Human Rights Come Before Immigration Status

Imagine a young girl hiding in a crowded alley, trying to stay out of sight. In her home country, speaking up against the government or even being the wrong religion could get her hurt—or worse. She flees, traveling with her family, crossing rivers and dusty roads, looking for a place where she can be safe. When she reaches a new country, she does not have papers, a visa, or permission to enter. She is scared, exhausted, and alone—but she is still protected by the law.

That protection comes from something called human rights. Human rights are rules that say every person deserves safety and dignity, no matter where they come from or what their legal status is. Crossing a border without permission does not erase these rights. In fact, the law is very clear: you cannot send someone back to danger.

This principle is called non-refoulement. It’s a big word, but it is simple: no government may return a person to a place where they would face persecution, torture, or serious threats to life or freedom. Non-refoulement comes from international agreements like the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the Convention Against Torture, and it is considered so fundamental that it applies even beyond countries that signed the treaties.

The United States has incorporated these protections into its own laws. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person may apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the country—whether at a legal port of entry or somewhere else. Everyone must have a chance to present their story and receive due process before any deportation. That means the government must carefully evaluate the risks before making a decision, and no one can be sent back to danger without that review.

Think about a journalist who exposed corruption and is now being hunted by authorities. Think about a woman fleeing domestic violence in a country where the police cannot—or will not—protect her. Think about a family escaping a neighborhood controlled by gangs with a record of killing anyone who resists. All of these people could face death, imprisonment, or torture if sent back. U.S. law recognizes that their fear is real and requires that it be taken seriously.

Even children are protected. Imagine a small child arriving at a border after fleeing war. They may have lost family along the way, traveling alone or with relatives. They may have no legal papers, no money, and no idea what comes next. But human rights law ensures that the child cannot be forcibly returned to a place where they would face danger. Their claim must be heard, their safety prioritized.

This does not mean that everyone who arrives is allowed to stay forever. Borders exist. Immigration laws exist. Many claims are evaluated and denied. But human safety must come first. Every person has the right to be heard, to have their story considered, and to be protected from harm.

Courts in the United States have confirmed that these protections apply to everyone on U.S. soil, not just citizens. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that non-citizens are “persons” under the Constitution, entitled to due process. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Court emphasized that even immigrants facing deportation must be treated fairly, and their detention and removal cannot be arbitrary.

Human rights are not loopholes. They are not excuses to ignore laws or borders. They exist precisely to prevent cruelty and injustice, even when governments face pressure to act quickly. You can support border enforcement and immigration laws while still insisting that no one is sent back to danger. In fact, the law requires it.

Immigration status is a legal category. Human rights are a legal obligation. Borders exist. Laws exist. But above all, humanity comes first. Every person deserves a fair chance to be safe, and no one should ever be deported to harm.

---

References

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 14 (1948)
• Immigration & Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1)
• Refugee Convention, art. 33 (1951) & 1967 Protocol
• Convention Against Torture, art. 3
• Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

---

Fixing a Problem That Doesn’t Exist: The SAVE Act

As of early 2026, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act, H.R. 22) has passed the House of Representatives but has not become law. The bill, which requires anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, passed the House on April 10, 2025, with a 220-208 vote but stalled in the Senate. At first glance, this may sound reasonable—after all, only U.S. citizens should vote. But when you look closer, the law is more about creating obstacles than solving a real problem, and it raises serious concerns for voters, states, and communities.

Under the SAVE Act, all federal voter registration applicants must provide one of several forms of proof of citizenship, such as a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license, a military ID with proof of U.S. birth, a certified birth certificate or hospital birth record, or a naturalization certificate. If someone doesn’t have these documents, they can try to submit other evidence and an affidavit, but the process is complex, discretionary, and unfamiliar to many people. The law also requires states to actively verify citizenship using federal databases and to remove any registered voters flagged as non-citizens.

Here’s the kicker: voter fraud by non-citizens is extremely rare. Multiple studies and investigations by organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice have found that incidents of non-citizens voting in federal elections are statistically insignificant—so small that they do not affect election outcomes. In other words, the problem this law claims to solve barely exists, yet the solution could create real problems for millions of eligible voters.

