SYSTEMATIC IMMIGRATION REFORM (SIR) – STEP ONE

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here in an effort to consolidate all articles in one location**

This is an open letter to Conservatives. Please stop
engaging in debates on the subject of comprehensive
immigration reform. Conservatives and anyone with common sense should oppose, not only comprehensive immigration reform, but ANY legislation where comprehensive is part of the title. This includes comprehensive banking reform, comprehensive health reform (too late for that one), comprehensive election reform, and comprehensive energy policy.

I use the example of having an old 68 mustang in your garage. You can not and will never be able to comprehensively fix that car. It is impossible. Even if you had a garage full of ASE certified mechanics and restorers, and you told them all to begin it would be impossible.

Why? Because even then they would all  be eager to get started they would only get in each others way. One group would want to jack the car up. Someone would be taking out the dash, while still others would be trying to take out the interior. It would be chaos. Yet that is what the government did with healthcare, and now wants to do with the banking industry and immigration policy.

The real answer is systematic reform. In our example, the most logical thing to do is to check the frame and ensure that it can sustain and accommodate all the rest of the subsequent repairs and/or modifications. A rebuilt engine that runs great means nothing if installed on a bent or rusting frame. It is not until after the first step that you can move on to the engine and rebuild it, install fresh gaskets, and rings and anything necessary to get running well. Once that is done you pull the transmission, etc… Usually, you go through the restoration systematically to ensure each change progresses toward the ultimate goal. Occasionally, it is to be expected that some part doesn’t quite fit or needs to be rebuilt in order for the previous repair or change to work properly within the context of the restoration.

All these concepts apply to immigration reform. The reformation/restoration of immigration policy must be done systematically. The first step is to find the area in dire need of fixing and attack that isolated problem. It will do no good to try and fix everything at once. In the case of immigration reform, the number one most pressing problem is the actual border. That is what must be fixed before any other problem can be addressed, much like the frame in our example, it does absolutely no good to write policy without first addressing the issue that makes the policy necessary in the first place.

We must build a wall! Not a virtual wall, a real 20-40 foot wall that will serve as real deterrent to illegal aliens attempting to enter into the country illegally. I would even go as far as suggesting a double wall where the first wall and second wall create a “dry moat” along the border so that those that cross over the border are

trapped between the two walls which would give border patrol agents time to intercept and detain illegal border crossers. This wall, contrary to popular belief, would not stop ALL illegal border crossers, but it would deter a great majority of them. Obviously without a wall we will never know exactly how much the deterrent effect might be, but I would speculate that it could cut illegal border crossers by 65-75 percent. Many will argue that the fence will do no good. But in a Congressional Research Service report to Congress it was reported that “After the IIRIRA’s mandate for increased enforcement along the Southwest border
in 1996, including construction of the triple-fence, apprehensions dropped rapidly in the San Diego sector in the late 1990s — from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002. The reduction in apprehensions was even more marked in the areas where fencing was constructed within San Diego sector. The USBP’s Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY2004 — a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period.” Whenever someone makes this argument they should be immediately asked why they have doors and locks on their houses and fences around their property. Physical barriers work and are very effective, period.

In order to get this done, Congress must allow for the construction of the wall in National Parks and refuges along the border. For those that argue that this would destroy habitat and the natural beauty of the environment must only be shown pictures of the devastation of garbage left by illegal border crossers to understand what really causes the destruction of the natural beauty of the desert. Congress should allow for the construction of the fence, all other laws notwithstanding. Once Congress makes the necessary exceptions to allow the construction, it should immediately introduce legislation to appropriate funds for construction of the wall. This would have some very positive effects for the nation and the economy. First, companies would have to bid and hire workers to supply the materiel, rent or buy the equipment, and install the fence. Second, the mere action of building the wall and will project a perception that the United States is shifting from tacit approval of illegal immigration to a concerted effort to enforce immigration law; this will itself create an environment whereby illegal immigrants will sense a turning of the tides and many will ultimately make a decision to self deport. Third, this will allow the border patrol to use its resources more efficiently and concentrate on the remaining illegal border crossers which are more likely to be gun traffickers, drug runners, and human smugglers.

Along with the building of the border fence Congress should simultaneously increase the budget for the Coast Guard for additional personnel and equipment to include a drastic increase of boats. What is the reason for that? Because as soon as you complete the border fence, the easiest way for illegal aliens to cross into the United States will be by boat; off the coast of San Diego and in the Gulf of Mexico in Texas.

