OPINION
6A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2017
Founded in 1873
DAVID F. PERO, Publisher & Editor
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
OUR VIEW
Brown’s stance
on immigration
risky but right
F
rom agriculture to medicine to technology, Oregon thrives
on the work of immigrants.
Caught between state law and Trump administration pol-
icy, Gov. Kate Brown has acted responsibly by upholding Oregon
as a place that “embraces, celebrates and welcomes its immigrant
and refugee residents.”
On Thursday, Brown signed an executive order expanding a
1987 state law that prohibits law enforcement agencies from using
taxpayer money to investigate or arrest Oregonians due only to
their immigration status.
That prohibition will now apply to all state agencies. They still
must follow state and federal laws; for example, only citizens
can become voters or obtain certain welfare benefits. But state
employees must not discriminate based on immigration status or
— because Brown worries about a potential “Muslim ban” — on
religion.
Her point: Oregon agencies and Oregon law enforcement
should focus on Oregon, and leave federal immigration enforce-
ment to the feds.
“I want to make it very clear that here in Oregon, where thou-
sands have fought for and demanded equality, where millions have
put down roots and become integral to our economy, to our cul-
ture, and to our way of life, we cannot retreat,” Brown said. “As
governor, it is my duty to uphold the
civil and human rights of all who
Public safety
call Oregon home.”
is enhanced
President Donald Trump issued
executive orders that halted reset-
by the
tlement of refugees from Syria and
legitimate
temporarily blocked citizens of
seven predominantly Muslim coun- separation
tries from entering the U.S.
between
That is his political prerogative,
state law
although subsequent lawsuits are
challenging the constitutionality of
enforcement
his orders. Brown wants Oregon to
and federal
join the litigation.
immigration
The Trump orders, which can-
celed tens of thousands of visas
enforcement.
until a federal judge intervened,
directly affect Oregon. In one high-profile case that incensed pol-
iticians nationwide, an Iranian infant was blocked from traveling
to Oregon Health & Science University for life-saving heart sur-
gery. The federal government has now granted a waiver allowing
Fatemeh Reshad and her family to enter the U.S.
Oregon’s largest private employer, Intel, has thousands of for-
eign-born employees who are here on work visas. So do many
other employers, from doctors who practice at clinics and hospi-
tals to IT contractors who serve state government. Oregon univer-
sities constantly have scholars and students traveling from abroad
to collaborate on study and research. And certainly, Oregon’s
farm sector is dependent on the agricultural skills of thousands of
immigrants.
Oregon’s 1987 law had national influence but has not always
been followed locally. Clackamas County ran afoul of the U.S.
Constitution for holding a woman on a federal immigration
detainer after her arrest for allegedly violating a restraining order.
That 2014 federal court ruling led many sheriff’s departments to
require that the feds have a warrant or court order when they want
a foreign-born individual held for immigration purposes.
That is reasonable, despite the inflammatory rhetoric about
Oregon and other places being “sanctuaries” for undocumented
immigrants.
Oregon pursues, prosecutes and punishes criminals regardless
of their immigration status. Oregon law enforcement also honors
federal warrants.
Public safety is enhanced by the legitimate separation between
state law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement.
Oregon’s law encourages undocumented immigrants to trust
police instead of fearing deportation for being a victim or witness
to a crime. The law encourages immigrants to use the court sys-
tem to resolve child custody and other issues. However, Oregon
judges say Trump’s orders already have had a chilling effect in
that regard.
Oregon’s position carries risks. One of Trump’s orders would
withdraw federal money from “sanctuary” states and cities. A
greater risk, noted Republican state Sen. Brian Boquist of Dallas,
is that Oregon will simply be left off the future recipient list
when federal money is doled out for road construction and other
projects.
It is a risky stance. It is the right stance.
A lesson in black history
Getty Images
President Donald Trump held an African American History Month listening session attended by Ben Car-
son, his nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Omarosa Manigault,
the director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison, in the Roosevelt Room of the White
House Wednesday.
By CHARLES BLOW
New York Times News Service
L
ast week at a supposed
Black History Month “lis-
tening session” at the White
House, Donald Trump made this
baffling statement:
“I am very proud
now that we have
a museum on the
National Mall
where people
can learn about
Reverend King, so many other
things. Frederick Douglass is an
example of somebody who’s done
an amazing job that is being recog-
nized more and more, I notice.”
