One Way for an Illegal Alien to Come Out of the Shadows

by: the Common Constitutionalist

We’ve all heard the identity theft commercials from companies like LifeLock. When you pull up their site, you are treated to the following: “1 in 4 People Have Experienced Identity Theft.”

And they ain’t just whistling Dixie. Several years ago, I too was one of the unfortunate 1 in 4 Identity theft victims. I guess, I should be more specific. Thankfully my identity wasn’t stolen, but one of my bank accounts was hacked and virtually cleaned out in short order. I felt very angry and violated. I still don’t how it occurred, but thank heavens it hasn’t happened again.

So I feel for anyone else who has experienced it. But that was really nothing compared to a true identity theft. Identity theft is as the name describes, where someone can literally become you, for all intents and purposes. And it’s becoming much more common, which is why companies like LifeLock are in demand.

In cases of true identity theft , it can take years, even decades to clear your name completely and in some cases it never happens.

One such hard-case is that of a clean cut, model American citizen from Grand Prairie Texas, Marcus Calvillo who was in his early 20s when his problems began. He is now 46. read more

A Poorly Designed Fence Certainly Can’t Keep Them Out

By: the Common Constitutionalist

You may recall almost exactly three years ago, four politicians, two republicans and two democrats, departed Washington D.C. and headed to Arizona. The four ventured to the Southwest to tour the Mexico/Arizona border.

As Senators John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Flake and Michael Bennett walked a section of the 18 foot high fence, they witnessed something rather astonishing (at least to them).

No one would have believed it except that Senator McCain tweeted, “Just witnessed a woman successfully climb an 18 ft bollard fence a few yards from us in #Nogales.”

He added: “Border Patrol successfully apprehended her, but incident is reminder that threats to our border security are real.” You don’t say John. Maybe she was just coming over to do a job that an American won’t. Now, who once said that? Oh, that’s right – it was you Johnny.

Still, you’d like to think an incident like that would have had enough of an effect on even the most hardcore democrat to at least cause them to question their pro-illegal stance. But no – not even this harsh reality could convince them we have a “border security” problem. read more

Podcast – Marco Rubio Mega Flip Flop – Mike Huckabee Campaign On Life Support

Marco Rubio is not who he seems. A mere five years ago he was a self-proclaim anti-amnesty, anti-illegal immigration warrior. He said so in a 2010 interview and you’ll hear it for yourself, straight from Rubio’s mouth. So what happen to Marco?

I also discuss poor Mike Huckabee, whose presidential campaign has all but taken its last breath. But who will Huckleberry support? Listen and find out. read more

Four American Presidents Conducted Deportations

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Trump is a blowhard. Let’s just admit it. He’s a loud mouth. But that doesn’t mean one can’t still be a Trump supporter. Frankly, if he’s right on the issues, who cares if he’s a blowhard.

Well, he’s not right on all issues. So why is he still so popular? Why does he remain at the top of the heap despite bashing everyone but his mother? It’s uncivilized they say. Yet none of that appears to matter due to two little words: Illegal Immigration. That’s it.

Although I’m not a Trumpster, I was glad someone finally brought up president Eisenhower and “Operation Wetback,” during the last debate. We “republicans” are supposed to be up on the issues, but I’ll wager 90% in the audience or viewing on TV didn’t know about Eisenhower’s very successful deportation program.

Well, Bill O’Reilly, on behalf of his “folks,” did not take too kindly to Trump invoking the name of Ike. Business Insider writes that the “Eisenhower program has a dark history – including its name, ‘Operation Wetback,’ a derogatory slur. Of course they neglect to mention that in 1950s parlance, the term “wetback” was more factual than merely derogatory, nor did they care a wit about politically correct speech.

And according to CNN, the 1950s-era transfer process resulted in a number of Mexican migrants dying along the way.” They are attempting to make us believe this deportation was the Mexican Trail-of-Tears? read more

Not a Closet Trump Supporter

by: the Common Constitutionalist

It seems lately I’ve spent an awful lot of time defending the Trumpster, Donald Trump. And frankly, I’ve gotten some feedback that I’m just a closet Trump supporter.

