Money Can't Buy You Love or Education

I read an article in the Arizona Republic that relates what former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said at a meeting of the Arizona Commerce Authority.   Mr. Barrett took the opportunity to talk about the quality of education in Arizona and implied a cause and effect relationship between that and the State budget cuts in education proposed by Governor Brewer.  I don’t think that there is a correlation between the amount of money spent on education and the quality of education received.  This is borne out in study upon study across the United States.  The Heritage Foundation compared federal education spending to National Assessment of Educational Performance and found there was no connection between the two.

But I decided to look up some data myself and see if this was actually the case.  Using data from the US Department of Education I compared the by-state expenditure per pupil in the year 2006-2007 and compared that data to by-state SAT mean scores of college bound seniors for 2007-2008 (the years didn’t match up); the conclusion of this simple comparison is that there is no direct correlation between higher per pupil spending and higher SAT scores.  Washington D.C. scored the highest in per pupil spending at $20,596, yet scored 50^th out of 51 (Maine scored last in all three categories but this is likely due to the fact that all juniors are required to take the test, not just those interested in going to college) in all three SAT categories (reading, mathematics, and writing).  Iowa ranked 40^th in spending ($9,114) and ranked 1^st in reading and mathematics and 2^nd in writing.  South Dakota ranked 42^nd in spending ($8,821) and scored 3^rd, 9^th, and 7^th in reading, mathematics, and writing respectively. 

Arizona was 46^th in spending ($8,335) and scored 30^th in reading and mathematics and 31^st in writing.  I am not saying this is great, and there is certainly room for improvement.  But consider that Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Idaho, and Utah were 47^th, 48^th, 49^th, 50^th and 51^st in spending per pupil and all of them achieved better results than did Arizona; Oklahoma scored in the top 15 in all three categories.

Of the top ten states in spending per pupil (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Connecticut, Alaska, Massachusetts, and Maryland) none of them had scores in the top 10 in any of the three categories.  Arizona scored better than six of them in reading and mathematics and better than five of them in writing.

What does this indicate?  That throwing money at education is not the answer.  The real answer lies in how kids are spending their time in the classroom.  I continue to see articles about different curricula and how the newest technique will make great strides in educating children.  But I think that we as a society should just concentrate on the basics; reading, writing and mathematics.

Teach kids phonics; school districts should get corporate licenses for “Hooked on Phonics” or other phonics teaching systems.  It is the easiest way for kids to learn the language; that is true for reading and for writing.  There are 26 letters, six vowels, and 44 sounds and once kids learn them there is practically nothing they can’t read.  I can still remember my teachers and my parents telling me to “sound it out” whenever I saw a word I didn’t previously know; that’s the beauty of phonics.  If school districts switched to a phonics curriculum they would also save tons of money; there is no reason to buy new books every third year, since phonics don’t change.  The only things that a district would need to purchase are workbooks. 

Make kids memorize multiplication tables and other standard "non-changing" building blocks to include geography (states and capitols), history (the preamble to the Constitution, the Gettysburg address) and biology (taxonomy).  Through route memorization kids will be able to easily retrieve information, and as they get older the comprehension and application will come much easier.   Make mathematics a priority, math is critical for higher learning, plus it is very valuable in every day use as we get older. 

There are a myriad of ways to improve education in Arizona or anywhere else for that matter, but the key is to focus and stop all the distractions; chief among them is that spending more money will get you a better education.  Quit changing the curriculum every year and changing teachers every two hours. Encourage healthy competition, both in the class and on the playground, and push kids to outperform their peers.  Reward children that excel and give extra time to the ones that are putting forth the effort but don’t see the results. 

And finally, stop giving kids an excuse to underperform.  I always read about how inner-city or minority kids are at a disadvantage.  This very may well be, but it is not because the child is incapable of achievement. It is because we inculcate that child with the idea that he is handicapped by his environment.  Rather than teach children that their achievement is limited by their environment, we as a society, should endeavor to teach children to triumph through achievement in spite of it.  

Society should make a quality education a common denominator for our children rather than a socio-economic divider.

Why Somos (We Are) Republicans Aren’t

An acquaintance of mine sent me a link to an article titled “Somos Republicans” will not be endorsing Gabriela Mercer in which Somos Republicans expressed that they would not support Gabriela Mercer in a race against Raul Grijalva.  I have read about Ms. Mercer’s announcement to run in Arizona’s 7^th Congressional District, but I was curious as to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse her candidacy.  I didn’t understand why any Republican organization would immediately rule out an endorsement without even waiting to see how many candidates there are and which one best aligns with its values.  I didn’t know much about “Somos Republicans” so I went to their website and started to analyze it.  The more I dug in the more I believe that this group should not be called “Somos Republicans” (We are Republicans) rather “Apenas Republicans” (Barely Republicans).   How did I come to this conclusion? Well… 

First let’s discuss Somos Republicans’ Principles.  Let me just say that I also believe in the Right to Life; free market capitalism, low taxes, small government, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage.  It isn’t until you get to the last “principle” that you begin to understand Somos Republicans’ real raise d’être; Amnesty!  Below is the final principle for “Somos Republicans”:
Humane Viable Immigration Solution. Tough immigration is not a conservative “value” but rather an issue.  This issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that directly affects the well-being of our community. We believe this issue has been largely ignored, and it has placed Republicans and our community in a predicament which is inconsistent with the economic realities of our Free Market Capitalism, labor demands, and humanitarian tradition. Therefore, it is imperative that we promote a viable solution to this dilemma that is in concert with our economic demands. Such humane and viable solutions ought to resonate with ideals of President Reagan, Bush, and Conservative Think Tanks–such as the Goldwater Institute, the Hoover Institution, and CATO–that, too, have argued that a solution to this predicament is long overdue.

