Immigration Reform and Illegal Immigration

Jeb Bush speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference stated, “Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans.” Where this may be backed by statistics it is of no importance in addressing illegal immigration. Nobody has been arguing against overhauling the current Immigration Laws in order to allow faster approval for those who wish to immigrate to the United States and meet the criteria we set. The current backlog where it takes on average a decade or more in order to obtain approval to enter the United States does nobody any measure of service. Much of this obstruction to legal immigration is very likely a reason behind some measure of those who simply choose to enter the United States illegally or by any visa they can obtain and then simply not leave when it expires. But Jeb Bush’s argument that immigrants create more businesses than native born Americans does not apply to illegal immigrants and as such is not a pertinent argument for granting amnesty to twelve to fifteen million illegal immigrants. There are great doubts that illegal immigrants are responsible for starting even a paltry dozen businesses as getting licensing and all the other required approvals to start a business is not something an illegal immigrant is likely to apply for as it would really be drawing way too much attentions and inspection by government agencies. Let’s say this and say it loud enough that all these politicians who constantly insist on making references to the great contributions made by legal immigrants and then try to pass off that the illegal immigrants would be just as productive if only they were made legal. Anybody who has attained the permits and gone through the entire gambit of government hoops and hurdles has shown simply through such perseverance that they are very likely to have the drive to succeed at any venture they may take on which would translate to their greater propensity for starting a business and making it an unadulterated success. On the other hand, an illegal immigrant has entered the United States through an illegal act and has shown a disregard for the rule of law and actually following rules and keeping the obligations expected of a legal immigrant which are not exactly the most desirable traits for somebody who is starting a business.

 

The truth of what is going to be implemented under the title of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is really a mistitled piece of legislation. The three areas which make up a comprehensive overhaul of the mess which is immigration law and the illegal component of immigrations would require enforcement of the border, streamlining and simplification of immigration law and lastly some form of either amnesty, path to citizenship or deportment for as many illegal immigrants as possible in a continuing effort to locate them. Everybody very probably will agree that we should commit to streamlining and simplification of immigration law and border enforcement. Where there is a great deal of disagreement and debate is what path we should take in dealing with the twelve to twenty million illegal immigrants currently thought to be within the United States. If one wishes to be technical about enforcement they would demand that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) put forth whatever efforts were required to locate and deport every single illegal immigrant no matter how long it would take. The only debate that people in this group might have is whether or not local and state law enforcement officers should be included in the search and detention of illegals in order to assist ICE and how much leeway should be allowed if their assistance is desirable. Then there is the debate for the more lenient who believe that the vast majority of the illegal immigrants deserve to be allowed to remain and become citizens. The question here is whether these illegal immigrants deserve blanket amnesty or should be required to go through a procedure in order to attain citizenship and exactly what such a path to citizenship should be required. The one requirement that those who would prefer deportation of all or the vast majority of illegal immigrants would likely demand that there be no possibility for blanket amnesty but that there should be an arduous and intricate set of requirements and some monetary fee imposed in order for any illegal immigrant to attain citizenship. It is also likely that other than those for blanket amnesty would also desire that any illegal immigrant who has a felony record be deported or passed through some very serious and in depth assessment before being rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

 