Many U.S. citizens don’t have the required documents. Older voters may have lost birth certificates or were born at home without a hospital record. Low-income families may not have passports or REAL IDs due to cost or difficulty accessing government offices. Native American communities often face unique documentation issues, like inconsistent birth records on reservations. These citizens could be denied the right to vote simply because they lack paperwork.

States would also face a huge administrative burden. Clerks and election offices would need new systems, staff training, and additional resources. Errors in federal databases could wrongly flag citizens as non-citizens, leading to incorrect removals from voter rolls. Mail-in registrations would require extra steps, increasing the risk of delays or rejected applications.

The law raises serious privacy and equity concerns as well. It requires states to share voter registration information with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration. This raises questions about whether sensitive personal data could be misused or leaked, or whether citizens could be unfairly targeted or disenfranchised because of database errors or racial bias in how information is flagged.

Imagine Maria, a lifelong U.S. citizen, who wants to register to vote before a federal election. She was born in a rural hospital in 1970, and her birth certificate is misplaced. She doesn’t have a passport or a REAL ID yet. Under the SAVE Act, Maria could face extra hurdles, confusing paperwork, or even rejection, despite being fully eligible. Meanwhile, the likelihood of a non-citizen fraudulently registering to vote remains extremely low.

Beyond these practical concerns, we have to ask why the government is spending so much time and energy focusing on small groups of people: non-citizens, trans people, Muslims, and others who are already marginalized. For example, bills restricting voter registration often disproportionately target areas with large immigrant populations. Policies that require strict documentation can make it harder for Native American voters to participate. Efforts to surveil or “verify” citizenship often overlap with broader attacks on Muslim communities or trans people, such as attempts to restrict access to identification or public services. These policies raise the question of whose participation is being questioned and why, even when there is no evidence of widespread fraud.

The SAVE Act presents itself as a solution to voter fraud, but in reality, it addresses a problem that barely exists, makes it harder for eligible voters to register, adds administrative complexity and cost, and raises privacy and equity concerns. In a country where voting should be accessible, safe, and fair, laws like this risk turning a rare problem into a widespread barrier. Instead of fixing something that’s not broken, we should focus on making voting easier and more secure for everyone who is legally eligible.

When Support Makes All the Difference

Life has a way of throwing obstacles in our path. Sometimes they’re obvious — a heavy workload, a health challenge, or a personal loss. Other times, they’re less tangible, the kind that weigh on your mind, heart, or spirit. And often, the obstacles are a mix of both.

There’s an ancient story that captures this perfectly. A man, unable to walk, wanted to reach a teacher known for changing lives. But the path was blocked — the crowd was too dense, the doors too crowded. No matter how much he wanted to get there, he simply couldn’t.

Here’s where the story gets interesting: he wasn’t alone. His friends refused to give up. They were creative, persistent, and willing to do the heavy lifting — literally. When one route was blocked, they found another. They thought outside the box, took action, and got him to where he needed to be. And in that moment, everything changed.

The lesson is clear: sometimes, we can’t do it alone. Even the strongest among us benefit from support. Friends, family, mentors, colleagues — those willing to stand by us, share the load, and help us navigate challenges — can make the impossible possible.

It’s also a story about persistence. Life rarely gives us a straight path. The people who succeed, who transform their situations, are often the ones willing to keep going when the easy way is blocked. They get creative. They don’t give up.

But support and persistence aren’t enough on their own. The man still had to step into the opportunity himself. When the path was finally opened, he had to move, to act, to walk. In life, help and opportunity only take us so far — sometimes, we have to summon the courage to take the next step.

And finally, there’s gratitude. The story reminds us to notice and celebrate progress, both in ourselves and in those around us. Every bit of effort counts — the friends’ persistence, the man’s courage, the final breakthrough. Recognizing these moments strengthens our bonds, fuels hope, and reminds us that change is possible.

At its heart, this is a story about community, courage, and action. Whether or not you believe in divine intervention, the principle is universal: surround yourself with people who lift you up, persist when the path seems blocked, and step into the opportunities that appear. Sometimes, a little help — combined with a willingness to act — can change everything.

History, But Make It Comfortable

There’s a false narrative gaining traction right now—that teaching the truth about slavery, Jim Crow, and racial violence exists to make white people feel guilty. Politicians repeat this as if it’s a fact, as if history itself has intent, as if honesty is somehow an accusation.