I tried to ignore the incoherence of the statement and try to dissect what “Somos Republicans” is trying to say.  But this is tough, because as far as I am aware, Immigration is solved.  A person that wants to immigrate into the United States goes to their local consulate or embassy, gets in line and submits an application for entry into the United States, they wait for a visa and when they get it they are free to enter the country and proceed to apply to become a permanent resident and ultimately a US citizen.   I believe what they probably wanted to address in the “principle” is “a humane and viable solution to the illegal immigration issues facing our nation.”  So why don’t they say that?
“Somos Republicans” then states that “tough immigration” is not a “conservative ‘value’” but an issue; “tough immigration” isn’t an issue either, it is an adjectival phrase absent a noun to modify, but I digress.  I assume they are talking about tough immigration policy or laws or legislation or proposals.  Anyway, it isn’t tough immigration they are talking about; it’s really “tough anti-illegal immigration policy” that they are addressing.  And again “Somos Republicans” fails to use the word illegal.   Their “principle” then goes into some rambling about putting “our community” into a predicament. 

The bottom line is: There is nothing inconsistent with people wanting the law to be adhered to and enforced.  The fact that “Somos Republicans” addresses labor demands and economic demands in the statement proves the shortsightedness of the group; with the national unemployment rate over 9% there is no “labor demand.”  I know, I know, illegal immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do, but if that was the case before it sure isn’t now.  “Somos Republicans” also talks a lot about being “humane,” and a “humanitarian tradition.”  Has anyone at “Somos Republicans” done some research on the Chinese when they came over to build the railroads or the Irish or the Italians to compare the “humane” treatment they received?  The only tradition that I know of is one of working.  People worked and they either found some measure of success or they didn’t.   And the most important part is that the great majority of immigrants prior to the 1960’s all came to the United States legally.  Illegal immigration as a policy issue is a rather recent phenomena.
Finally “Somos Republicans” throws around names like Presidents Reagan and Bush, sprinkle in the Cato and Goldwater Institutes, and the Hoover Institution and Presto! “Somos Republicans” has established its bona fides as a Republican entity. 

But let’s get back to why “Somos Republicans” won’t endorse Gabriela Mercer.  Well they NEVER TELL YOU!!  They mention Ms. Mercer twice in the article; once in the Headline and once in the first sentence when they mention that the Republican Party needs to find a better candidate.  This is a bloggers version of a drive-by shooting.  
“Somos Republicans” leaves the reader contemplating Ms. Mercer’s candidacy while they continue on with statistics from a Pew Hispanic Center survey trying to convince the Arizona Republican Party, and anyone else unfortunate enough to be reading the article, that 80% of Hispanics are against “SB1070 type of laws”.  (An assertion that is specious at best and dishonest at worst.) And, that no one should support any candidate that favors SB1070.

There is only one problem.  The Pew study that “Somos Republicans” diligently cites over and over again was conducted in 2008.  As a refresher, SB1070 was passed and signed by Governor Brewer in 2010.  So whatever questions were asked by the Pew Hispanic Center, they were not in regards to SB1070. 

In addition to this small, seemingly insignificant fact; is the fact that in the same Pew Study, only 44% of the over 2000 people that were interviewed, were US citizens and registered to vote. 
“Somos Republicans” then let’s their target audience, the Arizona Republican Party, know that any Hispanic who supports SB1070 is a “token” “yes-man” and that these Hispanics don’t know how Latinos really feel.  This is the tired old meme taken right out of the leftist book of tactics and is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with “Somos Republicans” view on illegal immigration: if you can convince everyone that pro-SB1070 Hispanics are “tokens” then they aren’t worth listening too because they are a super small minority. To discredit the people who disagree with you by calling them names is something worthy of a 4^th grade playground; How truly juvenile. 

Then… the coup de grâce!!  “Somos Republicans” tells the Republican Party that it must “prove to the increasing number of Hispanic voters that all Republicans are not a bunch of bigots who want to empty a clip on “illegals.” So, the burden of proof is on Republicans to prove they are NOT a bunch of bigots.  This can be accomplished by denouncing those that “Somos Republicans” says should be denounced. (For the Record: I do believe that Virgil Peck should be held to account for what he said.)  And then mention Russell Pearce, J.D. Hayworth, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King, so no one gets confused about who “Somos Republicans” considers extremists.  And finally…. the digestif to wash the whole thing down, “Somos Republicans” reminds everyone that they are Ronald Reagan Republicans and want to restore the Party of Abe Lincoln. 

