Democrats Continue to Devolve the US into an Evil, Heartless, and Uncivilized Nation

 

ABORTION - late-term abortion

(Photo Credit: Robert Valencia)

by Diane Rufino, March 1, 2019

This past Monday, February 25, US Senate Democrats blocked a Republican bill – The BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT – that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t attempt to save the lives of infants born alive during failed abortions.

Why are Democrats openly embracing infanticide? What demons do they have whispering in their ears? What devil sits on their shoulders? What evil master do they serve?

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina (a HUGE proponent of Life).

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

To most people, it is a no-brainer that a doctor or other health-care professional should preserve the life and health of a newborn. Am I wrong to believe that the medical profession still adheres to the historic oath that dates back to Greek times, the Hippocratic Oath, which states that a doctor shall seek to preserve health and preserve life, to endeavor to do no harm?  The modern version of the oath includes this statement: “Above all, I must never play God.”

Ironically, one classical version of the Hippocratic Oath addresses abortion: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

Last week, I watched the 2018 movie GOSNELL: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer with members of my Tea Party group. The movie chronicles the investigation by Philadelphia Police and the DEA of Kermit Gosnell, the infamous abortion doctor who operated an abortion clinic in Philadelphia, and his subsequent trial. Initially investigated for overprescribing OxyContin (oxycodone; an opioid derivative of heroin), a raid on his clinic uncovered horrors beyond description. He was charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit (“viability”), and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law (patients must wait 24 hours after proper consultation by the clinic). The murder charges related to a woman who died following an abortion procedure, and seven newborns who were killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. Surprisingly, the defense was able to mount an extraordinary defense of Gosnell and his practices, including an admonition by the judge that nothing asserted in the courtroom would be allowed to contradict a woman’s abortion rights. Towards the end of the trial, the prosecution was able to locate a young girl (in her teens) who worked at the clinic and who happened to take pictures of the babies who had their spinal cords severed by Dr. Gosnell.  When asked on the stand why she took the pictures, the girl responded to the effect that the babies were so big and so perfect and they looked like they should have been welcomed into a family, with brothers and sisters. She thought there should have been some record, a picture, to acknowledge their existence. Those pictures were shown to the jury, and one by one, their hearts melted and they looked down or began to sob.  Why? Because they inherently connected with the humanity in a newborn and even in a full-term fetus. Dr. Gosnell had committed atrocities that shocked their conscience. My suspicion is that they may have been convinced by the defense to overlook the successful abortions of a full-term fetus, but to take that additional step with callousness and without regard to the life on the medical table in front of him, struggling to move and breathe, wanting to be warm and cradled and comforted and kissed and loved, and take its life was an act of pure evil.

Inherently, we value life and we act under the teachings of compassion and care that our religion has impressed on us, even at some point in our lives.

The sad and tragic thing about this law is that it even needed to be introduced at all.  Providing medical attention and care to a newborn, even if it is a product of a failed abortion attempt, is the natural, the right, the intuitive thing to do.  How can those who would want medical care for themselves have the right to decide to deny it to others?  A life is a life.  It’s not defined by number of years but by DNA and breath and a beating heart.  It’s defined by an instinct to survive and continue living.

After the vote, President Trump tweeted: “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Today the left uses the excuse that a baby inside the womb is the sole property and concern of the mother to justify its extermination. What will tomorrow’s excuse be?  Usefulness?  Competency?  Old age?

Here are my questions regarding this vote on this Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and in fact, regarding the extreme position that Democrats/liberals/progressives take on abortion rights in general:

(1)  Why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to encompass a right to make sure that the abortion is successful, to the point that it includes infanticide?  In other words, why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to include the right to condemn a baby born alive to be killed? The one thing the Roe v. Wade opinion seems to be clear on is that as long as the unborn is still inside a woman’s womb, it is not a life for which the Constitution or our laws can provide protection. But once that unborn has actually been born, then, as the opinion supports, that baby is now a new “life.”

(2)  The Fourteenth Amendment reads: “Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  According to the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, any baby born, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, is a citizen and therefore a person with recognized liberty rights. If that is the case, then any person who terminates that life after birth, again even if that baby has suffered from an attempted abortion and even if that baby was intended to be condemned by the mother, is guilty not only of murder, but of intentional, premediated murder.

(3)  Democrats/liberals/progressives believe what Roe v. Wade stands for – that as long as the unborn is inside a woman’s womb, she has complete control over its destiny.  But once it emerges from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then don’t both parents (mother AND father) have parental rights to that newborn baby?  Our child support laws would suggest so.

(4)  And if that “unwanted” baby should emerge from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then wouldn’t that newborn baby become the ward of the state?  That is, wouldn’t the government (society in general) have the right and duty to care for it?

(5)  If all of the above are true, then how could any member of Congress, taking an oath to the Constitution, vote against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

(6)  The proper approach by government would have been to legislatively define LIFE at some point during fetal development.  (See my article “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation”).

To echo President Trump’s words, this vote by the US Senate “will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

 

References:

“Dems Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants Who Survive Failed Abortions,” FOX News, February 27, 2019.  Referenced at:  http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/dems-block-born-alive-bill-to-provide-medical-care-to-infants-who-survive-failed-abortions#/

Diane Rufino, “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation,” For Love of God and Country, February 24, 2019.  Referenced:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/02/24/model-resolution-to-define-life-through-legislation/

Advertisements

President Trump Takes Issue with Democrats at the SOTU and Announces Plan to Protect the Lives of the Unborn

RIGHT TO LIFE - Texas A&M Health Science Center

(Photo Credit: Texas A&M Health Science Center)

by Diane Rufino, February 6, 2019

Thank You, President Trump for taking the initiative to acknowledge the humanity in an unborn child and thank you for pointing out the inhumanity of those would-be mothers who choose to abort the life inside them.

Last night in his State of the Union Address, Trump announced that he will ask Congress for a bill outlawing abortions when the fetus has developed to the point when it can feel pain.

He said:

“I am proud to be the first President to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave, so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child.

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies…. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. “

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (from the hedonist state of California) and Senator Chuck Schumer (from the killing fields of New York) called a border wall to prevent criminals and drugs from flooding into our communities “immoral” but these same Democratic leaders and Democrats everywhere think it’s perfectly moral to ignore the humanity of the life growing inside a woman’s womb to the point where that life can be sacrificed as it passes through the birth canal. It is about time we acknowledge that human beings create life in a woman’s womb, and it’s a woman’s role in this thing we call nature and the circle of life. Indeed it is the greatest of all God’s blessings for her to be able to do so. The absolute moral thing to do is to respect this miracle and to respect life, even if that life cannot yet function independently. We were all dependent on a mother at one time – both in her womb and then for a couple years after that.

Trump is bold. Trump is just. Trump is right. A woman’s right to control her reproduction is not a complete right… It is not broad enough – it CANNOT be broad enough – to include the right to kill another human being, again no matter how young and helpless that human being is.

 

References:
Full transcript, President Trump’s State of the Union Address (2019), White House – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-state-union-address-2/

White House Briefings, 2019 State of the Union Address (Feb. 5, 2019) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu/

The 45th President Addressed the 45th March for Life – LOVE SAVES LIVES

WASHINGTON MARCH FOR LIFE 2018

by Diane Rufino, January 20, 2019

President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence addressed this year’s March for Life, the 45th annual March for Life in DC, by video from the White House Rose Garden.

The March for Life, which was held on Friday, January 18, marks the landmark decision Roe v. Wade, handed down on January 22, 1973, which condemned millions of unborn to the torturous and heartbreaking… the life-taking, practices of abortion doctors. The decision was based on activism, on women’s so-called rights to control her fertility, and equal protection for the woman. The decision did not include any deliberation based on science or any equal protection considerations for the unborn. The March for Life began just one year later, in January 1974, to continue the protest over that hugely over-broad and one-sided decision, and it has continued each year since.