But history doesn’t assign guilt. It tells the truth. What people do with that truth—who they choose to identify with—has always been their choice.

When we teach about slavery, we are not telling white people, this is your fault. We are saying, this happened. And once you know that, the only real question becomes: who do you see yourself as in this story?

Because the past was never populated by one kind of white person.

There were white people who enslaved Black people, defended the practice, wrote laws to protect it, and built wealth by stripping others of their humanity. And there were white people who fought against slavery, organized abolitionist movements, helped enslaved people escape, challenged unjust laws, and risked their lives to stand on the side of equality.

Both groups existed at the same time. Both are part of our history.

So when politicians claim that teaching this history makes white people feel guilty, what they’re really reacting to isn’t guilt—it’s choice. Because once people see the full picture, they’re forced to reckon with the fact that neutrality was never neutral, and silence was never harmless.

Guilt isn’t the lesson. Agency is.

Teaching about slavery and Jim Crow doesn’t force shame onto anyone. It reveals how injustice actually works—through systems upheld by ordinary people making ordinary decisions. It shows that oppression wasn’t inevitable or abstract; it was constructed, defended, enforced, and normalized.

If that truth feels uncomfortable, it’s not because of someone’s race. It’s because discomfort often accompanies clarity. Once you understand that injustice was the result of choices, it becomes harder to pretend we don’t have choices now.

That’s the part many politicians are desperate to avoid.

When they claim they’re protecting children, what they’re really protecting is fragility—an unwillingness to let young people ask the obvious questions. Why were some people allowed to own others? Who made those laws? Who challenged them? Who benefited? Who stayed silent?

Those questions don’t indoctrinate children. They help children develop a moral framework. They teach them that the world they inherit was shaped by human decisions—and that they, too, will be asked to make decisions when they encounter injustice.

No one is asking white students to identify with enslavers. But the resistance to teaching this history suggests an assumption that the only white people in the past worth mentioning were villains. That simply isn’t true.

White students are free to identify with abolitionists, freedom riders, civil rights allies, labor organizers, journalists who exposed brutality, lawyers who challenged segregation, and everyday people who refused to comply with unjust systems. Those stories are just as real. They just don’t serve the same political comfort.

So when someone hears about slavery and immediately thinks, this is about me and my guilt, that reaction deserves examination. Because history doesn’t force anyone into a role. It presents options.

You don’t inherit guilt from the past—but you do inherit responsibility in the present. Responsibility to recognize injustice when it appears. Responsibility to decide whether you’ll benefit quietly from an unfair system or challenge it openly.

Teaching history honestly doesn’t shame anyone. It removes the lie that injustice was accidental or unavoidable. It makes room for accountability instead of denial.

It reminds us that systems don’t run themselves. People run them.

And if people built unjust systems, people can dismantle them.

History has never asked, What did your ancestors do?

It asks, Now that you know, what will you do?

You can identify with those who hoarded power—or those who challenged it. With those who enforced cruelty—or those who refused to participate.

That choice belongs to every generation.

And that is exactly why the truth must be taught.

---

In My Lifetime, the Halftime Show Has Always Been a Vibe — But Bad Bunny? I’m Losing My Mind!

 

If you’ve been watching the Super Bowl halftime show over the years, you know the drill: flashy, chaotic, a little extra — always a vibe. But when they announced Bad Bunny as this year’s headliner, I didn’t just get excited — I screamed, I danced, I nearly knocked over my coffee. And then I saw some of the reactions online… and I genuinely had to sit down.

People were mad. Mad. Over Bad Bunny. And I thought… are we not all at the gym perreando at least once a week? Like, come on — it’s reggaetón, it’s movement, it’s pure joy.

Then some folks started whining they wanted a “U.S. citizen” to perform. Sweetie… Bad Bunny IS a U.S. citizen. Born in Puerto Rico, which means he literally has papers. Meanwhile, let me remind you of the actual history lesson: several non-U.S. citizens have headlined halftime shows with ZERO backlash — Phil Collins, U2, Shania Twain, Sting, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Coldplay, Shakira, J Balvin, The Weeknd, and Rihanna. That’s right, kids — it’s not about citizenship, it’s about your inability to handle a little culture and rhythm.