First, to the Republican Party:  Be aware of what this group stands for: AMNESTY! If you are pro amnesty then you have found the right Latino group for you. If you chose to affiliate yourself with “Somos Republicans” be aware that you are taking the side of illegal aliens over law abiding immigrants and citizens (Somos is anti-SB1070 and Pro-Sanctuary City), you are taking the side of illegal students from foreign countries over US Citizens from out of state (Somos is Pro-DREAM Act), and you will be affiliated with the pro-amnesty movement. I am a Hispanic that believes in the rule of law and supports efforts such as Arizona SB1070 to control the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. I am one of the tokens of whom “Somos Republicans” speaks, but I am not alone. Ignore me at your peril. 

To Gabriela Saucedo Mercer:  I do not know you personally but, as they say; you can tell a lot about a person by who his/her “enemies” are.  And if Somos Republicans is your “enemy” then I support you in your efforts to unseat Raul Grijalva in Arizona Congressional District 7 as should every republican in the state.

Service to Country

 **This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Whatever happened to the ideal that this nation once held, expressed in the words of John F. Kennedy? Which words you ask?

“Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country.”

The idea of serving one’s country, somewhere in recent history, has become antithetical to the psyche of most of today’s American politicians.  Politicians are supposed to represent us, the people.  You may be asking yourself, how are politicians relevant to the conversation with regards to service to country?

Well, politicians should have service to country as their number one priority. The problem is that most politicians believe that the “country” is the federal government; actually the country, the nation, is the people.

We the people are what make this the United States of America.  Unfortunately, all too often what we hear about our senators and representatives is what they do for their district or their state and nothing about what they do for their country, for our country.  There are literally hundreds of examples where those in Congress put their district/state above country; these examples are called earmarks. Earmarks, whatever you want to argue, do not benefit the United States as a whole.  They may benefit certain people in certain geographical areas, maybe. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, through the earmarks process, has essentially built his own personal airport to make it convenient for him to fly back and forth to Washington D.C.  Aside from the less than 50 people who work to keep the airport open, the airport benefits no one.

Congressmen and Senators have forgotten their raise d’être.  Our representatives act more like agents on behalf of the federal government rather than agents of the people who elected them.   My view is that the original purpose of our representatives was to hold the line against the federal government taking and/or infringing on the rights of the individual based on state or region.  The congress was supposed to represent states rights against the power of the federal government.  Congressional representatives from each state were supposed to stand up to the federal government and ensure that their constituency would not be disadvantaged among the states with respect to the passage of any law.  And, that any laws that they passed had been vetted by all representatives of all the states to ensure that the benefit of those laws was for all the states, and for the nation as a whole.  Congressmen and Senators have morphed into a group of elitists who, in cooperation of the federal government, pass legislation which has steadily worn away at the rights of individual citizens.   Politicians have forgotten that their purpose is not to facilitate federal policy but to protect the people from it.

And it is not just the politicians who are at fault.  We, the American people are also responsible.  People need to understand that even though their congressman gets 15-20 million dollars for some project in their district, they still must pay the 10-20 billion dollar price tag for all the other projects in the legislation passed.  The bottom line is that it is not a very good investment.

The problem is this: Most people justify this spending with kindergarten logic.  “Everybody else is getting something, why not us.”  So constituencies may actually encourage their representatives to request earmarks and thereby waste more of our collective money. This is also true for subsidies, of all kinds.  People want the government to stop spending money, except when it comes to the money that benefits them.  The government subsidizes wheat farmers, sugar farmers, Amtrak, energy companies, tech companies, etc. In an article in 2006 the Cato Institute had the number of Federal Subsidy Programs at 1696. 

The American electorate is starting to educate itself.  But beyond education we as a nation must start to wean ourselves from the federal teat of subsidies and earmarks.  Communities must express their disdain for earmarks and subsidies both inside and outside their congressional district.  And hold their representative accountable for driving the nation further into debt.  This may affect the community in the short term, but in the long term it is very good for the country, for the USA.

The bottom line is that WE, all Americans, must stand up and tell our representatives that what we want is not more from the federal government, but less.  That what we want is the government to get out of the way of ideas and innovation; not create more obstacles and red tape.  That we know better what our communities need than the federal government; that any subsidy to any organization, group, region, or state, is money that is taken from us, collectively.  We don’t need handouts to succeed; we can do it ourselves, through hard work, sweat and effort.  It is through individual effort and achievement that all of us can serve our country.  Let’s stop asking our government to do for us what we should be doing ourselves and for our nation; once we are free of the addiction to government largess we can begin to use our talents and energies to serve our country.

Representatives in Congress beware.  It is no longer good enough for you to bring home the bacon.  You had better figure out how to cut the fat.  The electorate has awoken and will now hold you accountable for dragging the nation further into the open pit of debt created by this Congress, and the ones before it.  If you, as representatives, want to serve your country then do it by protecting your constituency from taxes, excessive regulation and an ever intrusive government and creating an environment conducive to small businesses, entrepreneurs and working people.

Today we probably need to modify what JFK said. Ask not what your country should do for you; ask what your country is doing for you that you should do yourself.  Because it is only through action of a free people that liberty is able to flourish, grow and expand.

THE TYRANNY OF TAXES

 **This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Have you ever asked yourself how much the government really takes from you on a monthly basis? And I am not just talking about the federal government but the state, county, and municipal governments.  None of us really think about all the taxes and fees that come out of our pockets.