The theme of this year’s march was LOVE SAVES LIVES.

We are lucky to have an administration that honors the most essential of fundamental rights – the Right to Life. Women and Women’s Rights organizations, ACLU lawyers and other powerful legal groups, pregnant plaintiffs, and progressive judges have the power to fight for the woman who wants the unborn growing and developing inside her to be killed and removed. But who speaks for the ones who can’t speak for themselves?  Who defends the ones who haven’t even had the chance to take a breath, let alone find their voice?  We know they feel pain inside the womb and we know they try the best they can to protect themselves from harm (as when a suction device is inserted into the womb or saline solution injected – the fetus moves away from them).  Living things feel pain; living things exercise efforts to preserve their lives.

The first step is simply to sign a law defining life. It doesn’t necessarily have to be at conception, but a simple thing as a  definition automatically saves life because once society recognizes life, then all the protections of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution are recognized.  What are our legislators waiting for?

A woman’s right to control her fertility doesn’t necessarily have to translate into wholesale slaughter of the unborn.

Anyway, again, we’re lucky and grateful to have a president, a vice president and an administration that sides with the unborn and a woman’s choice to give life and not death. It’s refreshing to hear a message of love and life, as opposed to the left’s message of self-love and death.

 

References:

Trump’s Message to those at this year’s March for Life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TNjvpzCpA0&feature=youtu.be

March for Life Blog –  https://marchforlife.org/

Does President Trump Have Authority to Secure Our Southern Border?

trump - with wall behind him (jan. 2019)

by Diane Rufino (also referencing an article by Publius Huldah), January 15, 2019

QUESTION:  Can President Trump seal off our southern border?

There are three theories, perhaps even four, upon which President Trump can close our southern border, including providing a permanent, physical barrier:

(1)  IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY.  The President can suspend entry of individuals from Mexico and countries of Central and South America, per an express provision of the US Immigration & Nationality Act, and per the opinion of the Supreme Court in the recent case of the so-called “Muslim ban.”  Since the restraints in place at the order are currently ineffective to prevent the uncontrolled illegal entry into our country, a physical barrier would be necessary (under the “Necessary & Proper Clause”)

If Trump takes this option, he neither needs to get Congressional approval nor approval of (or review from) the courts. Neither can stop him because they have already given him that authority and recognized that he was given that authority. Congress did so in federal law (Title 8, Chapter 12 of the US Code – “Immigration & Nationality Act”) and the Supreme Court re-affirmed (in Trump v. Hawaii, June 2018).

Title 8, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, which governs “inadmissible aliens,” reads:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Notice some key language in that statutory provision:  “for any such period as he shall deem necessary”  and “impose on the entry of aliens ANY restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Again, every power that Congress is delegated (Article I, Section), including the power it willingly delegated to the President on this particular immigration issue, is subject to the “Necessary & Proper” Clause which the Supreme Court interpreted as “pretty much any means necessary which the government believes will help carry out the particular responsibility.”

The president has the authority to close the borders. And no lower court can stop him with an injunction…..  if he chooses to go this route.

(2)  DUTY TO REPEL INVASION. Congress can seal off the border pursuant to the authority granted to it to call up the militia (“to repel invasions”; Article I, Section 8) and pursuant to the DUTY delegated to the federal government in general to repel invasion (Article V, Section 4).  Additionally, Article II, Section 3 requires the President, as the Chief Executive of government power, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Article I, Section 8 authorize s Congress to call up of the Militia for three (3) purposes: To execute the Laws of the Union; To suppress Insurrections: and To repel Invasions.

Article IV, Section 4 reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Article IV talks about a GUARANTEE.  It delegates an absolute responsibility on the federal government to provide certain protections for the States – to guarantee each State a republican form of government and to protect each against invasion. States are entitled to EXPECT this absolute guarantee. So, if Congress refuses to do its part, then the responsibility shifts to the President. In the end, the federal government MUST – absolutely MUST – protect all states against an invasion.

Indeed, there is an invasion of illegal aliens into our country, imposing severe burdens on our resources (including education, health services, social services, our tax dollars, and our law enforcement system. Taxpayers are entitled to the expectation that the money siphoned off their hard work and property will go only to those who are legal citizens in this country. More seriously, there is an invasion of illegal criminals, gangs, drug cartels and drug traffickers, and human traffickers. Prisons house disproportionate numbers of Hispanic criminals.

There are 48 US-Mexico border crossings – LEGAL crossings. But thousands upon thousands each year evade these legal points of entry to come to this country illegally, hoping to take advantage of our government’s refusal to enforce our country’s immigration laws and to take advantage of every benefit that America offers. (Note though that is the US were to go to war and impose a draft, illegals would not be called). There are approximately 414,000 illegals apprehended each year by a severely-limited and constrained task force of border agents. Imagine how many make it across the border and are not able to be apprehended. The numbers are staggering. And in the past several months, the rate of illegal crossings has increased 37%.  New American (online journal) estimates that 14,000 of these are violent criminals.

Most aliens that come to the United States illegally do so for a better life, for a chance to make more money. But the open border and uncontrolled illegal immigration brings other problems into our country. The United States is one of the key destination countries, if not the key destination country, for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked from all areas of the world. These victims are trafficked for the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation. Many of these victims are lured from their homes with false promises of well-paying jobs; instead, they are forced or coerced into prostitution, domestic servitude, farm or factory labor, or other types of forced labor. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into our country each year, certainly prompting a humanitarian crisis.

And then there is the increase in drug smuggling across the border. Seizures of hard drugs like heroin, methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and fentanyl spiked to the highest levels in years. The numbers reflect the trend of cartels turning to more potent drugs in pursuit of profits, as many of the individual states have decriminalized the use of marijuana, both for medicinal and recreational purposes. In the past two years, enough fentanyl (a synthetic opioid which is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, and can be fatal the first time a person takes it) came into our country from across the southern border to kill every person in the United States. Two Hispanic men were arrested last year in NJ with enough fentanyl to kill the entire population of New Jersey and New York City (with intent to distribute). In NJ alone, in 2016, there were over 800 overdoses from fentanyl, and fentanyl was found in 2% of heroin that was tested in the state. Users are unaware of this. Just recently, in Nebraska, two Hispanic men were arrested for possession of enough fentanyl to kill about 28 million people (with intent to distribute and sell).

Finally, there is a significant increase in MS-13 gang membership and activity. MS-13 is a notoriously brutal gang based in El Salvador. In 2005, the Bush administration waged war on the deadly gang (similar to what President Trump is doing), and gang activity was stifled, but under the Obama administration, especially from 2012-2016, the gang has been able to rebuild itself. This resurgence represents a very serious threat to public safety in communities where MS-13 has rebuilt itself. The resurgence is directly connected to the illegal arrival and resettlement of more than 300,000 Central American youths and families that came here, undeterred, during the Obama years. All criminal gangs are a threat to public safety, but MS-13 is a unique problem because of the unusually brutal crimes its members have committed, its success in using intimidation to victimize and control people in its territory, and its focus on recruiting young members, often in schools. Technically, because most of the gang members are illegal, they could be targeted and removed from the communities they terrorize by law enforcement and ICE. However, because of sanctuary policies, and the proliferation of sanctuary states, cities, and communities, these gang members are protected from apprehension.

Taken together, it sure sounds like our country is being invaded. And that being so, every state is entitled to protection against it by the federal government. The simplest way to protect the states is simply to enforce our immigration laws and to seal and secure the border with a physical barrier. Make no mistake, we are suffering an invasion of individuals who are first seeking to evade our laws (the cornerstone of our society), and secondly, to do us harm (whether intentional or not, and whether violent or simply by overloading our resources, inciting protests and instability, or presenting a political crisis).