Once the American public is assured that the borders are secure with a genuine physical deterrent, they will be more receptive to the idea of regularizing the status of those that are left in the country; but not until then! The American public has learned its lesson and will no longer accept empty promises that the border fence will be addressed and that funding will be appropriated at a future date the way they did in 1986. Americans are tired of waiting on Congress to comply with and appropriate the funds for legislation which has been signed into law such as the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Through their actions, first by the State of Arizona as stated in the new AZ1070 law, and then through their will, as reflected in poll after poll, the American people want Systematic Immigration Reform, and they will accept nothing less.

So please… Stop allowing progressives and liberals set the conditions for the argument. The only way to fix a problem, any problem, is to do so thoughtfully, deliberately, and systematically. Building the border fences is STEP I. Nothing can proceed without accomplishing that first critical step. A thousand mile journey begins with a single step… Let’s get started.

Let's elect a LATINO president.

As the race develops and candidates are throwing their hat in the ring or dropping out, there is a lot of discussion about who is the better candidate. the process has already begun to vet each of the candidates in the race for the republican nomination. The problem is that conservatives are also quickly forming into a circular firing squad. Conservatives have to resist the temptation of attacking every candidate they personally dislike and start looking for the best LATINO candidate. Nooo.... I am not waiting breathlessly for Marco Rubio, although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed if he decided to run. Nope, I have developed my own little list of qualities that I am looking for in my next president. I want him to be LATINO and nothing else will do. Call it a litmus test if you want but it is the only way I can be comfortable giving him or her my vote. Yep he/she must be LATINO.

L - Limited government - I want president who believes that government works best when it is confined to a very limited scope and authority. I want the president who believes that the federal government should not tell me what type of light bulb to buy or force me to buy health insurance that I don't want or I don't need. A federal government that will restrain itself from expanding its power over the people and its growth and cost to the American taxpayer. I want a president that will cut the size, scope and reach of government in the everyday lives of all Americans.

A -Adherence to the Constitution and to the rule of law- and by that I mean an originalist vision to the words in the constitution. For example: if the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" that's what it means. The liberal meme that there was no internet in the times of the founding fathers is moot. If all politicians, not just the president, would always adhere to and be bound by the Constitution our nation would be infinitely better off. In the same vein, we as country would be better off if we would just follow the law; from illegal immigration to “legalized” marijuana to food stamp fraud and the rest.

T - Traditional values- what I am talking about is exactly what you think I am talking about; old fashioned morality. Morality and faith in God are what this nation was founded upon, there is no way any intellectually honest person can deny that fact. And the further any society drifts from morality the more it descends into debauchery. We are seeing this happen before our eyes. When a 16 year old gets pregnant out of wedlock is celebrated while a girl who wants to remain a virgin until marriage is ridiculed, we as a society have to step back and really question what we have become. We are teaching our children that promiscuity is acceptable and even giving them the means by which they can be more so. We are teaching an entire generation that dependence on government is OK, rather than trying to instill a good work ethic and teaching the value of job well done and an honorably earned dollar. This lack of morality has decayed our institutions and our culture. Hedonism is not something we as a society and nation should strive for. We must return to an age when we looked out for each because it was the right thing to do, when honor meant something.

 

I -Individual liberty and responsibility- People should be allowed to succeed and fail on their own merits. Our next president must have the strength to leave people alone, and let each person struggle, fail and/or persevere. The government has for too long coddled the American people. What we need is tough love. If you can work then get out there and work and quit making excuses for why you can't. The federal government has slowly and almost imperceptibly made great strides in denying its citizens their liberty through taxation and regulation. Americans seeking to better their lot are hamstrung and restrained by the power of government bureaucracies and mountains of regulations. Meanwhile many Americans are encouraged to neglect their responsibilities as parents, husbands and fathers through a myriad of social programs, which in the end only encourages more dependence on government and further inhibits liberty and opportunity.

N -National defense that is strong, flexible, and dynamic- It only makes sense. Peace through strength is the only real solution. When America shows weakness there is always some despot who will try and poke a stick in her eye. I am by no means giving the DoD carte blanche but there is no doubt that our military should be the most modern, best equipped, best trained fighting force on the planet. The freedoms we enjoy are only sustainable so long as the American military continues to be the premier fighting force in the world and America continues to be a respected super-power.