It sounded a bit like he thought
the inimitable Douglass, who died
in 1895, was some lesser-known
black leader who was still alive.
When press secretary Sean
Spicer was asked what Trump
meant by his Douglass comments,
Spicer responded:
“I think he wants to highlight
the contributions that he has made.
And I think through a lot of the
actions and statements that he’s
going to make, I think the contri-
butions of Frederick Douglass will
become more and more.”
Assuming that the “he” in that
sentence refers to Douglass, these
numbskulls are actually referring
to him as a living person and have
absolutely no clue who Douglass is
and what he means to America.
Social media had a field day
with this, relentlessly mocking
the team, but for me the emotion
was overwhelming sadness: How
could the American “president” or
a White House press secretary, or
any American citizen for that mat-
ter, not know who Douglass is?
Let’s be absolutely clear here:
Frederick Douglass is a singu-
lar, towering figure of Ameri-
can history. The entire legacy of
black intellectual thought and civil
rights activism flows in some way
through Douglass, from W.E.B.
DuBois to Booker T. Washington,
to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr., to President Barack Obama
himself.
Douglass was one of the most
brilliant thinkers, writers and ora-
tors America has ever produced.
Furthermore, he harnessed and
mastered the media of his day:
Writing an acclaimed autobiogra-
phy, establishing his own newspa-
per and becoming the most pho-
tographed American of the 19th
century.
Put another way: If modern
social media existed during Doug-
lass’ time, he would have been one
of its kings.
Douglass also was a friend of
Susan B. Anthony and an advocate
for women’s civil rights as well
as the civil rights of black people,
understanding even then the inter-
sectionality of oppressions. In fact,
the motto of his newspaper, The
North Star, was “Right is of no Sex
— Truth is of no Color — God is
the Father of us all, and we are all
Brethren.”
Trump would
do well to
study this
history; he has
much to learn
from it.
But perhaps one of the best rea-
sons Trump and Spicer need to
bone up on Douglass is to under-
stand his relationship with Abra-
ham Lincoln and to get a better
sense of what true leadership looks
like.
Douglass was a blistering critic
of Lincoln from the beginning. In
Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address,
he quoted from one of his previous
speeches in which he had said “I
have no purpose, directly or indi-
rectly, to interfere with the institu-
tion of slavery in the states where
it exists,” and he went on to defend
the Fugitive Slave Act, promising
the slave states full enforcement of
it as long as it was on the books.
This incensed Douglass, who
said of the remarks: “Not con-
tent with the broadest recogni-
tion of the right of property in the
souls and bodies of men in the
slave states, Mr. Lincoln next pro-
ceeds, with nerves of steel, to tell
the slaveholders what an excellent
slave hound he is.”
Although Douglass’ cutting cri-
tique of Lincoln began to soften
after Lincoln announced the pre-
liminary Emancipation Procla-
mation, Douglass continued to be
unhappy throughout the Civil War
about the unequal treatment of
black soldiers in the Union Army.
But even in the midst of this criti-
cism, Lincoln entertained Douglass
at the White House.
Although Douglass wasn’t fully
satisfied with Lincoln’s positions,
Douglass remarked of the meeting:
“Mr. Lincoln listened with ear-
nest attention and with very appar-
ent sympathy, and replied to each
point in his own peculiar, forcible
way.”
This stands in stark contrast to
Trump’s avoidance of black intel-
lectuals and even any real crit-
ics. Trump’s “listening session”
seemed to be populated only by his
black appointees and supporters.
Lincoln and Douglass would
go on to develop a genuine friend-
ship and Douglass would become
something of Lincoln’s conscience
on the slave issue. In fact, Lincoln
called Douglass “one of the most
meritorious men, if not the most
meritorious man, in the United
States.”
That is what leadership and
growth look like. Lincoln grew
from the association with and
counsel from his onetime critic, to
become one of the greatest presi-
dents America has ever known.
Indeed Black History Month
began not as a month but a week:
Negro History week, the second
week of February. It was estab-
lished in 1926 by noted black his-
torian Carter G. Woodson, and
choosing February was no coinci-
dence: It honored the birthdays of
Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and
Douglass, who helped direct his
conscience.
Trump would do well to study
this history; he has much to learn
from it. As historian Woodson’s
personal motto went: “It’s never
too late to learn.”