The considerations over how to treat the existing illegal immigrants should not be undertaken before the border has been hermetically sealed. The reason should be obvious even to the most casual of observers, but just in case, closing the border first and preventing any further increase to the numbers of illegal immigrants, and especially if amnesty is still being considered is absolutely necessary to prevent a flood of new illegal immigrants attempting to gain entry and try to utilize the amnesty system to gain citizenship. Should amnesty be granted it must be the absolute amnesty ever granted and the amnesty offer should have a set time limit after which the offer be withdrawn. There should be a path necessitating each undocumented immigrant to perform certain actions, meet certain specific requirements and possibly pay back taxes and/or pay a processing fee or fine for having broken United States immigration laws. No matter what is chosen as the way the illegal immigrants will be handled, the offer should require voluntary reporting within ninety days or some similar period after which any illegal immigrant caught will not be offered any deal and will be deported. As far as closing the border to future illegal immigration, this should be done with the utmost intentions and seriousness.  A double or even triple fence completed with raked sand between the fences which will immediately show any crossing making detection of trespass readily detectable should be erected. There should be sensors placed liberally throughout the border areas which are capable of detecting tunneling and there should be randomly scheduled ground-penetrating-radar sweeps conducted along the borders so that no matter how deep any tunnels are excavated they will be detected. And as the final deterrent that will demonstrate that the United States border is most definitively to be inviolate, place the United States Army and Marines stationed on the borders. This could be easily accomplished simply by placing every Infantryman and Marine on the border for six months immediately after they have completed their basic training. The ranking NCOs and Officer Corps would be chosen to assure that these troops have absorbed their training and understand military rules and discipline which was intended to be imparted by their basic training. This would benefit the newly trained troops as they would get practical experience utilizing the tactics and disciplines of their initial training by carrying out a set of tasked missions before they might be required to be placed in a far more hostile environment. This is not an unusual manner in border enforcement as it is the method used by many countries, if not most countries. By utilizing well trained Military troops the Border Patrol Forces would be freed to operate and man border crossings and free others up for ICE enforcement as well as allowing for increased border enforcement at our ports, airfields, and other entry points for cargo and people. Also, finally the Immigration and Custom Services would have sufficient personnel freed up to actually monitor those here on student visas, temporary work visas, visitor’s visas or other limited term visas such that we no longer have foreigners overstaying their visas or violating the limitations of their visas such as the thousands of people with student visas who never reported to the school in which they were presumably to be registered with. But since for disparate reasons both parties appear to have a fairly large percentage of politicians who desire and approve of allowing illegal immigrants to violate the laws of the land we can expect the final solutions they implement will have two very distinct properties, first they will have either straight amnesty or unenforced minor requirements defining the path to citizenship and second there will be no honest intent to seal the borders to the extent that it will either be unimplemented or not even defined by the bill and promising to address the border at a later date, a date that will never arrive. My bet is those who honestly care about immigration already know who the miscreants are that will refuse to serve their country and protect the Constitution that sit in Congress. My question is will those who know reveal these traitors and make sure they do not get reelected and no longer cross into the floor of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

President Obama and the United States Constitution

President Obama has made his disdain for the United States Constitution well known. He complained before his first term as United States President in an interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM in 2001 that the United States “Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” and not of positive liberties. He further explained that the Constitution “says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Keep in mind that this interpretation comes from a man who as a Professor taught courses in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, so he presumably knew what he was talking about and understood the reasons the Constitution was crafted in the manner of limiting government. Apparently Professor Obama, and we can assume President Obama, vehemently disagree with the founding fathers and their vision of limited government allowing for maximum freedoms and liberties for the people. So, perhaps we should look into the consequences of President Obama’s view of positive liberties against the founder’s ideals of negative liberties, or more accurately compare President Obama’s view of empowering government against the founder’s ideas of empowering the people.

First we will summarize the philosophies behind the founding fathers Constitutional limitations on government and how that impacts the people. The founders were strong believers in the ability of man’s capability for self-rule without having to rely on having to be ruled by their supposed betters. They were also mostly strongly religious and this enhanced their view as mankind as a noble being different from the animals and having a divine spark, a divine spirit. They believed that the Creator gave man life and with life certain rights which could not be denied by government or other men if society was to be free and have maximum liberty. As such they placed mankind above government and judged government as being a necessary evil which was best when kept as powerless as possible. Government was to only be permitted to wield those powers requested and permitted by the people. Even then, the layers of government were to have limited power by making each layer removed from the people dependent on the next closer level for its powers. Thus the people requested and allowed a set of powers to be transferred to government at the most local level which then assumed these powers and would also be tasked with adjudicating differences between contesting individuals. This local level of government would in turn permit some of these powers which were beyond their capabilities to be granted to the next level of government along with the adjudication of differences between any competing local governments. This level of the government then passed along those powers beyond their scope to the next level which also adjudicated any contentions of the lower governments. This continued until the least amount of power would be vested in the Federal Government which also adjudicated between the State Governments. Any adjudication could potentially have a judgment appealed to the next higher authority until reaching the final level of adjudications, the Supreme Court. The founders believed that all power comes from the Creator and the most powerful entity was the individual. This also implied that the individual along with the most freedoms and liberties also carried the most responsibilities. Thus, the higher up the government tree one climbs, the lesser powers relegated to each governmental level until reaching the Federal Government which would have the least power and the greatest restrictions on its powers and responsibilities of adjudication. Thus, under the United States Constitution the people are to be vested with maximum powers being permitted all responsibilities, abilities, powers and decisions with the minimal exception as listed within the Constitution. The best description was probably framed within the Bill of Rights, more specifically the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