Think about it.  You pay taxes on your income every paycheck; if those were the only taxes you paid life would be great.  But that is only the beginning, unless you live in Florida or Texas, you also have to pay state income taxes.  You go home with your check lightened by federal and state income taxes, Medicare, and social security taxes.  So you are driving home and realize that you need gas for you car; you stop at the gas station and fill up. You pay anywhere from 30-60 cents for each gallon of gas (that is between $4.50-$9.00 on a 15 gallon tank and $7.50-$15.00 on a 25 gallon tank.)  You get home and sit at the kitchen table with a calculator and the bills that have arrive by mail. You start writing checks; you pay your electricity bill plus taxes; natural gas bill plus taxes; water bill plus taxes and fees for sewer service; cable or satellite service plus taxes; internet services plus taxes; phone bill plus taxes and 911 fees; cellular phone service plus taxes plus taxes and surcharges.  You pay your mortgage and pay taxes through the escrow account.  With the money you have left you go out to eat and pay taxes on that. Buy a fountain drink at the convenience store and pay taxes on that. Buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine and pay taxes on that.  Buy clothes for you and your kids and pay taxes on that.  You buy tickets to a baseball game and pay taxes on that.  Go to the movies and pay taxes on that.  You pay taxes on all the consumables you need for your home from toilet paper to soap to toothpaste.  Any service that you need, from an oil change to a haircut, is taxed.  You can’t even take a vacation from it because your airline ticket, hotel and rental car are taxed.  Not a day goes by that you aren’t taxed in one way or another.  Obviously some places are worse than others.

It is a wonder we have any money left at all. We as a people need to demand a stop to all this taxation, demand relief from those whom we have empowered to represent us.  We are essentially suffering the same fate as the colonists prior to the revolution, with a twist: Taxation with misrepresentation. But it is our fault.  We have subjected ourselves to this tyranny. And we must take responsibility as a nation and as an electorate, to get ourselves out.  The Tyranny of Taxes is slowly taking away our liberty. We are evermore becoming indentured servants to the leviathan we call the Federal Government.  Worse yet, we are enslaving our children and grandchildren to a life of making the minimum payment on a multi-trillion dollar credit card just to keep ahead of the interest.

We work everyday in an effort to achieve the American Dream and instead of government that encourages our efforts we have one that impedes them.  Instead of creating an environment that is conducive to innovation the government has done everything it can to stifle it.  Rather than lower taxes to stimulate growth and expansion of the economy, our government raises taxes and discourages investment and entrepreneurialism.

Look around and ask yourself, is my money well spent?  Is it invested well?  Should I be forced to help pay for someone else’s house or brand new car?  Should I have been forced to by General Motors, Chrysler, or AIG?  Could I have used that money more efficiently?

Put it in perspective, since 2008, the federal government has spent:

  30 billion to bailout Bear Stearns

400 billion to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

180 billion to bailout AIG

  25 billion to bailout GM and Chrysler

700 billion to bailout banks through the TARP program

787 billion in the “stimulus package”

    5 billion in earmarks included in the Omnibus bill

According to the US Census Bureau there were 281,421,906 people in the United States in the year 2000.
For easy math let’s say that there are currently, 300,000,000 legal citizens and residents today.  That would mean that if you added up all the spending, just for the programs and bailouts listed above, the government could have sent out a $7090 check to every man woman and child who is legally in the United States.  For a family of four, that would mean $28,360.

HOW WOULD YOU SPEND $28,360!!

Ask yourself who knows better how to look after your family; you or a collection of 500 individuals in Washington D.C. who have never seen you, never talked to you, and seem unwilling to consider your future and the future of your children and grandchildren.  And don’t seem to understand that what they are doing not only affects us the people but our nation.  They are jeopardizing the future of the United States of America.

THE TIME IS NOW

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Before I start this article and before people begin to rake me over the coals for flawed legal analysis, let me caveat this article by saying that I am NOT a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).  I am writing this article on some of my own observations and, ­­dare I say it, common sense and logic.  I have read the decision by Judge Bolton as it relates to the Arizona law SB1070.  It seems to me that the entire judgment was a travesty to a society founded on law.  The federal government’s argument is ridiculous and the judge’s ruling even more so.  Part of the judge’s ruling states the following:  "Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities."

What could be more of a priority than to ensure the safety of the citizenry and security of the borders?  Isn’t this the primary function of government and more specifically the Department of Homeland Security, to include the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

But beyond that, it seems to me that if we are to extend the same logic that the judge used in this ruling to all laws that are overseen by the federal government as the basis for a preemption argument we, as a nation, are in big, big trouble.  Here is just one example:  Arizona state law classifies as illegal, under Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-3552, the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (excerpt follows):

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification
A. A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:
1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.
3. Permitting a minor under the person’s custody or control to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

AND here is the federal Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251
§ 2251. Sexual exploitation of children
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

They are quite similar.  As a matter of fact, the federal law is, essentially, restated in the state statute.  Much the same way federal immigration law is restated in AZ SB 1070.   Are we to understand that state and local municipalities are prohibited from enforcing child pornography laws because this would pre-empt the federal government as it would divert resources from the Department of Justice’s other responsibilities and priorities?  I would hope NOT.  I think it is safe to say that most sane people would say that IF there were a sudden rise in child pornography and local jurisdictions began to refer cases to the DOJ for adjudication that they would expect the DOJ to take those cases.  Using Judge Bolton’s ruling as a guide it would be possible for the DOJ to claim preemption because they have other responsibilities and priorities and a sudden increase in Child Pornography cases would divert resources.  Does that make sense to anyone?