(3)  DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY (pursuant to the National Emergencies Act).  The goal of this approach is to get border wall funding thru the National Emergencies Act, by diverting money allocated to the military to use to build the wall.  The reason this option is an attractive option to President Trump is because once he declares a “national emergency,” a decision that is entirely within his discretion (and which many presidents before him did, for much more urgent matters), he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority. He would become vested with certain “emergency powers,” such as by instantly becoming Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined executive powers. President FDR used national emergency powers to intern Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Bush used them to pursue warrantless wiretapping related to the war on terror, and President Obama on account of the Swine Flu outbreak in 2009.  (Actually, Obama claimed a state of emergency, thus invoking the Act, a total of 12 times].

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 authorizes presidents to issue an emergency declaration, but under certain constraints; he can only use powers Congress has already codified by law and he has to say which powers he’s using. The 1976 law was actually passed to rein in presidential abuse with relation to national emergencies. Past presidents such as FDR, Truman, and Nixon abused the power [In the 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of President Truman’s seizure and control of most of the country’s steel mills, in anticipation of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. The Court ruled that Truman had over-stepped his authority].

The first thing President Trump would need to do is issue an emergency proclamation, explaining the nature of the emergency. Then he would need to identify which powers he intends to use. If Trump were to try to get border wall funding through the National Emergencies Act, the question then becomes which existing laws he could use to get the money. The Brennan Center for Justice believes there are at least 130 laws that contain special powers Trump could access (other legal experts say there are as much as 136 laws). Apparently, the law Trump is particularly interested in is one that allows him to reallocate military spending on construction projects for the wall. One law allows the defense secretary, after a national emergency declaration, to direct the army’s civil works program to construct a structure needed for national defense and use the military budget to do it. Another lets the secretary direct other military services for construction projects. For example, money could come out of the budget for building housing on military bases for service members and into the budget for the wall.

The White House has also reportedly directed the Army Corps of Engineers to take a look at its budget for potential funds to divert to the wall, including $13.9 billion from a disaster spending bill passed by Congress last year designed for relief projects in California, Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico.

Alternatively, Trump could declare a “state of immigration emergency,” which unlocks an immigration emergency fund, which is generally supposed to be used to help states feed and house migrants and process their claims. The problem with this choice is that the immigration emergency fund doesn’t have nearly enough money to meet the amount requested – $5.7 billion.

Note, though, that the National Emergencies Act contains a mechanism for Congress to overrule the president by passing a joint resolution (both House and Senate). With Democrats in control of the House, it would presumably pass there easily, but most likely it would not pass the Senate, where Republicans recently increased their majority.

(4)  THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED.  Again, as mentioned above, Article II, Section 3 requires the President, as the Chief Executive of government power, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If Congress won’t provide the necessary funding (less than 1% of the total US budget, and a fraction of what Congress spends on “pork” projects), than President Trump may have to accept funding from other sources, including donations.

Those are my thoughts anyway.

The real authority, however, is my good friend, renown Constitutional attorney and activist, Publius Huldah. In her latest article , “Yes! Trump Has the Constitutional Authority to Secure Our Southern Border,” she goes into detail as to why President Trump has the authority to secure our southern border.  Please take a read:

 

YES!! TRUMP HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO SECURE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER, by Publius Huldah

Instead of reading our Constitution and seeing what it says, Americans get their legal advice from what “everybody says.”

Now, they are hearing about “emergency powers”, and are in a tail spin. Did Congress’ “Emergency Powers Act” delegate to the President the power to call whatever he wants an “emergency” and then do what he deems best?

Our focus shouldn’t be on what can be called an “emergency,” but what does our Constitution authorize the federal government to do (if anything) with respect to the hot topic of the day?

Let’s look at Migration (immigration) in the context of the hordes of aliens storming thru our Southern Border. What does our Constitution say about it?

Art. I, § 9, clause 1, delegates power over Migration (immigration) to Congress. So Congress is to make the immigration laws; and the President, as Chief Executive, is to put Congress’ laws into effect.

Art. IV, § 4 REQUIRES the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion.

Art. I, § 8, clauses 15 and 16, authorize the calling up of the Militia for three (3) purposes: to execute the Laws of the Union; to suppress Insurrections; and repel Invasions.

Art. II, § 3 authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems necessary and expedient; to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions; and requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (that includes the immigration laws.)

Art. II, § 2, provides that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He is Commander-in-Chief of the Militia when it is called into active service of the United States. As noted above, the Militia may be called into active service to “repel invasions”.

So those are the Constitutional Provisions which apply to the invasion of our Southern Border.

America is finished if we don’t control our Southern Border. Congress and the President have clear constitutional authority – actually, they have the DUTY – to control our Southern Border.

The best way the control the Southern Border is to build a wall. [I know from personal observation during the Cold War that the wall the Soviets built between East and West Germany prevented people in the East from escaping to the West.]

What if Congress refuses to fund the wall? Must the President tell the American People, “Well, I tried. But my hands are tied. You better get ready for civil war.”

No! Art. IV, § 4 imposes on the United States the Duty to protect each of the States against invasion. If Congress won’t do it, the President must. He is Chief Executive of the United States. For him to refuse to act for the reason that Congress won’t fund the wall would be as contemptible as the Husband and Father who refuses to get armed to protect his Family because the government says he can’t be armed.

So, the President may solicit donations from the American People for funds, labor, and construction materials, to build a wall.

About “calling up the Militia” to “repel invasions” —   Well, we no longer have the Militia provided for at Art. I, §8, clauses 15 and 16. During 1903, the American People and their federal and state legislators (who had all “mainlined” on Progressivism) went along with the federalizing of the Militia. This was done with the federal Dick Act of 1903 (Militia Act of 1903), which converted the Militia into the National Guard, which is an adjunct of the federal military.

If we still had the “Militia of the several States,” it would be obvious that the Militia must be – and could be – called into national service to repel the “invasion” coming through our Southern Border.

But since we no longer have the Militia, we must rely on the closest thing to a Militia we have left, which is the National Guard. Congress has passed laws which authorize the President to call the National Guard into national service. The Militia Act of 1903 established the creation of the National Guard of the United States as the primary organized reserve force for the U.S. armed forces, thus federalizing state militias. The National Defense Act of 1916 gave the President authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. And the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard a component of the Army

The point is that the President probably has authority to call up the National Guard to protect our Southern Border and the construction workers while the Wall is being built.

But if push comes to shove, the President has the Clear Duty to protect our Southern Border and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Remember – the Questions are always: “What does the Constitution authorize” & “What Duties does the Constitution impose on the federal government?”

There is no substitute for reading the Constitution for yourself. Article by Article – and then seeing how the Articles all work together – hand in glove.

 

References:

Publius Huldah, “Yes! Trump Has the Authority to Secure Our Southern Border,” Publius Huldah blog, January 15, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/yes-trump-has-constitutional-authority-to-secure-our-southern-border/

Cort Kirkwood, “Trump Can Close the Border, Former Federal Prosecutor Says,” New American, October 25, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/30446-trump-can-close-the-border-former-federal-prosecutor-says

Hilary Hurd, Yishai Schwartz, “Supreme Court Travel Ban Ruling Summary,” Lawfare, June 26, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-summary

11 Facts About Human Trafficking, Do Something.  Referenced at:  https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking

Raphael Carranza, “Harder Drugs, Higher Profits: US-Mexico Border Sees a Shift in the Kinds of Drugs Seized,” azcentral, February 23, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/23/united-states-mexico-border-patrol-drugs-seized/353260002/

“Synthetic Opioid Overdose Data,” Center for Disease Control.  Referenced at: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/fentanyl.html

Jessica M. Vaughan, “MS-13 Resurgence: Immigration Enforcement Needed to Take Back Our Streets,” Center for Immigration Studies, February 21, 2018. Referenced at:  https://cis.org/Report/MS13-Resurgence-Immigration-Enforcement-Needed-Take-Back-Our-Streets

Emily Stewart, “How Trump Could Use a National Emergency to Get His Border Wall, Explained,” VOX, January 11, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18172749/trump-national-emergency-government-shutdown-wall

Elizabeth Goitein, “What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency,” The Atlantic, January-February issue.  Referenced at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/    [Elizabeth Goitein is a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice]

TAKE ACTION NOW! Tell Congress to Fund the Wall

TRUMP-NE-030916-TEL

(Photo Credit:  National Border Patrol Council, NGPC)

by Diane Rufino, January 9, 2019

I’m writing this to all Immigration Activists and Concerned Citizens…..

