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

Do You Love Big Brother Yet?

If you are among those who do not believe that the Federal Government has not achieved the equivalence of the Big Brother qualities from George Orwell’s book “1984”, then you probably disagree with Tea Party conservatives, not that that is necessarily wrong. It is very likely that most Tea Party chapters would probably disinvite me from their membership within a year if I were to join one of their chapters. That aside, the scandals currently demanding front page top of the fold coverage really does resemble themes from 1984 with a small flavoring of Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” included. Exhibit one is the new National Security Agency (NSA) data storage complex that recently held its official ribbon cutting and was proclaimed open for business. Of course for the NSA’s meaning of open for business means that all your information is allowed in but can never leave while you may not get in or even approach the complex. This data storage complex is claimed to be capable of storing every email, instant message, Facebook post, Twitter message, phone call (cell or landline), search engine returns on your searches,  and all other electronic communication everywhere in the world in real time for the next century and beyond. Do you remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there were people whispering in hushed tones of the conspiracy that was listening in on everybody’s phone calls and later on monitoring all Internet traffic named Echelon? Well, that turned out to be valid paranoia as Echelon actually did exist but became obsolete before the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, thus the Echelon replacement that has probably been on line for the past couple of years even if it was just completed. There is no reason that the front end could not have been being fed all of our data while the back two-thirds were being installed. Presumably, this new Echelon on steroids complex is not only capable of monitoring and recording every electronic communication across the globe, it can theoretically even monitor your every keystroke as long as your computer is connected to the Internet including the backspace key, so they will know what you send in a message and what you rethought and deleted.

 

As this is discussed and everybody gets to add their two cents worth and the rumors and suspicions expand to the point that paranoia seems to have taken hold of everybody’s imagination, we still may not be capable of uncovering all the myriad of abilities these monitor gathering systems will actually possess. I remember the early days when the rumors of Echelon were the buzz of the conspiracy minded and it was otherwise being debunked as all in the imagination of a paranoid few. Within the decade we found out that the paranoid few were actually the well informed. So, taking that into consideration, I might tend to give credence to much of the most extraordinary theories that I hear. Why not as it can only serve to give me reason to be as careful as I can in sharing. Of course blogging is not exactly the best way to keep your head down, but at least I will not be owning the newest game systems with the camera and on-line links. Between monitoring computers and phones, using cell phones and anti-jacking car systems as GPS locators to track our movements, anything with a camera or microphone to monitor video and listen to our conversations, drilling our children through psychological testing, smart meters and appliances, networked cameras with face recognition software everywhere in public, along with whatever else their tiny little minds can invent to follow, monitor, categorize, analyze, and eventually predict future actions, why get all worked up as the Government will do what Government will do and there is little we can do to prevent them. I would rather know what they are doing than have them do everything serendipitously. Do I approve or like the idea of being under the proverbial microscope? Not really but then I have adjusted to such as after attaining ballot access for the United States House of Representatives, I have very likely been on a watch list for quite some time. Truth be told, major companies have been collecting as much information as they could in order to predict purchasing habits. I realize that this data mining by the Government is far more nefarious and invasive than most would like and it would serve them best to support candidates who will actually curb and rein in the levels of invasive monitoring without a warrant.

 

The real debate concerns exactly where will the Government go with this high level of data being available? If it were just the Government it would be one thing but it is so much more. All the way back in the good old days of the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower (the 1950s) the President made a speech with an ominous warning that we are now finding out was quite prescient. President Eisenhower warned that the people needed to be wary of the “Military Industrial Complex” by which he meant the large companies and the Federal Government as well as State and Local Governments. President Eisenhower foresaw a future where a group of too big to refrain companies teamed with the Government in order to apply undue pressure and influence over the public and affect their lives adversely. President Eisenhower feared a future where the Government in partnership with major corporations would have such an ability to control and influence society with such an iron fist that nobody would be beyond their controlling influence and nothing would be private from the snooping and controlling interests and invasions of this out of control behemoth. The one question we all likely have foremost in our minds is, “When will we know for certain that this has gone too far?” One sign might be the availability of a channel where they have a continuous program depicting an evil entity that has been identified as public enemy number 1 and it is advisable that when things are going poorly in your life you should tune to this special channel and yell at public enemy until you feel relieved. OK, so that might be too odd even for government. Well, how about if you begin to notice at most Starbucks there are middle age and older men and women dressed in heavy clothing regardless of the weather and season sitting there endlessly nursing a mocha java mumbling something, almost a whisper. If you get too curious and stand close to one of these poor souls you can hear them repeating slowly, painfully, endlessly, “I love Big Brother.” When these people begin to appear it is too late to worry, it is even too late to run, just join them now and maybe the government will leave you alone.

 

Beyond the Cusp