A by-product of the ruling is the idea that a State may not enact a law to support and supplement federal law. This can and may have far reaching ramifications and unintended consequences in the future.  This has the possibility of affecting prosecutions and verdicts in many jurisdictions.

But there are more basic questions.  For example:  What does it mean when the federal government takes a position against the enforcement of a law that would have the effect of assisting that same federal government in fulfilling its obligation under the United States Constitution in favor of millions of law breakers?   How does the federal government justify a position of accepting the status quo rather than accept the help of state, county and municipal jurisdictions indentifying, detaining and arresting people who have violated our countries immigration laws? What has happened to the rule of law?

There is no argument that the federal government has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect and defend the general welfare of the citizens of this country.  No one is denying this fact.  What is unbelievable is that the government, while acknowledging its failure to properly enforce the law, continues to erect obstacles to ensure the status quo.  The solution to the border problem is not solved by closing park lands and erecting signs south of Phoenix warning citizens that there are drug smugglers in the area, but by immediately increasing forces along the border to keep the smugglers out.  The government’s response to Arizona SB1070 is inconceivable, but somehow, not surprising.

How many hospitals must be shut down?  How many billions of dollars must we spend on social services, medical care, and schools?  How many citizens and legal residents must be assaulted, robbed, raped, and killed before we finally demand that the federal government do its job?  We have to ask ourselves, how long are we going to accept the federal government’s dereliction of duty?  How long are we going to wait for the petty politics in Washington to catch up to the real world realities along our southern border?  There comes a time when states must take a stand for what is right and what is just.  There is a time when states must act in the interests of their citizens’ safety and security.

For Arizona, that time is now!

In Response to Harry Reid:

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location** 


After Senator Harry Reid’s comment about Hispanic voters, I believe that, in fact, he does need to say more.  I would like for Harry Reid to explain to Hispanics all the wonderful policies that the Democrat Party advocates that either benefit the Hispanic community or are in line with the average Hispanic voter.  I would like for Harry Reid to address each of these issues and convince Hispanics that the Democrat Party is looking out for their best interests.

First and foremost it is an insult to the Hispanic community to refer to them as one monolithic group.  There are many, many distinct and wonderful cultures which would otherwise be categorized as Hispanic.  People whose origins can be traced to  Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Cuba or Puerto Rico are all considered Hispanic.  And within those countries there are a plethora of different indigenous peoples and cultures.  But Harry Reid and the Democrat party arrogantly insist on lumping them all together as if there were no distinction among them and as if they all are too ignorant to have differing views on the issues that face our country today.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in a report issued in April 2007, 83% of all Hispanics identify themselves as Christians; either Catholic (68%) or Protestant (15%).  As a result most Hispanics are more socially conservative and have nothing in common with the social agenda of the Democrat party.  Among the social issues that Hispanics are at odds with Democrats are:

ABORTION- Since abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church and many Christian churches, why would any Hispanic support the Democrat Party?  The Democrat party has all but made the acceptance of abortion a requirement for membership in the party and continues to advocate for abortion legislation to include: Partial birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, funding for Planned Parenthood, child consent laws, among others.

GAY MARRIAGE- Same sex marriage is anathema to natural law and to Catholic teaching.  Hispanics may vary widely on whether or not this is a good idea, but there is no doubt that many of them disagree with the agenda of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender lobby, which most Democrats support.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM- Many immigrants from Central and South America immigrate to the United States in search of the American Dream.  The opportunity to succeed and to achieve based on effort.  Many have left their homeland because of the leftist socialist policies adopted by their home countries.  Economic empowerment allows immigrants to care for their families and leave a legacy for their children.  They have come to America to find an economic environment that encourages rather than stifles entrepreneurship.  Why would these Hispanics vote for Democrats who have over the last 18 months nationalized the auto industry, nationalized the mortgage market, bailed out the banking industry, and nationalized the post-secondary education loan industry?

THE RULE OF LAW- People want a government that is based on law.  It is only in this way that people can be assured that what they work for cannot be taken away.  And they expect that everyone should and will be treated equally under the law.  Many have come to escape the day to day corruption of their home country; to a place where waiting your turn and complying with the law are a welcome change to the corruption and lawlessness of their home country.

FREEDOM- Hispanics want to enjoy freedom; freedom to speak and to assemble. Many Latin American countries have been or are in the process of stifling these freedoms.  Many Hispanics want to live without fear of repercussion from the government.  Cuba has had a despotic Communist regime for decades, Venezuela has shut down most of the independent press and has nationalized the oil industry, Bolivia is a Venezuelan puppet state and is following Venezuela’s lead.  There are many examples of leftist regimes from which Hispanics have sought and continue to seek refuge.

So, Harry Reid and Democrats let me just say that there are a lot more reasons for Hispanics to be Republican than there are for them to be Democrat. I will not be so arrogant to say: I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Democrat.

I will say to all Hispanics: If you are pro-business, pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-family values, and want small government, and low taxes; I don’t know how you could NOT be a Republican.

The End of the Democrat Party

 **This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

I have been reading about the GOP and its demise as a result of the Tea Party.  I am not going to address the concerns and analysis that people have and will make about the Republican Party.  What people aren’t talking about is the demise of the Democrat party.