The time for action is NOW !!

Last night President Trump delivered a straightforward message to the American people regarding the situation on the southern border. He called that situation a “crisis.”

That crisis includes uncheck immigration, violent crimes by illegal aliens, drug trafficking, child trafficking, a rise in MS-13 gang activity, rape, scores of hard drugs pouring across the border, lawlessness, over-crowding of our jails, and an unnecessary burden on all our resources (social services, healthcare, education, criminal justice, etc).

Anybody with eyes and ears, anybody who reads the real news, anybody who talks to their legislators, anyone who has a pulse on what’s going on in their community, in their state, and in this country is aware of the negative impact of open borders and unchecked immigration across our southern border. Have we already forgotten the caravan crisis?  Do we not understand that there are reasons why so many aliens are pouring into our country, choosing to take the illegal route – because we are NOT enforcing our laws, not trying to flesh them out once they get here, providing sanctuary cities and communities for them, providing them free education and healthcare, allowing them to go on our welfare system and to receive benefits and social programs (that US citizens must pay for)?

Several years ago, a student that had just graduated from a school I was teaching died of a fentanyl overdose. Someone slipped it to him unsuspectedly at a concert. A year or so later, a young man at my church overdosed from a heroin/fentanyl overdose. No one would have ever suspected him of doing drugs. The young man who treats my lawn recently passed away from an overdose. And my longtime friend and neighbor lost his son to a fentanyl overdose. A few years ago, I spoke with some town officials and they told me that MS-13 gangs have moved into Greenville from the Kinston area (Kiinston, which is Lenoir County, is next to Duplin County, which houses the highest concentration of illegal Hispanics in NC). MS-13 started pushing drugs on ECU’s campus and violence followed. There was a drive-by shooting downtown which killed at least one or two innocent young people, and about two years ago, there was a shooting at an ECU student apartment complex (at a party) involving drugs.

Our state officials talk about the opioid crisis and the enormous toll it is taking on our young and they suggest that we need to provide healthcare for them so they can kick the addiction. Not once has anyone addressed the root cause of the problem – the border “crisis” — yes, a “crisis.” Without the drugs pouring into the country (90% of hard-core drugs such as heroin and fentanyl), we wouldn’t have this epidemic of overdoses, and without the addictions and drug use, we wouldn’t have to consider the increased costs in healthcare to cover this problem.

The same can be said for the burden on education, our healthcare system (how many times have you gone to the emergency room only to see it filled with Hispanics – of which at least 45% are here, in NC, illegally). How many unskilled Americans can’t provide for their families because an illegal has taken a job they could have been hired for?

Again, it’s not hard to understand how the situation at the border has finally escalated to a crisis.

Yet, in response to President Trump’s Oval Office message last night, Democratic leaders, Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, had the nerve to call his characterization of the situation a “manufactured crisis.” It was an insult to every mother, father, wife, husband, brother, sister, family member, friend, neighbor who lost someone they love to an illegal alien, it was an insult to everyone who has to close their eyes at night and try to shut out the horrible thoughts of the torture and pain their loved one suffered before being killed by an illegal, an insult to everyone who lost a child or other loved one to an opioid overdose, an insult to everyone harmed by the increase in drug trafficking, and an insult to every federal taxpayer whose tax dollars are being siphoned to address the uncontrolled border situation and to provide welfare and other services to illegals. To them, the situation is not a manufactured crisis but rather a manufactured situation – manufactured intentionally by Democrats as a way to grow the Democratic Party.

They call the wall “immoral” yet live in walled and gated communities themselves. They care little about the threats and burdens to our communities because they don’t live in those communities. They don’t worry about violence because they enjoy the protection of armed security. The don’t care that our laws are broken because as career politicians, they have made sure that they are exempt from the laws they pass (or refuse to pass, or refuse to provide the tools for enforcement).

They mock the President for his campaign promise to have Mexico pay for the wall. Other Democrats and liberals mock him as well for that. But Mexican assets can easily be converted to pay for the border wall, as Trump has alluded to. Trade deals can be negotiated that result in funding for the wall. There are drug forfeiture laws that would allow the government to use money and property confiscated because they were illegally obtained by drug trafficking for the wall. And then there is the simple math – If illegals cost the American people $150 billion each year (EVERY YEAR), and wall funding is only $5 billion, then doesn’t it just make sense to invest a one-time $5 billion allocation for the wall to save $150 billion every year?

Others reject the notion of an actual wall (a physical impenetrable barrier) saying that Trump will never get the $5 billion he is asking for. Well, that’s just a ridiculous, typical-Democratic /liberal response. They have a hard time understanding the concept of “constitutional spending” anyway. A border wall is related to immigration and national security, both of which are expressly delegated tasks to the federal government in the US Constitution. So, funding for the wall would actually be characterized as “constitutional spending,” something our government rarely takes into consideration. Right now, Congress spends far too much on unconstitutional objects – such as funding to South American countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, other Middle Eastern countries (all of which give us nothing of real value in return), funding for abortion overseas, funding for research on stupid things that have absolutely no relevance or usefulness, funding for education (yep, it’s unconstitutional), funding in the form of state grants, most times simply for the purpose of bribing the states into complying with government guidelines and policies that it technically can’t impose on them (thus enabling the government to do an end-run around the Constitution). Take away the unconstitutional spending and the government has plenty to spend on constitutional obligations such as a border wall to enhance our safety and security and to help enforce our duly-enacted immigration laws.

Schumer and Pelosi fault President Trump alone for the government shutdown, telling the American people that government officials aren’t getting paid because of him, his insistence on dwelling on a “manufactured crisis.,” and his refusal to work with the Democratic leadership in Congress.

As Senator Lindsey Graham commented, the federal employees affected by the government shutdown will get all their back pay. They’ll be OK. But Officer Ronil Singh’s wife will never see her husband again and their baby daughter will never know her father. Angel Moms will never see or hug their children again.

The question is whether all those deaths and tortures of Americans at the hand of illegal aliens, all the drugs (including heroin and fentanyl) pouring onto our country and killing our college-age children, the rise in MS-13 activity which terrorizes our communities, the rise in violent crime, and the very admissions of our border agents amounts to a “manufactured” crisis or an actual crisis.

Remember the faces and the stories of those Americans taken from us because of our border situation – Officer Ronil Singh (shot because the illegal didn’t want a traffic ticket), Pierce Corcoran (killed by a drunk driver, an illegal alien), Kate Steinle (shot while walking on a pier in San Francisco with her parents), Molly Tibbetts (abducted and killed by an alien while she was jogging), Josh Wilkerson (a high school student beaten, tortured, and set on fire by an illegal alien), Jamiel Shaw (high school student killed by an illegal released earlier that same day on his 3rd gun charge), Ronald da Silva (murdered by an illegal who had previously been deported), Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens (best friends who were killed in 2016 by illegal MS-13 gang members), Sandra Duran (killed in a car crash in 2017 at the hands of an illegal alien who had been deported five times), Indianapolis Colts’ linebacker Edwin Jackson (killed by an illegal driving drunk), Rebecca Ann Johnson (murdered by an illegal), and so many others.

Anyway, President Trump NEEDS OUR HELP……

Please read the following and TAKE ACTION NOW – to support President Trump’s request for funding tall steel fence barriers at our southern border and apply pressure to members of Congress.