President Obama does not believe that the government should be limited in its powers but instead believes that the government should dole out limited powers, responsibilities and options to the people while retaining maximum control at the highest levels. President Obama believes that the Constitution should empower government and dictate what it is that the government is required to perform for the people. This results in the government deciding what rights it is willing to remit to the people and what privileges it will grant to the people. As a result, the people only receive the privileges which the government determines they may be allowed and any power thus vested with the people may also be taken back by the government at their slightest whim. In President Obama’s world, the people are only granted the rights and responsibilities which the government determines or believes they are capable of while the remainder of power is retained by the government. Furthermore, the Federal Government also determines what responsibilities and powers the States are permitted who in turn decide the same for local government with the final determination of what the people are allowed granted at the local level. Since government passes down the powers, rights, responsibilities and all functions in life with strict limitations retaining the bulk of available oversights and control with itself at every level, the people are basically power starved.

The difference between the United States Constitution and President Obama’s ideas of governance are stark and somewhat counter-intuitive. When President Obama speaks about his disdain for the limitations of the constitution, he speaks that he believes that people would have more power if instead of limiting government the constitution should insist that government perform expressed function for the people. Despite intuition might have one believing that if government is commanded to provide enumerated functions for the people that the people will have more privileges and rights, the United States Constitution actually grants the people far greater flexibility, rights, powers, liberties, and responsibilities. Where President Obama’s idea of government permitting certain services to the people as demanded does allow for the people not to have to assume many, if any, responsibilities as that remains with the government as they are granting items while retaining the real control. With the Constitution written by the founding fathers begins by leaving all responsibilities with the people and as such also gives all powers, freedoms, liberties, and abilities also with the people and the people decide that which they will permit the government to possess. So, if you desire to be responsible for your own actions and taking care of your own needs and expressing yourself however you please while standing by your words, then the United States Constitution was designed for such as you. But if you wish to have all decisions and consequences taken care of by a greater power that gives you that which it decides is in your best interest and requires minimal responsibilities or efforts from you, then you would love President Obama’s world of unlimited government granting you, the people, what is best for you, well, actually granting you what is best for government.

Beyond the Cusp

Abbas Should Draw a Map Just Like Netanyahu

One of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s now world infamous preconditions is the insistence that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu deliver a map showing what the Israeli leaders foresees as the borders between Israel and Palestine. Abbas claims that until he is able to actually visualize the borders which Netanyahu is suggesting he will be unable to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile for him to meet and restart negotiations. Abbas is using this ploy so he can continue to reject one map after another claiming that Netanyahu is not serious about making peace as the map does not come anywhere near the minimal area which Abbas feels is required for the Palestinian State. By having Prime Minister Netanyahu draw such a map Abbas excuses him from having to make any demands or claims as to what he would accept leaving him to simply reject any map proposed without stating what would be acceptable. So, perhaps in all fairness Prime Minister Netanyahu should offer to exchange maps with Abbas thus having both men draw up their idea of what would make a fair border from which to begin the final border negotiations. Of course Mahmoud Abbas will refuse to exchange maps while continuing to demand that Netanyahu must submit a map to Abbas.

 

There is no doubts as to why Palestinian President Abbas will refuse to present a map of the final borders he envisions as acceptable to the Palestinians for the establishing of a final solution to the question of borders. His reason is simply as such a map already exists and is available for anybody to see. All one need do is look at the maps of Palestine in the Palestinian schoolbooks or the map behind Abbas’s desk in his office and the map of Palestine that they consider their minimal requirements are there for anybody to see. These maps all depict all of Gaza, Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and Israel as the borders for their state of Palestine. That is correct; everything from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is their envisioned state with no Israel whatsoever. That is the reason that Abbas would reject any request for him to also present a map of his vision for final borders and also why no matter what map Netanyahu might present, as long as it depicted any of the land as belonging to Israel as a Jewish State would be unacceptable to Abbas. Along with offering to present Abbas with a map if and only if Abbas returns the favor and presents his ideal map in a mutual exchange, why not also do similar offers on some of the other preconditions which Mahmoud Abbas is currently hiding behind using them as a means to avoid negotiations.