Let’s look at some of the real issues that the Democrats must face.  One of the realities of this election is that there is no longer a moderate wing within the Democrat party.  The base of the Democrat party is an amalgam of special identity interests; Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, unions, feminists, Jews, socialists (in the sense of wanting government versus private solutions) and those that are sympathetic to those interests.  The problem for the Democrats is that many of the party constituencies are in conflict with one another. These conflicts cannot easily be reconciled and will continue to cause fissures within the Democrat coalition.  At some point these cracks will open up into chasms. 

A few examples of these differences:

In order to court the Hispanic vote Democrats demonstrate in their rhetoric that they are in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.  This is a direct assault on the interests of the unions since it would create a huge number of workers willing to work for less than union wage and, at least in the short term, put all unions at a disadvantage in the employment market.   You would think that Unions would take a position against “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”  Union members, on whom democrats depend for votes should eventually come to grips with this conflict and demand that union leadership cease supporting politicians whose positions are in direct conflict with union interests.

Democrats are liberal on social issues.  On abortion, the party has taken a position of abortion on demand with no restriction, they are joined on this position by feminists; this despite the fact that only 24% of people believe that.  The Majority of Americans believe that abortion should either be illegal (19%) or legal only under a few circumstances (37%).  But, Hispanics are, in general, very socially conservative and don’t support abortion.  Hispanics have been deceived either by the party as a whole or by individual politicians that the democrat party is pro-life.   As demonstrated by the fight leading up to the healthcare debate, pro-life democrats are not only rare they are practically extinct in the Democrat party.

On gay marriage Democrats strongly favor the idea, while blacks appear to be firmly against it.  In 2008, Blacks voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 69% to 31% in California.   Nationwide this margin is probably reflective of Blacks and Hispanics.  Yet both groups are nearly monolithic in their voting habits.
Democrats will soon find themselves in an untenable position. As they drift further and further to the ideological left, there are less and less constituencies which they can court in order to stay in power. 

According to polls (here, here, here) between 19-33% of people identify themselves as liberal.  And even though more people claim to be Democrats than identify as liberals, eventually those that consider themselves “moderate” Democrats will start to look for a new home.

When you break down the Democrat Party you begin to see the Balkanization within.  The Democrat Party is nothing more than a hodge-podge of separate groups with distinct interests.  When viewed as a percentage of larger groups of people or populations the fissures in the Democrat party become clearer.   And people will begin to ask themselves why the party is allowing these relatively small groups of people to drive the policy agenda of the Democrats and national conversation. Examples follow:

Union members make up 12.3% of the overall workforce; but with the advantage of mandatory union dues, they are able to exert an inordinate amount of influence on the electoral process.

Gays/Lesbians are usually estimated to be about 2.9% of the population and may be as high as 8% yet there is an inordinate amount of attention in the media and in the social culture addressing their concerns.  Gay marriage, non-discrimination laws, etc…   Politicians have allowed themselves and the agenda of the Democrat party to be dominated by this special interest group.

Blacks make up about 12.9% of the population.  Hispanics/Latinos make up about 15.8%.  Both these groups have been taken for granted by the Democrat party.  Most of the social programs advocated by democrat party affect these two groups in particular, and neither groups sees the subtle yet devastating damage programs like welfare,  food stamps among others, have on their communities, and continue to almost monolithically vote Democrat.

There are somewhere between 5 and 6.5 million Jews in the US which is about 2% of the population in the US, and as a group they almost always vote Democrat.  This  in spite of the fact that in terms of Israel Republicans are more staunch supporters of Israel and policies that would ensure the survival of the Jewish state.

The Democrat Party has turned its back on many within its party.   Pro-life men and women, white Christian men, white working class, small business owners, and seniors have all been cut loose by Democrats.  Democrats don’t have answers for how they will solve the problems or issues Americans face today.  Democrats of all types will soon find that the Democrat Party does not offer to them of vision of the future that they can or will support.

Most democrats today still have a vision the Democrat party as the party of JFK.  The truth is that JFK would be ostracized from the party if he were alive today.   JFK believed in lower taxes as a way to stimulate and grow the economy and began proposing tax cuts as early as 1962.  The tax cuts were passed and the results were exactly as expected, the economy grew and revenues increased. JFK also believed in a strong national defense, and believed that the US should take a stand against despotism and supporting pro-west governments (he began to increase the amount of advisors to Vietnam and formed the Formation of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) by 1961). None of these are positions embraced by the Democrat Party.

We must not look at the Tea Party as a refuge for only disgruntled Republicans; it is also a voice for disgruntled Democrats that are frustrated with the increasingly left wing/socialist agenda of the Democrat party.  Conservatives must take this opportunity to reach out to these constituencies and offer them a positive alternative to more taxation, government intrusion, and socialist policies.  Republicans must endeavor to incorporate the fiscally conservative wing of the electorate that identifies itself as Democrat.  But more importantly conservatives must reach out with a real message and follow through on the small-government, lower-taxes agenda that it advocates.  Republicans may never win over the people in this country that identify themselves as liberal, but they have a great shot of reaching the large middle of those that identify themselves as moderate.