Here is the contact info. I suggest you call now instead of email, but email if you prefer.

CALL your Member of Congress and our two US Senators today (For those in the Third Congressional District, who knows if a call to Rep. Walter Jones will accomplish anything). This is what you’ll want to tell them:

  • Honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution;
  • Give President Trump the money he wants to fund the tall border fence barriers;
  • If they can’t find the funding for the wall, tell them to cut out all the “unconstitutional” spending and then the money will be available;
  • Close the asylum loopholes that are attracting these ridiculous caravans;
  • An Amnesty should NOT be part of any securing the border deal.
  • Remember that they represent you — not illegal alien smugglers and employers!

Contact your member of the U.S House. If you don’t know, go to: http://www.house.gov [look at the upper right corner of the webpage and enter your Zip Code and then click “GO”].

Call: U.S. Senator Richard Burr (202) 224-3154 at his Washington, DC office or email at: https://www.burr.senate.gov/contact/email

Call: U.S. Senator Thom Tillis (202) 224-6342 at his Washington, DC office or email at:  https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me

 

References:

President Donald J. Trump addresses the nation from the Oval Office, January 8, 2019 –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=694Kmic4CKY

Senator Lindsey Graham’s Response to President Trump’s border address, Jan. 8, 2019 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2GD0YMzE2Q

Schumer and Pelosi’s Response to President Trump’s border address, Jan. 8, 2019 –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyb-DjVT5_c

Mark Levin’s Response to President Trump’s border address, Jan. 8, 2019 –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9QS9gnd3gU

Derek Thompson, “How Immigration Became So Controversial,” The Atlantic, February 2, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/why-immigration-divides/552125/

Liberal Insanity

 

trump - and the wall (wall funding - photo credit - golifa)

by Diane Rufino, January 6, 2019

There is a disabling disease going around; epidemiologists believe it hit sometime in the fall of 2016.

No, I’m not talking about the Swine Flu, or the H1N1 or H3N2 virus strains, all three of which can be deadly if not caught and treated early enough. I’m talking about the derangement syndrome that causes once-ordinary, rational-thinking people to start speaking irrationally, to speak as if they haven’t a single brain cell in their cranium, to spew obscenities, to engage in hate speech, to throw a tantrum when offended in any way, shape, or form, to shout robotically (like paid protesters) when a conservative speaks, to throw the word “racist” around like it was just another common adjective, to manage to turn every story and every bit of news into an occasion to bash Trump, to express their political views cloaked as “humor” (no one is fooled by that), to hate their country, to side with those who would do harm to the country, to think foreigners who have no entitlement to the jurisdiction or benefits of the United States have more rights than legal and other naturalized citizens, to make idle threats (such as, “I’m moving to Canada”), to demand that everything be free except speech, to wish harm on others (usually involving rape or something shoved in some orifice), to be willing to sacrifice traditionally-held human rights like the right to speech, conscience, religion, and firearms for the un-natural right not to be offended, to be willing to minimize or sacrifice most of the expressly-listed human rights in the Bill of Rights for one not listed (the unfettered right to an abortion), to demonize the historically-American right to the free exercise of one’s religion (including the right to have it influence one’s conscience) in order that persons living an alternative lifestyle (gays, lesbians, transgenders, cross-dressers, etc) not have to be confronted by the rationality of religious doctrine and natural law, and often, to wish death on others or to make death threats.

I’m talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome. From what I can deduce so far, it is brought on by extreme hatred combined with a general inability to tolerate opposing viewpoints and especially an inability to deal with people in power who don’t talk and think like them. TDS has hit all ranks of the Democratic Party, has hit nearly all liberals and progressives, is prevalent among the Deep State, and has infected some high-ranking and other Democratic members of Congress, such as crying Chuck Schumer (the crying over illegals while never crying over any American an illegal has killed gave his sickness away), Maxine Waters (a rock has more intelligence and inherent worth than Maxine; consistently voted the most corrupt member of Congress; she is a modern-day reverse KKK leader, and thinks Congress serves only one purpose – to impeach Donald Trump), Nancy Pelosi (another one whose intelligence and common sense is eclipsed by a rock), Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialist), Kamala Harris (a race baiter), Cory Booker (a race baiter and moron), Shiela Jackson (a race baiter), Elizabeth Warren (a liar, a misappropriator of an entitlement for a class of persons actually aggrieved by past US social policies, socialist), Keith Ellison (a Muslim race-baiter and hate-mongerer), willingly associated with the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam), Diane Feinstein (so blinded by hatred that she helped hatch a scheme to subvert Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings by springing unfounded accusations of sexual misconduct by Christine Blasey Ford), Richard Blumenthal (a liar and hypocrite), and others. Obama-era officials, especially with the DOJ and FBI, and other Deep State officials, such as James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, James Mueller, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others (including Hillary Clinton), were so stricken that they funded opposition research on Trump by a known partisan ex-M16 intelligence agent, they fabricated information, created unfounded dossiers, tricked FISA court judges, obtained illegal FISA warrants, rigged the investigation against repeat criminal Hillary Clinton, initiated an investigation by Special Counsel (even though there was no underlying crime; essentially an investigation hoping to find a crime), unconscionably coerced members of Trump’s campaign and indicted them on crimes that Clinton herself and other ranking Democrats themselves had committed, leaked classified government information, and in general, doing anything and everything possible to make good on their “insurance policy” which is to come up with grounds to impeach our duly-elected president.

Every day, ordinary Americans, simply wanting to turn on the news (the mainstream news) to find out what good President Trump and Congress are doing on behalf of the country, its people, its business climate, and its world status, are confronted with nothing more than unfair accusations against Trump, personal political attacks against him, and an unrelenting stream of criticism of every single thing he says and every single thing he does. President Trump has done wonderful, historic things to improve the status of our country, the lives of its people, and the safety and security of our communities, and the results are often staggering, yet the mainstream media shows no decency to deliver such important news to the American people. This is yet another symptom of the Trump Derangement Syndrome.

There is not a day goes by when ordinary people of sound mind and common sense are confronted with a case of TDS – whether it be on social media, in conversation with a diseased friend of family member, on the news, on any of the late night talk shows, in a google search, in print, in a rap song, a music video, on Saturday Night Live, on Comedy Central or other Celebrity Roast show, on an awards show, in an acceptance speech at a correspondence or awards show, on a college campus, in a liberal college or law school classroom, or at a Women’s March or other liberal protest.

Personally, I try to stay away from almost all those venues. But on social media, a conservative post will almost always attract an individual suffering from TSD.  Most times, the individual will post an insult or explicative, reinforcing the horrible ravages of the disease, but sometimes – yes sometimes, they will try to address the post and offer their particular viewpoint.  Most times, that viewpoint will reflect far-left ideology and an outright hostility to our country, our system of government, our Constitution, and our traditional values.

I’d like to share with you one such example.

Right before Christmas, my friend (and columnist) Stan Deatherage wrote a post on social media addressing the looming government shut-down, and the fact that President Trump is more than willing to allow it over funding for the wall.

Here is what Stan wrote:

I can’t believe I am watching the Democrats shutting down the government a second time, since the election of Donald J. Trump, with their arguing point that they must politically “Resist” this President, regardless of the tangible damage committed to this nation.

We see that at every turn: Democrats, who have voted for a wall and border security in the recent past, now continually advocate for “Open Borders” and an open abdication for the rule of law at every possible political point.

Like it or not, this President knows his base of patriotic voters, and will follow their lead to secure our borders, and protect our people at home and abroad, just as passionately as the Democrat base advocates that their Liberal politicians create Open Borders to allow more supposed future voters beginning as illegal immigrants; abdication of national defense whenever possible in hopes of acceptance within the political trappings of the New World Order; and their complete defense and anxious acceptance of the accelerated growth of Socialism.

