While recently combing through some old family heirlooms, I came across my grandfather’s dusty old 1921 Pandora Yearbook from the University of Georgia. Having heard of my late grandfather’s gifted oratorical ability, I was not surprised to discover his name and photograph as part of the UGA intercollegiate debate team appearing in the Pandora. What did surprise me was the debate topic of the year almost a century ago: “That immigration into the United States should be suspended for a period of five years.” Based upon the current national headlines, I had mistakenly believed that the fierce rhetoric over our national immigration policy was a relatively new phenomenon. Boy, was I wrong! While the word “immigration” fails to appear in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment does define citizenship. Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish “Uniform Rules of Naturalization.” As I learned through a cursory glance of Wikipedia, immigration was also a hot topic for debate in World War I’s aftermath. Two new features in the 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration into the U.S. The act’s numerical limits on immigration and a quota system for establishing those limits became known as the National Origins Formula. Passing the U.S. Senate by a 90-2-4 margin, the act capped the number of immigrants from any country annually equivalent to 3 percent of the number of residents from that particular country living in the U.S. as of the 1910 census. As a result of this policy, Northern Europeans had a higher quota and were considerably more likely to be admitted to our country than Eastern or Southern Europeans or Non-Europeans. I suspect some pundits of the day questioned the morality or wisdom of the policy. Yet the National Origins Formula remained law until replaced in 1965 by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provided a system of preferences based on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents. As our country discovered during World War II, theoretical debates can be overshadowed by real life events that have dire consequences for those affected. My late grandfather, for whom I am named, would live to witness along with others of his generation some of the most egregious acts ever sanctioned by the U.S. government when, in 1939, the MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner carrying over 900 Jewish refugees seeking asylum from the horrors of Hitler’s Germany, was denied entry to our shores and those of Canada and Cuba. Historians have estimated approximately a fourth of those passengers who were forced back to Europe would tragically perish in World War II death camps. During World War II, Wikipedia also notes that somewhere between 110,000 to 120,000 Japanese Americans would be confined to internment camps in our own country based solely upon their ethnic backgrounds and a pervasive fear in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Looking back today, many Americans who are made aware of these instances might question the wisdom and the moral basis of these ill-conceived actions. These anomalies do not detract from American exceptionalism and its ultimate goodness. Yet it should give us pause that actions contrary to our values of human dignity and worth can take place even under the watch of someone that many held in the highest regard: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I suspect any administration today and even the most sincere leaders would struggle mightily with the right balance between preserving our borders as any sovereign nation must do to exist and serving as a refuge to those who have been persecuted in their home country merely for their political or religious beliefs. On the other hand, can any objective onlooker question our federal government’s motives in its authority to monitor borders to keep us safe from MS-13 gang members, sex traffickers and terrorists? Neither can we ignore the clear and present danger existing when children are not separated from adults who traffic minors for illicit purposes. To bow to political correctness and not separate these children would be immoral. In repairing the world as advocated by my faith, it is incumbent upon us to weigh each plea for entry into our country on its own merits and with a sobering reality of the facts as they exist, not as political commentators might wish for them to exist. Yet we should never again as a country act upon hate turning a blind eye toward fellow human beings who merely seek a safe haven from atrocities overseas. All of us are created in God’s divine image and deserve at a minimum to be treated with dignity and respect. The tragic lessons of the St. Louis and the incarceration of Japanese Americans should remain in the American conscience, never to be forgotten. Competing domestic isolationist interests and humanitarian interests helped shape the 1921 debate in our country. Unlike the debate in my grandfather’s 1921 to suspend all immigration, it appears Democrats and Republicans today are merely debating on the scope of immigration. Such profound issues must be debated with a spirit of respect and tolerance for those who subscribe to differing viewpoints. As the world continues to rapidly evolve, it would not be farfetched to surmise that 100 years from now immigration will continue to be a defining issue. Today our society should be wise enough to be able to carefully weigh the different compelling interests in the debate to formulate immigration policy based on merit without the dialogue being hijacked by zealots. Yet far too many partisans today view debate as a means to promote their own candidate or party rather than weighing whether the policy is consistent with both our Constitution and our values. Have we not learned from the past? The writer lives in Augusta.