When the citizenship argument failed (shocker), the outrage pivoted: “Well, his music when translated is explicit.” Oooh, I see, so we’re translating now? Meanwhile, some were floating the idea of Kid Rock performing. You know… the guy who somehow has never had a “translation issue”? Then the pivot shifted again: “It’s because he sings in Spanish.” As if you personally know every word to every English song ever. Chill.

And honestly? I’m DONE with the attitude that basically screams, “If I don’t like it, no one else can enjoy it.” Newsflash: if you don’t want to watch Bad Bunny, fine — don’t watch. But don’t ruin it for the rest of us who actually know how to have fun.

Growing up with Puerto Rican family, hearing some of these takes — especially from a fitness community that claims to be inclusive — has hit a little sideways. Benito isn’t just an entertainer; he’s music, movement, culture, and a WHOLE mood. Respeto es lo mínimo. Respect is literally the bare minimum, y’all.

This halftime show isn’t just a performance. It’s a celebration of music, movement, and culture that so many of us already carry in our playlists and workouts. It’s about embracing joy, dancing unapologetically, and remembering that being inclusive isn’t just a word you throw around like confetti — it’s action.

So here’s my take: put on your sneakers, crank up the reggaetón, grab your cafecito, and let’s perrear like we mean it. Because Bad Bunny is here, and honestly… we DESERVE this vibe.

---

Christian Nationalism Isn’t Christian—or Patriotic

Christian nationalism sounds comforting to some people. It wraps faith and country together and promises order, morality, and safety. But when you slow down and really look at it—through the Bible and through American history—it quietly falls apart. Not because people are evil, but because the idea itself misunderstands both Christianity and patriotism.

Christianity begins with Jesus, so His words matter most. When Jesus stood before a Roman governor—facing trial, punishment, and death—He was asked about His authority. This would have been the moment to claim political power if that had ever been His plan. Instead, Jesus said plainly, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He didn’t say His kingdom wasn’t important. He said it wasn’t built through governments, armies, or laws. Jesus rejected the idea that faith could be spread by force or protected by power. His kingdom worked differently.

Throughout the Bible, faith is always presented as a choice. God does not force belief. He invites it. People are told to choose whom they will serve, to be convinced in their own minds, to follow only if they are willing. That matters, because belief that is forced isn’t belief at all—it’s compliance. You can make someone follow rules, but you cannot make them love God. The moment faith is enforced by law, it stops being faith and becomes performance.

The Bible also draws a clear line between God and government. Jesus told people to give the government what belongs to the government and give God what belongs to God. That wasn’t a loophole—it was a boundary. Scripture even warns what happens when people try to turn faith into political control. When Israel demanded a king to rule them “like other nations,” God said they weren’t just rejecting a system—they were rejecting Him. Power has a way of replacing trust.

Real Christian character doesn’t come from laws anyway. The Bible says God looks at the heart, not appearances. Love, patience, kindness, and self-control—what Scripture calls the fruit of the Spirit—can’t be legislated. They grow from inner transformation. You can outlaw certain behaviors, but you cannot create virtue by force. That kind of change only comes from the Spirit, not from political strength.

Jesus was especially critical of religious leaders who used power to control others. He warned against piling rules on people without compassion and against religion that looks holy but has no real life in it. When faith becomes about dominance instead of love, it loses its purpose. Jesus said people would recognize His followers by love—not by political wins, not by national identity, and not by who holds power.

That’s why tying Christianity to government authority doesn’t just distort faith—it damages it.

But Christian nationalism also fails the test of patriotism.

Biblical patriotism is about seeking the good of the whole community. It’s about praying for the place you live, respecting the law, and caring for neighbors—regardless of what they believe. A healthy nation protects freedom of conscience so belief can be genuine. When the government favors one religion, freedom shrinks, trust erodes, and faith becomes something people fear instead of choose.

America’s founders understood this clearly. They didn’t all agree on theology, but they strongly agreed on one thing: religion must be protected from government power, and government must be protected from religious control. James Madison said religion is outside the authority of civil society. Thomas Jefferson believed it did no harm for a neighbor to believe differently—or not believe at all. John Adams stated plainly that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. Benjamin Franklin warned that any religion that needs government help to survive has already lost its strength. George Washington affirmed that freedom of conscience is a natural human right.