Never in the history of this Constitutional Republican have two groups of base voters been more different. Democrats can blame President Donald J. Trump all they wish, but, if it was not this President, it would be another one who would stand up for the patriots that still inhabit this nation.

It is my prayer that President Trump will not back down and stand for those patriots that know that securing our borders in a necessity for the continued sovereignty of this nation.

I personally agree with Stan. Several of my previous articles outline my support for border control, including the most persuasive argument of all, which is that national security is probably the #1 responsibility of the federal government. Allowing people to pour into our country illegally and unaccounted for runs completely counter to our Constitution and our Rule of Law. There aren’t a lot of things I feel I pay federal income taxes for (because the federal government doesn’t actually provide me and my family with much) but I do feel that national security and safety together are the one true consolation I get – I SHOULD get – for the exorbitant amount of taxes I pay every April 15th. In fact, if the government ignores that one primary responsibility, I have a hard time believing I should have to pay taxes.

Anyway, a Ms. Angela (full name withheld out of decency) responded to Stan’s post with this with a typical liberal, Democrat, socialist comment:

“Here’s a thought, Trump come up with something other than a wall. For 5 billion dollars every American can be insured. Just a thought. We all know a wall won’t stop the immigrants. History has proven this time and again.”

Frist of all, she makes the outrageous claim that walls don’t work – that “history has proven this time and again.”  I don’t know what history she is referring to, but I think most of us who can read books and who have paid attention to the news recognize that statement as “fake news.”

Let’s look at some of the walls that work – that keep people out:  First, we have the Israel-West Bank Wall (which is actually more a security fence). Almost immediately after it was constructed, in 2001-2002, the number of successful terror attacks in the Jewish state dropped by 90%).  Second, we have the Berlin Wall, which effectively prevented any movement between East and West Berlin (mostly to keep East Berliners from leaving). Third, we have the Cyprus Wall, which, built in 1974 after Turkey invaded the island, divides Cyprus between the northern Turkish portion and the remaining Greek section. Fourth, we have the India-Pakistan Wall (actually a border fence and wall system), built by India to keep Pakistanis out. Thank God for that wall because nowhere else in the world could a simple border incident so quickly escalate into nuclear war. (That’s a testament to how effective the wall is !!)  Fifth, we have the Turkey-Syria Wall, which was built by Turkey during the 1990’s to prevent an Kurdish militant insurgency. It worked very well, for over 15 years. It was only when Turkey’s leader, Erdogan, removed many of the defenses and turned a blind eye to border security that the terrorism problem in Syria, with repercussions in Turkey as well, grew so great. Sixth, we have the Morocco-Algeria Wall, which was a 1,700-mile system of sand berms, fences, mine fields, and ditches built by Morocco to defend against Algerian terrorists. Like the others, it was an effective wall.

There are other walls as well:  Saudi Arabia just built a wall along its disputed border with Yemen to keep Yemeni-based terrorists out. India has a long-standing border fence with Bangladesh to prevent illegal immigration. Hungary is building a fence to protect its borders. Greece maintains a heavily protected border with Turkey. Spain fortifies its enclaves in Africa.  [See Michael Rubin’s article “The Places Where Walls Work” and the article by Simon Tomlinson, “World of Walls”)

And, of course, let’s not forget Hadrian’s Wall (73 miles of heavily fortified wall, in the Roman province of Britannia, begun in AD 122 during the reign of the Roman emperor Hadrian), the wall around the Vatican, the wall erected at the Academy Awards (to keep the ordinary folk out so that Hollywood elite could lump praise on one another and party in privacy), the gated homes of celebrities (like the one Ryan Seacrest is buying from Ellen DeGeneres), and the gated communities that too many US Congressmen live in. Why do they have walls??  To keep those that don’t belong out !

As the organization, Legal Immigrants for America (LIFA), has long stated: “A nation without walls is not a nation, and a nation without borders is not a nation.”

Second of all, when she suggests that we use the $5 billion President Trump wants to fund the wall instead “to insure every American,” she is really saying this:  Those that can afford their own healthcare will still be forced to do so, and in fact, we’ll ask them to pay more so that everyone else who can’t afford healthcare insurance will be provided it for free. And because she wants the government to neglect the border and allow uncontrolled immigration, she suggests that hard-working, law-abiding, LEGAL Americans provide free healthcare for illegals as well.

So, what she is suggesting is that we not only continue to allow anyone who wants to come here to do so, and by any means they can, but we should also provide more and more magnets to attract them here.

In California, 73% of its illegal aliens are on welfare, other means-tested programs (such as Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Federal Tax Credits), and on social programs. Nationally, 63% – 70% of all illegal aliens  (non-citizens) are on welfare, other means-tested programs, and social programs. Of course, there is no way for the government to know exactly how many illegals are in our country (that’s what “undocumented” means), and so their numbers admittedly are always on the low side. The number we are given, however, is 4.6 million illegal households that are on welfare. For those illegals in this country 10 years or more, the average is over 70%, which goes to show that once illegals go on welfare and get other “free stuff” (programs that citizens have to pay for), they tend to stay on them.  [See Paul Bedard’s article “Census Confirms 63 Percent of Non-Citizens on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households”]

Put compassion aside, because laws are about right and wrong, and not about feelings or compassion or heartstrings. That is what volunteer organizations are for. Government and laws are designed to work for the benefit of legal members of society. Every country not only has limited resources (including tax dollars, because every government of a free people has the obligation to tax its people as little as possible) but has the sovereign right to control who enters the country and the right to know exactly who is entering the country. The rightful expectation of an American citizen is that government MUST enforce the laws that carry out the core functions delegated to it under the Constitution. If the government doesn’t obey laws, why should its citizens?

If we were to use the wall funding instead to insure everyone, that will be a bust since it won’t go very far. Instead, while the borders are open and migrants continue to pour into our country, at the rate of 65-70% going on our welfare and other social programs, American taxpayers will continue and continue and continue to pay for those who come here illegally. The amount we pay to insure them today will exponentially increase as they multiply like crazy and continue on the current trend (which is that they remain in low-skilled jobs generation to generation). We were a “Land of Immigrants” many many years ago when our country was growing, developing, and becoming the greatest production powerhouse on the planet. But those days are long gone – our American union essentially ceased expanding by 1912 when New Mexico and Arizona became states (#47 and #48, respectively; Hawaii and Alaska would join in 1959) and we have shifted from a production economy to a more “service” economy. We do not need to continue bringing in more immigrants to our country simply to feed that onetime notion. People only have the privilege to come here as long as there is a need for them. That need HAS to be that they benefit our country somehow while being able to fully support themselves and their families; preferably, they should ADD to the wealth of the country, as our Founders advised.

Liberal Sharon didn’t address the bigger question: How do Open Borders benefit the American taxpayer?  Maybe she likes having her house cleaned by an illegal who she can pay less to (and of course, pay under the table). Maybe she likes finding illegals to do construction and landscaping projects so she can get away with paying less. But clearly – CLEARLY – these unethical benefits do not outweigh the burdens. She has to realize that.  Everyone has to realize that. If not, I have to doubt their ability to think and reason and use common sense.