 

Where Mahmoud Abbas demands that Israel accept the Right of Return for as many as five to six million refugees, Israel could demand that Abbas admit to how many Jews who own lands in Judea and Samaria will be allowed to remain on their lands after a settlement has been reached. It is unlikely that Abbas would surprise the world and admit that the Palestinians intend to dispossess the Jews who are living or own land beyond the Green Line and refuse to allow even a single Jew to remain and become a citizen of the Palestinian State. Once Abbas has made the situation clear that there will be no Jews allowed to remain within Palestine then the Israelis can hardly be condemned for not accepting the refugees, especially all five to six million, within Israel and demanding that they only be allowed to settle in Palestine. In all truth, Israel actually holds the moral high ground on this issue as there are already sizeable Arab sectors within the Israeli population who have full rights and are found throughout Israeli society. There are Arab doctors and nurses working right next to Jewish doctors and nurses in every Israeli hospital, Arab members in the Knesset even to include some who act more for the Palestinians than they do the Israeli Arabs who elected them. There are Arab judges, Police, and soldiers in the IDF, though the Arab Israelis are not required to serve in the IDF as Israeli Jews and Druze are required to serve. You cannot find a single Jews even allowed to reside in Area A of the West Bank or within any of the Arab villages under Palestinian Authority rule.

 

While President Abbas has demanded that Israel issue a building freeze once again in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, perhaps in exchange Abbas will freeze all Palestinian building within East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and Areas B and C of the West Bank in a gesture of equality and fairness. Just as the Israelis would still be entitled to build within the Green line and only cease building in the contested lands, the Palestinian would continue to build in Area C and they would also not build within the contested lands. As for the Abbas demand that Israel agree to utilize the 1967 Lines as a reference for final borders, these are actually the Armistice Lines from 1949 which the Arabs demanded could never be used to denote a border, that the Israelis could demand that Abbas recognize that the original British Mandate was presumably for the establishment of a Jewish State and that all the lands east of the Jordan River were already ceded by the Jews to the Palestinian Arabs when they forfeited those lands for the establishment of Jordan. Should that be too difficult a pill for Abbas to swallow then there is always the compromise position that at the establishment of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 Israel possessed the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, Judea and Samaria and as required by Resolution 242 Israel had surrendered territories by returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and the disengagement from Gaza thus Israel is not technically or legally required to surrender any further lands except by mutual agreement and should Israel wish to fully exhaust their rights they could annex all of Judea and Samaria and still have satisfied all legal international requirements. There has to be a point where the truth is stated and a requirement that the actual International legal requirements are made obvious and that Israel has technically met every International requirement proposed by the United Nations and accepted by International bodies.

 

Proposing that for every precondition which Israel is requested to meet to jumpstart the peace process the Palestinians also meet a like precondition would be simply an equalizing and fairness measure. The examples above are simply that, samples, suggestions. It would be up to Israeli leadership to present proposals which they would deem as evenhanded. There are other preconditions such as the releasing of large numbers of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons, including some of those who have committed the most grievous crimes, is one demand for which I am unable to find anything which would balance such out to pose in return. The other problem with this idea is that I have little doubt that Mahmoud Abbas would not simply keep adding more preconditions to the list while ignoring the Israeli answer of preconditions of their own. Still, by proposing such return preconditions they would add into the discussion a review of what are the demands and positions on each subject the Palestinians hold. Any turning of the tables that potentially reveals the truth of the Palestinians refusal to negotiate works in Israel’s favor. Trying to tell the world that these preconditions are merely excuses not to negotiate is not accepted and will not be accepted unless Israel actually gave in on them and the Palestinians still refused to negotiate. The problem is once Israel surrenders on any point there will be no backtracking away from the conceded point. For example, if Israel commits to a building freeze for a period, say six months, in order to allow for negotiations we all know exactly what would be the response as we already danced this dance. Abbas would simply ask about another set of preconditions such as agreement on the 1967 lines for borders and the acceptance of the Right of Return for all five to six million Palestinian refugees and the prisoner release. Israel would have allowed the building freeze to be established as something that Israel is obliged to commit to in order for negotiations just as it has been pushed ever since it was introduced and forced down Israel’s throat by United States President Obama. We also need to remember that the concept of the building freeze and using the 1967 lines as the starting point for borders were both brilliant ideas introduced and proposed by President Obama, not Mahmoud Abbas. Ever since their introduction they have stuck and Abbas realizes that these two gifts from the American President are in his pocket ad infinitum. As these preconditions will never depart the scene on their own, Israel has to find some tactic to turn them back on the Palestinians and use them to reveal the duplicity behind these demands being used deceptively by the Palestinians. Turnabout is only fair as all’s fair in love and war, and if this is not one it must be the other.

 

Beyond the Cusp