Well, I am, but only on one, maybe two issues. There is his position on illegal immigration, as well as his stance on the military, which is good, as he proclaims that were going to rebuild it – make it powerful again. He also claims he will take care of veterans and that’s great news, depending on how he intends to do it. The rest of his platform, if you can call it that, seems to me to be a lot of ethereal nonsense.

What he never says is how or even if he plans to shrink the government. Which departments does he want to shrink – which does he want to get rid of? He doesn’t have town hall type gatherings, so no one can question him about it. Now this may be because he draws such huge crowds, or it may be by design.

Rush Limbaugh had a segment on his show yesterday, where he spoke that the Republican “brain trust” is warning voters that Trump is just an empty suit. Like Obama in 2008, he has simply mesmerized voters. Rush describes the Republicans as warning us that “Donald J Trump has cast a spell over otherwise well-intentioned and good people who are so fed up and so angry and so marginalized and feel so left out that they are willing to support what may end up destroying the country just to get even with what happened to them eight years ago.”

Rush is indeed right about the Republicans warning us, but the problem is, that none of the same wizards-of-smart warned us about Obama. They didn’t care in 2008, because they already had their establishment guy in John McCain, and that’s the only reason they are warning us now. Their establishment darling, Bush, is getting trounced. read more

Why Do Conservatives Support Trump?

By: the Common Constitutionalist

One reason for Trump’s popularity is the “what have you done for me lately” effect. Over the years we’ve all been witness to and have even supported republican candidates who, when they started out, were conservative, went to Washington and within a term or two, moderated their views to the point where they just fold into the establishment wing. Hacks are not born – they are made.

This is why Trump didn’t get buried over the John McCain dust-up. McCain was a war hero and Reagan revolutionary. Now he’s a hack, and it’s how most voters see him. What has John done for us lately?

Heck, even some of the most rabid leftist democrats, started their national political careers far right of where they are now.

For example: Recall Harry Reid’s anti-illegal immigration floor speech that sounded a lot like The Donald, or Mark Levin, or me. In 1993 he even introduced a bill (title) to “clarify” the 14th Amendment.

Here is the Reid Title:

…the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of [Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth. S.1351, Sec.1001 

And son of a gun if Reid didn’t have it exactly right. I guess he really does know his Constitution – or did, when he wrote: “shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…” read more

Our Fiscal and Physical Health Depend upon Illegals Staying Here

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Last week the Fiscal Times posted an article in favor of illegal immigration, or as the left likes to say – undocumented workers, or now – residents. And what is the argument in their favor this time?

Well, they write that, “Back in April, a study of the fiscal implications of illegal immigration may be notable finding that millions of undocumented workers were paying billions of dollars in state and local taxes and that considerably more revenue might be generated if President Obama succeeded in protecting many of them from deportation. The 50 state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found at about 8.1 million of the 11.4 million illegal immigrants who were employed paid in excess of $11.8 billion state and municipal taxes in 2012.”

Did you catch that? That’s right – “might” (or might not) generate more revenue. Not “will” generate more revenue. They tried to sneak that one by us.

Question: How are all those illegal immigrant children that Obama is protecting from deportation “generating” any revenue? I thought we had child labor laws. Another question: The numbers tabulated by the Institute are awfully specific considering no one can give us an accurate accounting of how many illegals are even here. For the past several years the number has remained the same at around 11 million. Maybe they use the same government accounting method that allows the national debt to remain the same for approaching 200 days.

Anyway, the objective of the Fiscal Times exercise was to convince us that illegals are not “freeloaders.” In other words – believe the Fiscal Times, and not the obvious – that they will cost much more than they will ever contribute. read more

The Dynamism of Illegal Immigration

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you noticed how it is typical of anyone and everyone either in government, or pundits who work for or report on those in government, to judge and score everything on a static basis?