Oh, and let’s not forget that today’s illegal immigrant is tomorrow’s Democratic voter. Considering that fact that Republicans pay far and above what Democrats pay in all levels of taxation (local, state, and especially federal), the FACT is that in many areas of the country, every Republican taxpayer’s vote is cancelled by a Democratic voter who in fact very likely does NOT pay federal income tax. Approximately 50% of people have no federal income liability. In other words, there is a very high percentage of people (Democrats) who have too much power to vote to spend the money that OTHERS earn and pay in taxation. Actual taxpayers who want to keep more of their money are losing out at the ballot box, and open borders will continue that trend. It is not the traditional “American Way” or the “Christian Way” to take what others had to earn but those on the left clearly despise traditional values…

Healthcare will become our next national black hole, where any possible tax break will go to die. Entitled (government-provided) healthcare is another one of those essentials in life that motivates a person to work, get a good job, move up the ladder, get a good education, breed responsibly, etc. Taking that pressure off of Americans is just another social program benefit that makes people comfortable and content in their poverty and relieves them of taking care of themselves. Why work? Why apply yourself in high school when you can get by with the absolute minimum and the government will provide you all the rest to allow you to live on par with those who’ve studied, worked hard, and didn’t settle for poverty ? Why invest in learning a trade, a skill, going to college, or starting a business?? I absolutely hate the mentality that says we should do more for those who aren’t making enough money with funding that others worked hard to earn and which is taken from their own families that rightfully should go to national and border security and to stop the insanity that is our current immigration and border problem — uncontrolled illegal entry into the country, human trafficking, more and more drugs flooding into our communities (most of the heroine that is killing our young people comes in across our southern border), gang members and drug traffickers terrorizing our cities and towns and preying on our children. Our OBLIGATION is spelled out in the Constitution — Congress has supreme power to tax and spend for our security, safety, and defense as a nation. Our obligation is NOT to people from other countries.

Liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists, and Trump-haters are dangerous to this country for many reasons: First because they presume to be motivated by compassion (but its really ideology and politics) rather than intellect, common sense, and rationality, second, because they have no concept or understanding whatsoever of the Constitution and rightful government power, and third, because they have absolutely no respect for decency and the Rule of Law.  Liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists, and Trump-haters want everything free in this country except free speech. They want everyone to have a better standard of living, while soaking money from those actually working hard, studying hard, and building careers to do that very same thing for their own families. They think everyone everywhere is entitled to America’s wealth except those who earn it.

When you see someone like Ms. Angela make a stupid comment like the one she made regarding the wall funding, please take the time to respond with common sense, the law, and facts (As Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told Nancy Pelosi after the latter chided: “I reject your facts..” –  “They are THE facts, not my facts”). We need to educate these mis-informed, soft-brained, often diseased-minded people, one at a time.  You may want to be far kinder than I have been in this article.

 

References:

Michael Rubin, “The Places Where Walls Work,” AEI, January 27, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.aei.org/publication/the-places-where-walls-work/

Simon Tomlinson, “World of Walls: How 65 Countries Have Erected Fences On Their Borders – Four Times As Many As When the Berlin Wall Was Toppled – As Governments Try to Hold Back the Tide of Migrants,” Daily Mail, August 21, 2015.  Referenced at:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3205724/How-65-countries-erected-security-walls-borders.html

Steve Watson, “Walls and Fences Are Bad Except If You’re a Hollywood Elite Attending the Oscars,” InfoWars, February 27, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.infowars.com/walls-and-fences-are-bad-except-if-youre-a-hollywood-elitist-attending-the-oscars/

Paul Bedard, “Census Confirms 63 Percent of Non-Citizens on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households,” Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

“FAKE NEWS: AP Tries to Discredit Trump’s Border Wall,” golifa, December 28, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.golifa.com/fake-news-ap-tries-discredit-trumps-border-wall/

Why Open Borders Should be a Non-Issue for America

IMMIGRATION - OPEN BORDERS (Credit Jonathan McIntosh, Wikimedia Commons)

(Photo credit: Jonathan McIntosh, Wikimedia Commons)

by Diane Rufino, December 22, 2018

On October 16, 2018, Francisco Gonzalez wrote an article, or more aptly, a book review, entitled “ Why Open Borders Are Bad for America’s Immigrants”; it was published by The Federalist. In that article, Gonzalez reviewed and commented (apparently in support of) Reihan Salam’s book ‘Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders.”

In this article below, I am providing some thoughts and commentary, and some opinions and counter-arguments as well, on both Gonzalez’ article and the underlying work which is Salam’s book. I write this with no disrespect at all for either Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Salam, and I hope that my commentary does not suggest so. I am grateful to both for their coverage and thoughts on this hot topic of open borders because it helps to further a robust debate on the issue. Immigration reform is certainly the defining issue of our time, with the current administration. I believe strongly in the First Amendment and the need for all viewpoints in order that Americans can have the most exhaustive discussions and debates on matters touching on their country, their government, and their communities. Exhaustive discussions and debates helps us to form our opinions, to keep us most acutely informed, and to decide on the best course of action. The First Amendment was adopted first and foremost for political speech and expression, with the intent that a “marketplace of ideas” would be robust and full of diverse opinions and viewpoints and thus, enable Americans to make the most informed choices at the ballot box and to keep tabs on government.

I should begin by saying that I agree with Salam’s ultimate conclusion, which is that an “open borders” immigration policy is bad for the United States. But I want to emphasize that I believe it is bad for the country in general, for the population as a whole, and for the fatal threats it poses to our safety and security, and not simply for the reason that Salam suggests – which is that it is bad for America’s more recent immigrants. I also believe it is a reckless and illegitimate attempt to advance a political party’s interests way and above any other interests (including moral) that key political leaders may offer.

Gonzalez’s article begins:

Immigration has long been one of the hottest topics in America with no agreed upon policy solutions. We are often presented with one of two polarized choices. The first favors an open borders policy, where the free flow of migrants across our borders is welcomed and amnesty is granted to those who previously crossed the border unlawfully. The second option would seal the border, perhaps with a “wall,” and find and hunt down all illegal immigrants and deport them.

The election of Donald Trump, who clearly leans towards that second choice, has forced a needed argument about immigration. We can disagree on the tactics and the rhetoric Trump uses about immigration, but he has certainly compelled the nation to have the discussion and has moved the nation – including Congress – as close as it’s been to taking some kind of action to remedy this long standoff.

This is as timely a moment as ever for the release Reihan Salam’s book, “Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders.” Salam, a son of Bangladeshi immigrants, the executive director of National Review, and a fellow with National Review Institute (where I also work), argues that the real choice we have in our immigration debate “is whether we see the immigrants we welcome to our shores as permanent strangers to whom we have no obligation other than to deliver them from the relative poverty of their homelands, or as free and equal citizens to whom we are pledging our loyalty in this generation and in those to come.”

Clearly, Gonzalez says, Reihan Salam’s book provides an important viewpoint to the on-going discussion about immigration policy, and in particular, an open-borders policy.
However, what Gonzalez fails to recognize, fails to criticize, and fails to comment on is that Salam is insincere and intellectually dishonest about the issues surrounding the immigration debate. If Gonzalez is indeed framing the debate correctly according to Salam’s point of view, it is clear that Salam neglects the real issue in the immigration debate – which is “legal immigration” versus “illegal immigration.” Are we a nation of laws? Do we believe in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the foundation of that law? If so, then we must demand that immigrants come here legally and our policy must enforce that and discourage illegal entry. If we don’t believe in the Rule of Law, if we believe laws are only for tax-burdened citizens to adhere to, if we believe that enforcement of federal laws is arbitrary, and we’ve abandoned the notion that the federal government is absolutely responsible for the objects expressly delegated to it by the Constitution, then open borders makes sense.

Salam also neglects the true nature of the push for an open borders immigration policy. The truth is that a relaxed immigration policy (ie, open borders policy) is a political issue with no concern at all for national security (a very real reason for the power to regulate immigration) but rather for political ends. Today’s illegal immigrants are tomorrow’s Democratic voters.

In his book, Salam argues that if we are to live up to the standards of America’s principles, which he hopes we will do, we would certainly want to move in a direction more towards an open immigration policy and a welcoming of illegals “as free and equal citizens.”

Salam argues that US immigration policy needs to address the concerns of those immigrants newly added to our country. He notes that, unfortunately, most immigrants and children of immigrants are not moving up the economic ladder. That is simply the truth of the matter. They are also not taking advantage of college and secondary education opportunities (or have as successful graduation rates) compared with their counterparts.