As we embark upon 2017, many of us will resolve to lose weight, exercise more or give up smoking. May I suggest another resolution to bring healing to our divided land? Cease and desist from worshipping at the altar of social media in the New Year. Of course, social media such as Facebook or Twitter are protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Social media also are ideal for sharing family photos, milestones, inspiring quotes and recipes. Yet recently in the aftermath of the hotly contested presidential election, social media have been used as the instrument of choice to spread hatred. Too often social media have been rife with half-true anecdotes as a means to diminish and unjustly degrade individuals who may not share the political affiliation and views of the sender. For example, there has been a tendency by some to paint with a broad brush all those who voted for Donald Trump as being bigots or racists. This caricature would be equivalent to calling all Hillary Clinton voters corrupt because of the allegations against her. Both are unfair depictions and stereotypes. Based upon conversations I had with family and friends, I can attest to the fact that most voters were motivated by myriad factors when casting their ballots. With few exceptions, hate was not one of them. Other than a few zealots and media types on both ends of the political spectrum, most voters chose the candidate who, while not ideal, seemingly represented a vision of providing a better future for their children. Yes, good and decent people supported and voted for Clinton. Likewise good and decent people supported and voted for Trump. Some voted for neither. While I was not a fan of either candidate, I did my civic duty, voted and now accept the outcome. I and all of us should fully embrace the peaceful transition of power as provided for by our Constitution and for which so many of our soldiers have died. It is time to move on. The time for incessant complaining and whining on social media is over. Rather than perpetuating hate via social media, may I suggest we go back and use our God-given energies and talents to repair our own homes and communities, which is really what we have the most control over? Rather than celebrating or dreading the occupant of the White House for the next four years, we should use our own resources and talents to help bring about social justice at home, a major tenet of my own faith. Rather than placing all our hopes and dreams in one candidate, we would be wise to place those same hopes and dreams within each of us. Healing in our country is possible only if we each choose empathy, kindness and respect as our watchwords to live by. Respect is an absolutely essential ingredient to govern our everyday interactions, especially with those who may have different life experiences from our own, or with whom we philosophically disagree. The challenges may be great but the opportunities to bring about a better world are just as unlimited. For example, if you are unaffiliated, the time is ripe to join a church or synagogue. If you are not active in a charitable organization or civic club, what better time than now to become active to help heal our communities? If you, like so many others, were disillusioned by the last campaign, why not be a change agent by joining and transforming the local Democratic or Republican parties or perhaps the local Committee for Good Government? For the sake of our security and our children’s future well-being, we all should sincerely hope for the success of our incoming administration in Washington. That does not mean we cannot speak out when the actions of our leaders warrant it after careful and wise reflection. However, it does mean that more important than chastising a leader on his choice of words, each of us act and behave – not just talk – in a manner worthy of our children’s future.