O - Open markets and free trade- The world is a market and there is one indisputable fact in life: Competition is the incubator for better, less expensive, higher quality goods and services. The next president must realize that the federal government has, for over 70 years, disrupted the free market capitalist system in the United States through subsidies and federal government programs which pick winners and losers. This includes farm subsidies, taxes code loopholes, grants of every sort, as well as laws written to benefit one industry over another, and certain groups of people over others. This must stop. Any time the government at any level interferes or manipulates the market, the only people hurt are consumers, and by that I mean everyone. I want a president that believes in the ingenuity and industriousness of the American people. A president that trusts not only people, but the market to do the right thing. I want a president that believes the power of the market is stronger than the power of government to act in the best interest of people.

A LATINO candidate will be sure to cut across demographic boundaries and should be supported by social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, TEA Party activists, Independents, as well as minorities.

It is time to make history and elect our first LATINO president.

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!

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…

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " AGAINST ARIZONA

Immigration has become a hot issue once again with the introduction of SB1308, SB1309, and SB1611 in Arizona.  The problem is that confusion and distraction has been created as the State of Arizona tries to address the illegal immigration problem by passing legislation to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Arizona or encourage illegal aliens to leave.  The subsequent court battles then surround the constitutional issue of “birth-right citizenship” and the issue surrounding the 14th Amendment.  But this does not allow for a real and substantive discussion about the real issues. 

 The illegal immigration problem is made to be complex but, in fact, is relatively simple.  It can be summed up thusly:  The federal government of the United States has ignored its responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the “common defence.” Interestingly the "common Defence" is one of the primary reasons for establishing the Constitution in the first place.

By ignoring the illegal immigration crisis on the southern border of the US the federal government has put the “common defence” in jeopardy.  There is no logical argument that can be made that this is not the case.  The Federal government knows the territories of the US are threatened by criminals both foreign and domestic, so much so, that it has erected signs in the Arizona desert warning US citizens that the areas may be monitored and patrolled by members of Drug cartels (here), (here), (here).
 
Providing for the “Common Defence” is one of the powers of Congress under Article I Section 8.  It is the duty of the legislature to accomplish this; through statute and appropriations.  This is a major failing of our government and of the officials our nation has sent to Washington to represent us.
 
Under Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution the States are guaranteed that the Republican Form of Government “shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”  There is little doubt that Arizona is victim to both an invasion and “domestic Violence” as it relates to illegal immigrants crossing the international sovereign border of the United States and committing violence inside the boundaries of the US.  Border Security should be the priority effort, both at the Federal and State level.  The Federal government is the guarantor from “domestic Violence” against the States, and Arizona and other states should demand that the Federal government make good on that guarantee.

The single most effective method of coming closer to solving the illegal immigration morass and making good on the guarantee to protect the nation from "domestic violence" and ensure the "common Defence" is to build a physical barrier along the border with Mexico. 
 
A physical barrier/fence/moat will greatly decrease the amount of illegal aliens crossing the border.  According to a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007, data shows that after the construction of a triple-fence in the San Diego sector apprehensions dropped from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002.  The US Border Patrol’s “Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY 2004 – a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period.”   And the results for the San Diego sector could be even starker but the fence in the sector can’t be completed due to environmental concerns.  

But the average American doesn’t need studies and reports to validate what we all know intuitively.  Physical barriers work.  There is a reason that “Good fences make good neighbors.”  That is why we have doors on our houses, fences around our yards and gates around our neighborhoods.  We use physical barriers every day, in all aspects of our lives.  You need a badge to access some work areas; everyone must pass through security at the court house and the airport; there are vehicle gates at parking garages, parks and businesses.   The argument that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano made when she said; “show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder” is specious at best.  Like Secretary Napolitano, many argue that the fences don’t deter illegal border-crossers, that they will just go to where there is no fence.  But that is entirely the point.  Fences work, period.  A continuous fence would work better.  A continuous double or triple fence with concertina wire at the top and all along the back side would work best.
 
The state of Arizona should force the Federal government to uphold the guarantee stipulated in Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution and put forth an “Application of the Legislature” against domestic Violence.   Take this official step and force the Federal Government to directly and explicitly either comply with or ignore the founding document of our Nation and our Republic.

At least, that way Arizonans will know whether the Federal Government and this administration stand with them or with the illegal criminals crossing the borders everyday.