The Tea-party is a manifestation of people who have begun to open their eyes and don’t like seeing their country transformed into a European socialist state.  They have rejected the left’s agenda and will no longer take politicians at their word.  Blue Dog Democrats were devastated in the election, and those that survived cannot afford to move left.  Democrats, with few exceptions, ran to the right in these elections; except for those in bluest of blue districts, there will be no second chance in 2012.  The Democrat party has shut the door on a great swath of the American electorate; Republicans must pounce on these voters to advance the agenda of fiscal sanity and the government our founding fathers envisioned.

The Nightmare that is the Dream Act

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**
Keep this article in mind when you hear this Act is again before Congress for passage. RRB

The DREAM Act is a complete and utter disaster. The DREAM Act as it is currently proposed is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to pass amnesty to a vast number of illegal aliens.  This act does nothing to solve the current illegal alien crisis and should be opposed by all Americans who believe in the rule of law.  I went online and read the proposed act to see what all the hubbub is about.  First of all let me just say that I am not a lawyer, but fortunately you don’t need to be to understand what the DREAM Act is trying to do nor how it is trying to do it.  The surprise here is how overt liberals have become in telling the American public exactly what they plan.  The only catch is that the American public has to read the act and engage as necessary.  I am not writing this as an opinion commentary, this is a column to inform you of what is in the act.  If you don’t agree you need to get off you duff and start calling your senator and congressman.  You have no idea what this act allows for and the politicians advocating its passage don’t want you to know, because if you knew there would be a national uprising of indignation and disgust.  Here’s hoping for a little of that.

Before we get too far, there are parts of this act that might require a lawyer but I will only address those portions which I both think are egregious and are straightforward. There is no way that a congressman should be able to argue that he/she didn’t understand the language or that he/she wasn’t aware of the consequences, etc…   I have excerpted the part of the bill in question so you can see the language yourself.  So here we go!!!

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a)   In General- Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) is repealed.
The federal law mentioned above prohibits illegal aliens from getting instate tuition. I would like to take the time to point out the irony that any state that allows illegal immigrants to get instate tuition is violating federal law, this would be the perfect example of Preemption, unfortunately the federal government won’t stop this practice.

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who Entered the United States as Children
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, if the alien demonstrates that–
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
This act would allow anyone who is 5 years plus one day who was brought into this country as a newborn to be eligible.  Later in the act it stipulates that the “alien” can be not older than 35 years old to apply.  Has anyone thought about how many people we are talking about?  And once all these people are rewarded with citizenship they can proceed to legalize all of their relatives.
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
This essentially forgives anything the alien has done up to the point of application.  So, technically an alien could apply and there would be no consideration of any previous criminality, this might also include DUI, and any other previous arrests and/or convictions.
(2)   WAIVER- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
DHS can waiver anyone and stop them from being deported.  Under the guise of family unity that would essentially include every single illegal “alien” that applies for the program. But in case that isn’t enough DHS can waive deportation if they can find some public interest as determined by DHS.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations- Nothing in this section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of removal or adjustment of status under this section.
There is no limit to how many people can qualify under this act.  If there are 13 million, so be it. People will wait for years to get approved and, as you will see later; once they apply they cannot be deported if they have pending application.
(f) Removal of Alien- The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this Act.
ONCE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN APPLIES HE/SHE CANNOT BE DEPORTED!!!!

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(2) HARDSHIP EXCEPTION-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary’s discretion, remove the conditional status of an alien if the alien–
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph (1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
The DHS can determine a hardship and remove the conditional status of the alien, without the alien having either completed a degree or serving in the armed forces.  Notice that the hardship can affect anyone in his immediate family who is a US citizen.  This paragraph will essentially allow anyone who entered illegally as a child and subsequently had children to stay in the US.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(c) Employment- An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing minimum age for employment.
Once the alien applies he/she is legally allowed to work. Fancy that! Who needs a guest worker program when all you have to do is go to school or join the army?

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(b)    Penalty- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
I’m not completely sure but I think this is a clause that will prohibit the oversight of this program by anyone outside of DHS and the DOJ.  That means there is no way to see what is happening behind the scenes. Who is getting a waiver, who is a hardship, how many are in the program, how many actually completed the requirements.  It is unconscionable that the federal government would legislate that a federal program cannot be audited or examined.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.


(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.
The American Tax Payer will foot the bill for the education of all these Illegal aliens getting an education. YOU have to pay for it. You have to subsidize the failure of other governments to offer economic opportunity to their citizens.
There is more in this very short proposition, I recommend everyone read it. Then ask yourself what the hell is going on in this country when not only are we rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity for an education but we may in fact end up paying for it.  Meanwhile law-abiding immigrants are essentially punished for following the law and trying to do things the right way.
Call your Senator.

LOCATION, LEGISLATION, AND IMMIGRATION: THE TRUTH BEHIND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Many people on both sides of the issue, as it relates to anchor babies and birthright citizenship, cite the 14th Amendment to support their particular view on the subject of illegal aliens and whether or not their children are citizens.  In Arizona the debate has intensified as the Legislature debates the passage of Senate Bills (SB) 1308, 1309, and 1611.  Additionally, there has been an increase in the debate of birthright citizenship and whether there is a method by which this can be changed.  There are various views of the argument; some argue that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right and cannot be changed without a Constitutional Convention, while I would argue that, in fact, birthright citizenship is statutory in nature and the only requirement to change the status quo is for Congress to clarify the existing statutes through legislation.  That is the argument which I will lay out in this article.