Congratulations to my Mercer Law School classmate Cathy Cox on her appointment as Dean of Mercer Law! Pictured here with Cathy Cox '86, along with Judge Sheryl Jolly '83 and Clayton Jolly '83

Hate and bigotry have once again raised their ugly head. While the recent violence perpetrated by white supremacists in Charlottesville is sickening and horrific, sadly such conduct is not unprecedented in our country. During the time of our Founding Fathers, duels were common place – i.e., Vice President Aaron Burr v. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in 1804. Brothers fought against brothers during the bloody battles of the Civil War, and riots were all-too-common in the turmoil surrounding the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War in the 1960s. One only has to peruse through any American History book to see the ubiquitous nature of conflict that has scarred our landscape. Perhaps it seems much worse and more prevalent now due to the advent of social media and the never ending 24/7 news cycles. Violence is never an acceptable means of expression. While the First Amendment rights of free expression and speech should be protected at all costs, its protection was never meant to be absolute. The well known axiom of not yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is very much applicable here. When zealots on the left or right of the political spectrum march in the guise of exercising free speech, but use it as a pretext for violence, they should be shown for what they are: thugs and criminals. At that instance, their rights should be forfeited. A perversion of the First Amendment can never be tolerated. Yet I believe my friends on the left and right are doing a disservice to their own cause when they try to cherry pick whom to blame for the violence. A real mensche does not spend their time trying to assign blame but rather focus on improving their own communities. All rational people in both parties, Republican and Democrat, condemn all forms of violence and all hate groups. I submit to you that the white supremacists, KKK, Antifa and ISIS are different sides of the same racist coin. Far too many of us argue over whether one group is more violent or deadly. That is not a productive use of our time, as they all share the same common goals – to destroy society as we know it by spreading hate. Neither should we waste our time by quarreling over whether our leaders have adequately condemned the violence. Examining the tone and the exact wording of a condemnation is an exercise in futility. We could spend hours on the sufficiency of President Obama’s condemnation of those responsible for the five police officers who were killed in Dallas, versus President Trump’s many condemnations of those responsible for the young lady killed in Charlottesville. Yet it doesn’t bring the victims back to life or get to the root cause of the hate. I suspect both presidents were horrified and overwhelmed by the violence. The real answer is for each of us to look at the reflection in the mirror if we are sincere about repairing the world and bringing lasting change. Civility begins within. First we need to respect those with whom we have honest but sincere differences of opinion. There is no monopoly on the truth, and we can disagree on health care and climate change. That does not make us evil. When we listen to each other, ultimately we grow and become better people. I suspect that is why God, no matter how we choose to worship, created each of us with two ears and only one mouth. Only when we hear the substance of our neighbors, rather than talking over them, can we truly begin to engage in a constructive and honest dialogue. Secondly we should go back and embrace the building blocks of our communities. Rather than place all our hopes and dreams on faceless bureaucrats in Washington, we should join and actively participate in our places of worship, civic clubs and non-profits. At a time when membership in these true pillars of the community have declined, what better way is there to simultaneously speak out against hate and strengthen our communities? Finally, my wife and I each day try to set a positive example for our daughter by the way we choose to live our lives. Often we leave her off at the school with the motto “courage and kindness” as watchwords to live by. It is not always easy, with the usual challenges of modern life and the voices of hate permeating through the media. Yet ultimately our character is formed by how we react to the worst in others. We cannot control others, but we can begin to repair the world by being the best we can be.

The Augusta kick off to the 2016 Georgia Legal Food Frenzy took place on April 14 at the Partridge Inn with an impassioned plea from Superior Court Judge James Blanchard as to the merits of giving to such a worthy cause. Among those in attendance were the Golden Harvest Food Bank Director Travis McNeal, Georgia Young Lawyers Division President Jack Long, volunteers with Golden Harvest and many fellow attorneys. I am honored to be part of such a noble effort. The food drive and competition among attorneys, judges, law schools and legal organizations officially begins Monday, April 18 and continues to April 29. The sad reality is that 0ne in five Georgians struggle with hunger every day and that one in four Georgia children do not get enough to eat. During the upcoming summer months the situation becomes even more dire when Georgia children eligible for reduced or free lunches in school are without these meals. What can you do? Join with me in the private sector and put a dent into this problem. Drop off non perishable and non breakable canned goods and food at my office at 2812A Hillcreek Court Augusta, Ga. 30909 beginning April 18 from 9 AM-5 PM. If you are unable to drop off food, feel free to mail a check to my office at the above address payable to Golden Harvest Food Bank and reference LAW OFFICES OF NATHAN M. JOLLES, PC. A little bit goes a long way. One dollar equals four pounds. My goal is to reach 8000 pounds and open a dialogue with you about how we can finally address the root causes of poverty in our area. I will keep you up to date over the next eleven days by blogging and facebook as to our progress. As in the words of another famous attorney, ” NO YOU ARE NOT BOTHERING ME’ so feel free to stop me wherever you see me to make a donation or to talk about ways to combat this problem. Together we can make a difference and begin the task of repairing the world. Thank You for caring.