Pilgrim's Progress(ion)

This is Peregrine White's cradle.

Surely, everyone ~ at some time ~  has wondered what finally came of lil' Pere's tiny woven cradle; it's whereabouts has certainly kept my mind racing well into the wee hours of many a night. That, and a little too much caffeine. 

But, on Sunday, May 6, 2012, the cradle will take second billing to thoughts of its former occupant when our cousin, LouAnn, is awarded her official passport as a newly minted member of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants.

Founded in 1897 by a group of descendants of the Pilgrims who sailed aboard the Mayflower in 1620, the Society's mission was to memorialize the establishment of Plymouth colony.  Any person who can accurately document direct lineage from a Mayflower passenger, following stringent approval by a Historian General, qualifies to become a member of the society.

We had all heard the story over a lifetime; we were somehow related to Peregrine White who, of three children born aboard the Mayflower, alone managed to survive the harsh ordeal of their pilgrimage.

But, talk to anyone and they are ALL related either to Peregrine or another of the Mayflower's 102 passengers.  I always lazily assumed the oral tradition might have been true but never saw a clear path that would have allowed anyone to actually prove it ~ as if I would have bothered; like most other members of the family, it was simply a quasi-factoid stored in the dusty recesses of my brain. 

And, let's face it, talk of buckle-shoed, funky-hat wearing Puritanical Pilgrim relatives from four centuries ago wouldn't have exactly made for great party conversation.

The family link with the Mayflower was destined to remain a mere rumor passed along from generation to generation until our intrepid cousin decided the storied tradition of the tale would not suffice. Whether she would ultimately succeed or fail, LouAnn decided to put the story to the test and began the tedious process of researching our family tree.

Stubborn. Dogged. Tenacious.

Three adjectives that barely describe the zeal with which LouAnn first linked one limb of the family tree to the American Revolution, earning her membership to the Daughters of the American Revolution, but eventually ~ and successfully ~ to the Mayflower and the male child born of William and Susanna White on November 20, 1620.

The first surviving child born to the Pilgrims of the Mayflower in The New World.

Typing those words finally has the effect of cementing the significance of proving the oral family history passed along over centuries is undeniably true. And while I would like to believe the link to an historic past somehow makes our family special, the reality is that tens of millions of other Americans can be successfully tied to our Pilgrim heritage as well.

Twelve generations have followed 9th Great-Grandfather Peregrin's birth in Provincetown Harbor aboard the historic ship.

When I reflect on the determination exemplified by LouAnn's life and years-long struggle to resolve the many questions of this family lore, I think it is safe to say that the grit and spirit of our Pilgrim ancestors is alive and well today.

Congratulations, LouAnn!

Political Theater

On April 25, the United States Supreme Court will take up the emotionally-charged topic of illegal immigration when the nine justices hear oral arguments in the matter of Arizona v United States; specifically, SB 1070, the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law enacted in 2010 that set out to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal immigrants."

The expected decision this summer should determine if the law as enacted is, indeed, Constitutional or if it violates the purview of the Federal Government.

Arizona must convince the high court that by allowing millions of immigrants to live in this country illegally, the current Federal Immigration System has been derelict with regard to enforcement and that, ultimately, the States have "inherent policing powers" when it comes to undocumented immigrants.

Senator Obama, while campaigning in 2008, made assurances to the Latin community that he would seek passage of far reaching immigration reforms early in his administration that would include a "path" to legalization in addition to tightened enforcement. Unfortunately, all such efforts failed to materialize fully or were stalled.

The position of the Administration regarding SB 1070 is essentially that the law "legalizes discrimination" when police are forced to act on a "reasonable suspicion" when coming upon a person of "questionable" origin. Additionally, the Solicitor General will argue that the States do not have the inherent right to make decisions on matters of immigration.

I am no legal scholar and admit to having no specific solution ~ as if anyone cares ~ to tamping the tinderbox that is immigration.