First, here are some facts that should be taken into consideration when discussing the issue.

1.   The power of establishing naturalization statutes lies with the Legislative Branch under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”

2.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed and became law in April, 1866; it redefined the requirements for citizenship eligibility as it pertained to slaves, former slaves and children of slaves and specifically excluded “Indians not taxed.”

3.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9^th, 1868. It was designed to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War. 

4.  The 14th Amendment, through the jurisdiction clause, did not give citizenship rights to everyone born in the United States, and did not retroactively apply to all peoples in the US at the time. 

Now, let’s step through the events logically.

The Constitution clearly stipulates that naturalization is a power held by the Legislative Branch of the government.  As such, it is Congress that decides who can and cannot become a citizen, and under which circumstances citizenship can be granted.  Congress is responsible for the regulations of citizenship and modifications of those regulations.  If Congress is empowered by the Constitution to establish the “Rule of Naturalization” then it cannot be said that citizenship, whether it be birthright citizenship or naturalization, is a Right as set forth in the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 was passed two years before the 14th Amendment.  This means that Congress had granted citizenship to all emancipated slaves and their children two years before the 14th Amendment was ratified.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically excluded “Indians not taxed” to avoid giving citizenship to Indians who were members of tribes on reservations who were members of those sovereign “Indian nations.”   Indians born within the United States (boundaries) were not considered and were not extended citizenship rights; presumably because they did not have allegiance to the US, rather to their tribe.  The point here is that the determination of citizenship was statutory, since at the time of passage of the Civil Rights act of 1866 the 14th Amendment did not exist.  Again, this is evidence that citizenship is granted through statutory regulation rather than as a direct consequence of the 14th Amendment.

This begs the question: If slaves were already citizens why was the 14th amendment necessary?  I think it is safe to say that Congress wanted to codify into the Constitution the provisions passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving citizenship rights and immunities to the newly emancipated slaves after the Civil War.   By codifying these rights into the Constitution it would prevent any future congress from changing the naturalization statutes in the future and void or jeopardize the rights of emancipated slaves by simple majorities.

During the debate over the amendment Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States": [E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction.”   Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained the jurisdiction requirement as: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois said that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant subject to its 'complete' jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The very real and relevant point about the ratification of the 14th Amendment is that (there is no mention of slaves or Native Indians) it did not grant citizenship to everyone in the United States by edict.  Native Indians were not granted or considered citizens as a consequence of the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th Amendment was passed it made no mention of excluding Native Indians, nevertheless, it was plainly understood that Native Indians had not previously been citizens nor were they granted citizenship as a result of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  Native Indians, although born in the territory of the United States were not considered US Citizens.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) the Supreme Court ruled that Native Indians were not citizens and that individuals could not become citizens merely by declaring themselves so: “But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”  The justices go on to point out that: “Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”  This case established the precedent on citizenship issues as they relate to birthright citizenship.   As a matter of fact, in 1919 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act.  This act provided that American Indians who had participated in World War I and had been honorably discharged could apply for and subsequently be granted citizenship.  So even into the early 20th Century Indians, although born in the United States Territory, were not considered Citizens nor automatically granted that privilege under the law.  And it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress passed the Indian Citizen Act which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.  This was done through statute and passed by Congress, it was then that Native Indians gained birthright citizenship in the United States. 

Subsequent decisions are cited to support the idea that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right, particularly US v. Wong Kim Ark.  But even though Wong was granted naturalization based on his birth in the United States, his parents were legally present in the country through a treaty with China, at least part of the decision rested on his perceived allegiance to the United States vis a vis China.  It can be said that Wong was wrongly decided since immigration and naturalization was expressly prohibited in the treaty with China at the time and it was understood that Chinese workers were still subjects of China.  But even this decision acknowledged the right of Congress to legislate naturalization laws. 

Additionally, the argument that you are citizen based on the physical location of your birth is not recognized by any other nation.  It is contrary to common law as it has been understood for hundreds of years.  A person’s citizenship is always based on his parents’ status.  This is why the US government has written legislation to accommodate children born in foreign countries and those born to Military servicemen overseas, among many others; because other countries do not automatically recognize the child born as a citizen of their respective countries unless one of the parents is a national of that country.  There was even an act granting citizenship to Mexicans who elected to reside in the US after the War with Mexico; otherwise those people would have remained Mexican citizens.  The presumption is that a child inherits his citizenship from his parents.  This idea is not new and it is disingenuous to believe or to argue otherwise.  Just because a child is born in Germany does not make him German, in order to be a citizen he must be born to parents who are subject to German law.  And one cannot ignore hundreds of years of jurisprudence because it suits his agenda.

All of the arguments notwithstanding look at the “jurisdiction” clause and ask yourself whether or not illegal immigrants in this country are truly under the jurisdiction of the United States.  To answer that question, one must wonder why illegal immigrants often call the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.  If they are claiming citizenship for their children (because they are presumably under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14^th Amendment), they would, by definition, have no allegiance to Mexico; why would they call a foreign diplomatic corps for assistance?  Probably because we all know instinctively that allegiance to your country, no matter who you are, is much more than the physical location of your birth.

Much, much more…