I liked the people, and generally agreed with them.  But deep down, I still distrust political parties.]