These weren’t anti-Christian ideas. They were pro-freedom ideas—because the founders knew faith grows best when it is free.

Christian nationalism claims to defend Christianity, but it ignores Christ’s own words. It claims to defend America, but it rejects the principles the nation was built on. It confuses control with faith and power with virtue.

Christianity doesn’t need a government to be real.

Patriotism doesn’t require one religion to dominate.

Faith is strongest when it is chosen.

A nation is healthiest when conscience is protected.

Mixing the two weakens both.

---

Standards Optional

There is a habit in American politics to reduce serious disagreements to tone, loyalty, or personal preference, as if every concern is merely a difference of opinion. That approach feels fair-minded, but it breaks down when actions touch the core principles that hold a constitutional democracy together. Some behaviors aren’t controversial because they’re misunderstood; they matter because they test whether the rules apply equally and whether human dignity is treated as non-negotiable.

Many Americans value strength in leadership. But strength is not the same as cruelty. Publicly mocking people with disabilities wasn’t simply rough humor or an offhand remark—it signaled that vulnerability is acceptable to target. Across religious traditions, conservative philosophy, and civic ethics alike, there is agreement on one point: dignity is inherent, not earned. When leaders model contempt, it lowers the standard for everyone.

Likewise, criminal convictions are not supposed to be political weapons—but they also aren’t optional. Due process exists precisely to protect the innocent and restrain the powerful. Rejecting verdicts outright because they apply to influential figures weakens the rule of law conservatives have long argued is essential to a free society. If laws apply only to those without power, equality before the law becomes an illusion.

January 6th deserves careful and honest evaluation. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. But encouraging distrust in a lawful election and pressuring supporters to overturn its outcome by force crosses a line that conservatives historically warned against. The peaceful transfer of power is not a partisan tradition; it is a foundational safeguard. When violence in service of loyalty is excused, the precedent endangers everyone, regardless of party.

Courts exist to limit executive power—not to obstruct leadership, but to prevent tyranny. Ignoring court orders is not bold resistance; it is the rejection of constitutional checks and balances. Limited government only works when no one is placed above the law.

The same standard applies to military force. The Constitution assigns war-making authority to Congress to prevent unilateral decisions that cost lives. Acting without authorization may appear decisive, but it bypasses democratic accountability and treats human life as expendable. Conservatism has long argued that war should be rare, justified, and lawful—because its consequences are irreversible.

Transparency is another conservative value. Attempts to delay, obscure, or interfere with accountability surrounding the Epstein records raise serious ethical concerns. Abuse flourishes in secrecy. This is not a partisan issue, and protecting the powerful from scrutiny—especially when exploitation of minors is involved—undermines moral credibility entirely.

Domestically, enforcement without accountability invites abuse. Immigration enforcement, for example, does not require abandoning due process or separating families without recourse. Government power, when unchecked, inevitably harms the innocent—something limited-government advocates have warned about for generations.

Internationally, alienating allies while praising authoritarian leaders weakens stability and American credibility. Diplomacy isn’t weakness; it is a tool to prevent conflict and protect national interests without unnecessary loss of life.

At home, deploying military force against citizens exercising constitutional rights crosses a dangerous threshold. The military exists to defend the nation, not intimidate it. When dissent is treated as disloyalty, citizenship becomes conditional.

Economic policy follows the same ethical test. Cutting services for ordinary people while enabling personal enrichment is not fiscal discipline—it is a misuse of public trust. Government exists to serve the common good, not private gain.

None of this is speculative. Impeachment is not symbolic outrage; it is a constitutional mechanism designed for serious abuses of power. It exists precisely for moments when ordinary safeguards are strained.

Taken together, these issues form a pattern rather than isolated controversies. They raise questions not about ideology, but about accountability, restraint, and moral responsibility.

These are not ordinary policy disagreements. They are thresholds.

A democracy cannot survive selective accountability. Justice cannot exist when consequences depend on status. And leadership loses legitimacy when cruelty is reframed as strength.

History will not only record what happened—it will remember who excused it, who questioned it, and who refused to look away.

I know where I stand.