My problem again rests with any number of esteemed Representatives and Senators of every political persuasion; today, my ire is directed at Senator Chuck (who's never met a camera or open mike he hasn't loved) Schumer, (D-NY).

Whether one accepts the arguments of the government regarding SB 1070 or not, Sen. Schumer affirmed, yet again, the belief that many duly elected representatives seem to hold the Federalist System, as established by our Founding Fathers, in utter disdain; Washington, Jefferson et al deigned that the "central government" would have a select set of enumerated powers extended by the Constitution while the individual States would retain all other powers for self-governance distinct from the Federal Government.

So it was that I was truly embarrassed as I watched Schumer make a fool of himself today when announcing that he will preemptively offer a Bill in the Senate that will proscribe States from enacting further immigration reforms with the cynical anticipation of the law being upheld by The Supremes. Schumer's plan is to offer the Bill before the case of Arizona v United States is even heard by the high court and months before a ruling is forthcoming.

Regardless of one's political persuasion or position on the matter of illegal immigration and SB 1070, I am of the belief that everyone should be at a breaking point when it comes to the continual parade of "silliness" that pervades official Washington.

This "action" on the part of Schumer is pure theatrics for the consumption of a "lazy and gullible electorate." Sen. Schumer knows damned well that the Bill stands no chance of passing muster in the Senate by members of either major parties. But he will proceed, as many have done before him, with this carnival sideshow, consuming valuable time and fortune, content in the arrogant self-assurance that the move will, most importantly, secure more Latino votes for "his team" come November.

As one solitary voter, I am sick of the posturing and games from both sides of the aisle. The times we are traveling together call for serious work and solutions forged by serious people.

My hope is that every qualified voter will assume the mantle of responsibility and vote his/her conscience this Fall. And regardless of where one lands politically, I pray we might finally send a message to The Hill, through our vote, that the "age of silliness" and apparent contempt for the American voter is finally put to rest.

I also pray that the American Electorate is more intelligent and engaged than many members of Congress would allow.

Arizona: YOU DECIDE?

In the aftermath of Arizona’s passage of its Immigration law, Mayor Bloomberg issued a blunt assessment that the United States is “committing suicide” by the failure of the federal government to implement comprehensive immigration reform. “The failure of lawmakers in DC to act on the issue” forced the hand of Arizona in their desire to secure a remedy.

The Arizona Immigration law will apparently grant policemen broad powers to detain those “suspected” of being in the country illegally as well as prosecuting and potentially deporting those who subsequently fail to prove either their immigration or citizenship status.

Asserting his view that the government would never seek to deport the 12 million undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg alternatively recommended the Federal government act quickly to grant “Permanent Status” to these individuals until such time as they meet overall standards for citizenship.

As a citizen, I am now compelled, as should Congress, to seriously consider the issue of illegal immigration and the potential ramifications brought about by the passage of Arizona’s new law as well as other suggestions, such as those from Mayor Bloomberg.

As I begin the process of coming to my own conclusion, one consideration appears rudimentary:

When anyone travels abroad, ALL countries demand to review, at minimum, one state-sanctioned proof of citizenship for every traveler before leaving the airport – not to mention the hotels which require the surrender of a passport at check-in. As of January 2007, the US Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative established the requirement that all travelers entering or re-entering the United States by air present a valid passport; this includes travel to and from Mexico, and the Central and South America’s.

At home, most would agree it seems nearly impossible to get through a normal day without being asked for one form of government issued identification or another.

Asking the interested reader to put aside such issues as the Tenth Amendment (States vs Federal rights); the Commerce Clause; the harrassment and discrimination of legally situated residents of hispanic origin; arguments for skilled work forces; outsourcing of jobs; notions of fascism, etc., I would appreciate some help with answers to a fundamental question at play:

“When one considers the day to day demands placed on legal citizens of the United States for documentation at home and abroad, is Arizona technically misguided in asserting its prerogative for the “on demand” surrender of documents in order to verify immigration or citizenship status of individuals?”