Immigration Transformation

by: the Common Constitutionalist (special thanks to Mark Levin)

We are a nation of Immigrants. Of course, so is almost every other nation. So what?

That is the line and argument for a “Comprehensive Immigration” policy, is it not. This throwaway line comes not only from the left, but the right.

They say that even those who founded are nation were immigrants. Yours and my forefathers were immigrants. True enough. Again, so what?

One has to make a giant leap to arrive at the conclusion that there is therefore a moral equivalent between legal and illegal immigration. But the leap is made nonetheless.

Mark Levin reminds us to always go back and look at our founding documents for guidance. The answer is usually there. And of course it is. The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Can anyone tell me who amongst the legally governed, other than our Dictator in chief, consented to defacto blanket amnesty for 1 million or so illegals by Obama’s decreed “deferred action”?

As an aside, bully for Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for standing up to this tyrant.

The Declaration also gives a handy little solution to this dilemma. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” That’s the crux of this upcoming election. We can take a big step toward the abolition of the current governing body this November.

The progressives, both left and right, tell us that today’s illegal immigrants are the moral equivalent to all other immigrants that came before. As Levin says, the illegal is portrayed as somehow being more virtuous than even American citizens. They are people of faith, hard working and strong in family values. Traits not shared with us citizens, apparently.

So how did we get here? What was the genesis of this upside down thinking?

It was 1965, during the Lyndon Johnson administration. Like his progressive predecessors, Johnson’s “Great Society” would fundamentally transform this nation, forever altering immigration policy in this country.

Johnson signed the Hart-Celler act in 1965. It was to be the beginning of the “new” immigration structure. Johnson claimed in his signing speech that, “When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no one to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong enough to clear the land, were they enduring enough to make a home for freedom, and were they brave enough to die for liberty if it became necessary to do so?” He neglected to add that we were not yet a nation with an elected government charged with protecting and defending our borders. But hey, what do I know.

He added, “This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here.”

Our old buddy the late senator Ted Kennedy added on the floor of the senate, that, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” He added, “The entire mix of this country will not be upset.”

He, of course, was either wrong or intentionally lying. I vote for the latter.

The 1965 act abolished national quotas in favor of what we call chain-migration. This gave preference to relatives of residents (family unification) over applicants with special skills.  Facts are facts and the facts are that since 1965, immigrants to the United States are poorer, less educated & less skilled, and those are the legal immigrants.

This liberalization of our immigration policy gave rise to an increase of illegal immigration.

Cesar Estrada Chavez was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Believe me, he was no conservative.

In the sixties Chavez strongly opposed illegal immigration saying that it undermined his ability to unionize farm workers, improve conditions and wages for the American worker. The union would even report illegals to the feds. How far we’ve come in a short 47 years, eh?

In 1969, Chavez along with Walter Mondale (yes, that Walter Mondale) organized a march on the southern border protesting farmers’ use of illegals. Imagine that happening today. That’s progress, I guess.

Then there is the misuse of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they always cite. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…” The Statists (as Levin calls them) always neglect the, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the amendment. The amendments purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born here and owed sole allegiance to this country. The American Indians did not have the same right, due to their allegiance to tribal jurisdiction. They were excluded by the 14th amendment.

One cannot be conferred citizenship by their mere presence. Diplomats and other foreign visitors to this country who happen to give birth here are not granted automatic citizenship. Why? Because the parents aren’t subject to this country’s jurisdiction and owe no allegiance to the U.S. They, of course, are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country.

The illegal or even the legal immigration problem we have today can be summed up this way. Statists in the sixties are really no different than the ones that rule us today. Whether it is through healthcare or as this article documents, immigration, it’s always the same, the unending want to fundamental transform America.  They will bend and pervert the Constitution and rule of law however they need to, to accomplish it.

Attribution: Mark Levin

Illegal is the New Legal

by:

Barack Obama has already said he is not going to enforce the law of the land concerning illegal immigrants, which should make him eligible for impeachment, among other charges. But even as I write this article the Obama administration is preparing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by the end of the month. It will just cost them $465.

ABC News reports, using the term “undocumented worker” to refer to illegal immigrants to be politically correct,

The Department of Homeland Security today announced details of the application and approval process for the DREAM Act-like program, outlining specific eligibility requirements and a $465 fee. It will begin Aug. 15.

Illegal immigrants younger than 30 who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years continuously, attend or have graduated from high school or college, and have no criminal convictions are eligible to submit requests for so-called deferred action (legalese for an official exemption from deportation).

The administration said documentation provided by each applicant will be reviewed individually on a case-by-case basis at one of four service centers run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It’s unclear how long each review will take, but some immigrants are expected to receive temporary legal status before Election Day.

While the “dreamers” will not obtain a path to citizenship or the right to vote, Obama’s policy shift – circumventing Congress with executive action – has been widely seen as a politically motivated nod to Hispanics who have long sought the change.

No! Really? a polically motivated nod by this adminstration? I”m shocked! Of course it’s politically motivated.