The static model is that if we raise people’s taxes, the government will take in more money. Never do they figure on the dynamic response to a tax increase. Some will just pay it, while some will seek to shelter their money – and others will lose their jobs because of the increase, and therefore not pay the increase – and so on. As such we end up with a net loss, not gain in revenue.

The same goes for tax cuts. The people who whine about tax cuts always do so by judging the outcome statically, or as a zero sum game. If there is a winner, there must be loser – an equal and opposite reaction, which is never the case. They can’t, or won’t, comprehend the dynamism that tax cuts actually increase revenue.

And now the left, the establishment right, and the pundits who serve them are using the same argument for illegal immigration, not to mention tugging on our heart strings.

Charles Krauthammer did just that on the O’Reilly Factor 3 days ago. He told Bill O’Reilly that once you build a wall and get the “flow of illegals down to a trickle” – at that point “what do you do about the 11 million illegal immigrants living here.” read more

Was Eisenhower an Immoral Angry White Man?

By: the Common Constitutionalist

There are things about Donald Trump’s immigration platform I like, and are doable, and things that are kind of absurd and unconstitutional – not to mention progressive.

Building the Trump Wall across the southern border with a few large doors is a good idea. I think most reasonable conservatives would agree. However, making Mexico pay for it is both ridiculous and unrealistic. I suppose he could try, but mostly I think it’s just populist bombast that sells good to the public. I guess is supposed to show how tough he is.

But tariffs, remittance payments and trade restrictions will not nor should they pay for the wall. We can blame Mexico and Central American countries, but we did this to ourselves, so we should pay for it.

What many Republicans are really supporting – what supporters are jazzed about is not just the wall but his idea to deport all illegal invaders. That, and end all sanctuary cities. And on this point, the left, the moderates, and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party are spastic.

Ross Kaminsky at the American Spectator echoes the establishment voice quite nicely as he writes: “Mr. Trump wants to remove all illegal aliens from the United States. This is, of course, impossible and, even if it were possible, an outrageous waste of tens or hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. When asked by Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press if he should split up families in which one or more of the parents is an illegal alien but their children are US citizens, Trump said no, clarifying in one of the most reprehensible statements I have heard from an American candidate for public office. ‘We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go.’”

While I agree that you can’t just deny the existence of the 14th amendment and deport citizens, I would have preferred that The Donald follow-up his infamous “they have to go” statement with the citizen has a choice. As a citizen, he or she (assuming they are not transgendering) may stay in this country or feel free to leave with your illegal family. It’s your choice. Sure, it’s not their fault that their parents, or whomever is here illegally, but it’s not ours either. Yet both the left and establishment right say, as did Kaminsky, that even the suggestion is immoral. read more

Food Banks and Illegal Immigrants – Any Connection?

By: the Common Constitutionalist

A few weeks ago a gentleman came to my office. He asked us if we would be willing to spare some warehouse space in our building. See, this Christian charity has to expand its food bank capabilities. Being that we have some empty warehouse space, we agreed to allow him to use it.

Then, by sheer coincidence, I see this from the AP . “Food banks struggle to meet surprising demand. Food banks across the country are seeing a rising demand for free groceries despite the growing economy, leading some charities to reduce the amount of food they offer each family.”

Did I read that right? “Despite the growing economy” – really? They had to add that, didn’t they? If the economy is growing, why then is there such an explosive need for food that, “U.S. food banks are expected to give away about 4 billion pounds of food this year, more than double the amount provided a decade ago, according to Feeding America, the nation’s primary food bank network.”

The fact is that since the collapse of the “Bush” economy in 2008, some 7 1/2 years ago, there has been a steady increase, every year, in the demand for food bank items. There’s your growing economy.

The largest food pantry in Albuquerque New Mexico has seen a 15% increase in demand this year and one in Gloucester Massachusetts, “has given away 7.6% more food this summer than last.” read more