Janet Napolitano claimed this was a process of compassion and common sense. In a statement, Napolitano said,

“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner. But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.

Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”

The problem is that they are not enforcing immigration laws and Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden and declared that he wasn’t. Now we find the administration is going to punish one of their own for doing just what she is talking about: enforcing immigration laws.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith put his finger on what the real issue is when he said,

“Today’s deferred action guidance is another example of how the president’s policies put the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.”

“On the same day the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent, the Obama administration announced a requirement for illegal immigrants to apply to be able to work in the U.S. The administration’s guidelines don’t just encourage illegal immigrants to work in the U.S., they actually require them to apply to do so.”

Exactly right Mr. Chairman. Talk is cheap. Now stop him. You guys are Congress after all and you are the ones that make law, not the President.

Not only is Obama looking to stack the deck with illegals, but he’s also making a quick buck at it. I’m wondering just where that $465 per illegal is going to end up. Isn’t anyone else curious?

Morphing Reid

Harry Reid on Illegal Immigration in 1993:

And now Harry in 2011 after spending far too much time in Washington DC, insulated from the real world:

Harry on, “Audit the Fed”, 1995

Here’s Harry just a few years ago as he’s up for relection:

Now Harry has a chance to realize his decades old dream to audit the fed and:

Standing “O” for the Chief Justice

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So the Supreme Court, or should I say 5 of them, in conjunction with King Barack, Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and Eric “The Red” Holder, have granted defacto amnesty to those who invade the state of Arizona and most likely, the rest of the country. What’s to stop them now? Like a Christmas sale at Walmart, they will rush the gate. Once they are here, as long as they don’t commit a felony, they’re home free.

Which way to the voting booth?

The wizards of smart who criticize state and local government action on immigration fail to keep in mind one simple but critical point: The states have these rights.

It is preposterous to take the position that, short of federal action or the commission of a crime, governors and mayors are constitutionally powerless to deal with illegal immigrants within their states and cities. The argument that state and local governments must incur enormous fiscal and societal costs, asserting that all aspects of immigration (legal or illegal) are entirely the purview of the federal government, is constitutionally suspect, if not absurd.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should “not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and adding the corollary limiting provision that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power delegated to Congress, in this matter, seems to me, quite clear. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4 states, “Congress shall have the power… to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Plain English; no more, no less.  Naturalization and Immigration are not synonymous and must not be construed as such.

The legal definition of Naturalization: “The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.”

The legal definition of Immigration: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.

You know James Madison, the father of our Constitution. If he wanted immigration to be the sole purview of the federal government, he would have put it in there.

He did, however state the following in Federalist 45:  “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all (emphasis added) the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.”

I’d say immigration is encompassed in Madison’s statement and I’m not a Supreme Court Justice.

As the U.S. Supreme Court found more than 100 years ago in Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905), state and local police power is “an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people.” This decision followed Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122, 193 (1819), in which the Supreme Court found that those sovereign powers “proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before.”

In my opinion, the Constitution, which was ratified by a razor thin margin in the first place, would have never been, if the states knew they would had to surrender their sovereignty on this issue.

If immigration is indeed the sole responsibility of the feds, are not sanctuary cities then illegal? After all, these cities took it upon themselves to grant favorable immigration status to some, outside federal jurisdiction.

Arizona was simply trying to affirm already existing federal law.

What about other things, like the fact that some states have emission standards that are higher than the federal. Is that not illegal? How about local or state minimum wage laws that exceed the federal. Why is that legal?

I could continue to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd but I think I’ve made my point.

My frustration stems from incredulity. How is it that a clear majority of Americans agree with Arizona, yet congress does nothing? A nation of well over 300 million people could be ruled by so few. 5 in this case.

Buckle up. It may get worse come Thursday! Our lives literally hang in the balance.

Attribution: Matt Mayer at Heritage

Deja Vu, All Over Again

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

Attribution: Weekly Standard

Just Say NO, to Ron Paul

Federal Reserve:

I absolutely agree with Ron Paul. Shut down the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson created it. I need to consider nothing more. Anything enacted by the Wilson administration is de facto, bad for the country.

Abortion:

Mr. Paul has stated he is firmly pro-life. I believe him. He also says it is not the purview of the Federal Government. The congressman believes life begins at conception but reluctantly says it is a States Rights issue, citing the Tenth Amendment.

I wasn’t aware that the murder of innocents was an issue at all. Who but a psycho would be in favor of murdering innocent people? If you believe life begins at conception, and when else would it begin, you can’t also believe that a State has the right to pass it’s own law condoning murder. It’s kind of a Ten Commandment issue, which trumps even our Constitution.

Death Penalty:

Ron Paul admits he was pro-death penalty & is now opposed to the death penalty, chiefly out of fear than an innocent person may be sentenced to death.

Michael Moore, He's right on every Issue!

I am pro-death penalty personally. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Could a mistake be made? Absolutely! Humans are not perfect. Overwhelmingly the evidence against a death row inmate is so compelling as to prevent the mistake. Many have said my position is inconsistent. How could anyone be pro-life & pro-death penalty? What about the whole, “Thou shall not murder [kill]”? Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The death penalty is not.

Illegal Immigration:

I agree with Paul, that illegal immigration should be attacked economically first. Stop all federal funding for illegals. No welfare, food stamps, free hospital care, etc. If you give things away, you’ll have more people lining up for the giveaways. Take away the incentive to stay here & they’ll leave.

He is against amnesty. I agree with that.

He does not support deportation. I support deportation. The Congressmen stated, “Sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home–isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen”. I disagree. By taking away the financial incentives, that number would be reduced greatly.

Foreign Policy:

This is the biggie. I am not at all a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s not only flawed, but also dangerous. I concur that troops should come home, but not for the same reasons. I also think our troops should leave Afghanistan immediately.

He states, “There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”

I agree with him that most of the conflicts we’ve become entangled in are useless and unconstitutional. If however, the cause is Constitutionally justified, the cost should be immaterial. I hope he would agree.

Regardless of my agreement with him on a lot of domestic spending issues, his isolationism and stance on Iran and Israel absolutely disqualifies him for any consideration as the nominee.

While the President and Congress, together, control domestic issues, foreign policy is much more the authority of the Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief.

I could agree with Ron Paul’s stance on every domestic issue, but when I cannot trust the judgment of our Commander in Chief, he is eliminated from consideration, period.

The Migration of Newt, Back to the Left

Newt has officially lost me. I was starting to warm to the idea of supporting him. He has had so many strong debate performances; one couldn’t help but to want to jump on board.

For the longest time I called Newt a convenient Conservative, meaning he spoke as a conservative when it was popular & convenient to do so. Whenever he started to get pushback, he was able to eruditely move back toward the mushy middle.

He has fooled me for the last time. I have had enough. I will not support Newt. If he becomes the nominee, of course I will vote for him, holding my nose, once again. I would vote for Spongebob Squarepants rather than Obama.

During last night’s debate Gingrich morphed into a George Bush, compassionate conservative clone. His answer to an illegal immigration question jolted me out of my mesmerized state. I guess I should thank him for snapping me back to reality.

He argued the children of illegal immigrants should not be ripped away from their families. He said that he did not believe Americans wanted to take people who have lived in the country for 25 years and expel them over a crime committed long ago.

He exclaimed that we would have a hard time explaining the uprooting of an entrenched illegal that has been here for 25 years, working, paying taxes, with a family & children in school. He added that he doesn’t see how the republicans, who claim to be the party of the family, could destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining it. It’s quite easy. Here it is.
Mr. or Ms. Illegal; You’ve broken the law for 25 years. Now you’ll finally be punished. It will be your choice to break up your family because of it. Here’s a solution; Take your family with you.

For illegal aliens to live & work in this country, there are only 2 possible scenarios, both unlawful (3, if you count MS 13). You are either committing tax evasion by working here illegally or committing identity theft (fraud) by using someone else’s Social Security number to pay said taxes. Pick your poison.

John Adams said, “ We are a nation of laws, not of men”. Obey the law or change the law. Don’t just ignore the law.

I also don’t wish to hear that Ronald Reagan did it.

Sorry, but it's a fact. I don't like it either.

He screwed up. He believed the lies that were told to him by the democrats about sealing the border, which of course, never happened. Shame on him for believing the dems. He made a mistake.

A few more questions: What if they have been here for less than 25 years? 25 seems like a rather arbitrary number.
What if, after all this time, they still can’t speak English?
When citizens get sentenced to prison, don’t they get ripped from their families? What if the illegal has no family?

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney said that illegals should be able to sign up for residency & a path to citizenship. Newt didn’t go that far. He was very careful not to mention anything about citizenship, just someway to make them legal.

This is pulled directly from Newts New Hampshire Campaign emailing, The Daily Newt: “Newt does not believe we have a binary choice between forcibly deporting 11 million people or letting them all stay. Newt recognizes that in some cases where people have lived in the United States for 20-25 years, have had children here, have joined churches and civic groups, and have OTHERWISE lived law-abiding lives, we are unlikely to forcibly deport them but find a way to make an exception for such families, and regularize their status without providing citizenship.”

It continues, “One idea for how to handle such humanitarian exceptions proposed by Gingrich is to empower local communities with the authority to allow those with long-established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, kind of like Selective Service System boards, we will send home those without 20-25 years of residency here and family and community ties.”

Who will be the arbiter of that policy? Arbiter, “Mr. Illegal, have you been here for at least 20 years?” Mr. Illegal, Oh Sí!” Arbiter, “Ok, you may stay”.

Yes, and once they somehow become legal or “regularized”; of course it will end there. No one will ever push it to the next logical conclusion, citizenship. Right.

Mr. Speaker; Madame Pelosi is waiting for you to join her on the couch again.