Gonzalez writes:

When they don’t do that, as Salam shows, they become stuck in ethnic enclaves. When they remain poor and only around other poor immigrants from their own ethnic backgrounds, not only do they not assimilate into America’s melting pot, but they also start forming grievances against their new host country. That’s a dangerous proposition not only for the American economy, but also for the American identity.

One of the key factors that contributes to this situation is that most immigrants are low-skilled workers who have traditionally been welcomed into our economy by those seeking cheap labor. However, as Salam shows throughout this book, low-skilled workers are less and less needed, as our modern economy shifts to automation and off-shoring of labor becomes a more likely proposition.

Note that others, economic experts, assert that since the United States has moved from a production economy to a “service” economy, low-skilled workers (such as servers, maids, housecleaners, landscapers, etc), will continue to be needed. In other words, there will always be a need (a “magnet”) for immigration – legal and illegal…. After all, we can’t forget that “there are certain jobs that Americans just won’t do,” even those who need jobs to support themselves and their families.

Gonzalez continues in his review of Salam’s book:

Salam points out that traditional free-market libertarians tend to favor a more open border policy, coupled with free trade, that is open to a more globalized labor pool, where products and services are manufactured abroad and imported at lower rates for consumers in the United States. At the same time, those who favor more protectionism in trade tend to be more limiting on immigration. He observes both of these sides can’t have their cake and eat it, too. “The decline of protectionism has made restricting low-skill immigration a more viable option,” says Salam. If we are to pursue more egalitarianism, this is a good thing. Salam argues that we need to shift our immigration policies towards a more selective, skills-based approach.

A selective, skills-based approach is the same approach that President Trump favors. He believes in an immigration policy that is not only based on legal entry into this country but also that focuses on merit-based entry as well. In other words, he wants immigrants to join our country who can add to our country – wealth, advanced skills, intellect – rather than to drain from taxpayers and otherwise burden our towns, cities, and communities.

Salam believes that such an approach will favor immigrants who are likely to be more economically stable and upwardly mobile. It will also favor our un-skilled citizenry who need jobs yet often find them given to immigrants (legal and illegal).

As Gonzalez points out, Salam’s concern regarding U.S. immigration policy is not simply for immigrants already in the United States, but also for those who need to emigrate to the United States because they are impoverished in the countries they currently reside:

Salam does not ignore that there are hundreds of millions of people living in poverty around the world who are on the move. He goes one further and recognizes that “the international poverty line is fundamentally arbitrary. It grossly underestimates the number of people around the world who are desperate to better their lot.”

In fact, it often takes that first lift out of poverty to be able to afford to move at all. That’s part of the reason we are seeing many migrants move from impoverished places in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. To this end, Salam provides many ways we can help those people. He goes so far as to suggest that “it’s time for Americans to roll up their sleeves and help.”

Why is it always “America’s problem” ? Why does it always seem to become America’s obligation to “help impoverished people,” to “help people around the world to better their lot,” and to help them “move from impoverished places.” Why must it become America’s moral imperative “to roll up our sleeves and help”? Last I remember, we have a United Nations and a concept known as “shared responsibility.”

Just because America is deemed a “wealthy” country (indeed, where on Earth are those considered poor and living in poverty seen so obese and living so relatively comfortably?), where does it say that she is obligated to share that wealth with those who need it? Where does it say that the money earned by hard-working Americans must be re-distributed to those who have no legal entitlement to it? Why must America’s wealth be constantly re-distributed all over the globe? Again, when are we going to recognize the concept of “shared responsibility”? (And let’s be clear, it’s not an actual responsibility, like that of a parent to raise and take care of his children; it’s more of a moral responsibility, one that helps relieve our collective conscience)

I know what our country’s actual prime responsibility is… It is a responsibility to its citizens. It is a responsibility to enforce the laws tasked to it by our government’s creation to regulate immigration (to enforce a common-sense effective immigration policy) and to keep us safe from harm and any threat of it, and to keep us secure at home in our way of life.

Gonzalez article continues and concludes:

Salam doesn’t say we have to tackle any one or all of the ideas he proposes in one of the later chapters of the book; however, he does add some innovative concepts on how Americans could help those in poverty abroad. They include: international development; incentivizing older Americans to retire abroad (including investing their Medicare and Social Security benefits in developing countries, which alleviates the stress on America’s health-care sector); working with other countries to develop charter cities that would employ low-skill workers without them having to enter the United States; and creating financial incentives and trade concessions to spur industrial development in zones that consist of large multitudes of displaced refugees.

Some of these solutions may be a hard pill to swallow for those who believe in smaller government and even smaller U.S. foreign aid, but it seems Salam proposes these ideas mostly to counter advocates who claim the United States has a moral obligation to open its borders to those in impoverished nations who are migrating to improve their circumstances.

He smartly weighs the short-term and long-term costs to the U.S. government and economy for each of these proposals. However, one wonders what will happen once these ideas go from a scholarly book like Salam’s into the hands of policymakers in Congress. At that point, how much more will that budget increase and for how long will America’s ruling class want to keep these new programs in place?

Salam’s book should add weight to many of the policy proposals in the RAISE Act (the bill from U.S. Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue that has found some favor with President Trump). It creates a points system that rewards immigrants who have higher skills and won’t burden U.S. taxpayers.

Salam also suggests the United States should be working closer with Mexico rather than the keeping our currently strained relationship. He points out that as the Mexican economy has been improving, we have seen fewer Mexicans coming into the United States. The largest sector of immigrants crossing the U.S. border from Mexico – mostly illegally – has been from poorer Central American countries. A stronger U.S. partnership would encourage Mexico to stop the flow of migrants coming through Mexico from Central America into the United States.

Salam also argues that we should partner with Mexico in a combined effort to help the economies of Central American nations improve, so that citizens of those countries have less need to uproot themselves for a better opportunity in the United States.

Throughout his book Melting Pot or Civil War? Salam forces us to look at the effects more than 8 million unauthorized immigrants have on the U.S. economy and government spending, not to mention the ethnic tensions their economic stagnation could contribute towards fracturing America’s culture.

That is perhaps what Salam considers the most important element of his argument. If we do not create conditions that allow immigrants who come to the United States from all over the world to assimilate and build a melting pot culture, then we are doomed to move towards cultural fragmentation and the polarization of different peoples in our country. There will be an increasingly widening gap between the affluent and the poor. Working-class Americans, as well as immigrants, will continue to fight for a scarcity of low-skill jobs, struggle to achieve economic mobility, and fail to move towards the cultural mainstream of America.

Just as Trump’s election has forced an argument over immigration, Salam’s book has the opportunity to persuade us to look at innovative policy solutions to transform America’s mired immigration system into one that works for migrants seeking to better their lot. At the same time, these solutions will also help American citizens and the immigrants we welcome work towards building a melting pot, rather than continue to intensify ethnic conflict and economic strife.

Salam overemphasizes the obligation we owe to immigrants – both those who seek to come here and those who are here illegally, hoping for some kind of amnesty policy. He overemphasizes the obligation we owe to people from other parts of the world, especially unilaterally.

It is in this respect that Salam, like so very many others, commits another erroneous assumption. Salam and others like to say that “America is a land of immigrants,” not to underscore how the country was created and developed, but to suggest that our immigration system MUST ensure that the country continues to bring on more and more immigrants. America had no choice at one time but to grow as a land of “immigrants” because its only native population were the American Indians. Immigrants are, by definition, people who leave their country to move to another with the intent of making that new country their home. For over two hundred years, in three major waves, our country grew and benefitted from immigration: During the colonial era, during the first part of the 19th century, and finally, from the 1880s to 1920. (For now, let’s ignore the recent immigration crisis we are experiencing from Mexico and other Hispanic countries). The last two waves saw immigrants coming to America for greater economic opportunity, while the first wave, particularly with such groups as the Pilgrims and the Puritans, who arrived to here in 1620 and then 1630, respectively, saw immigrants seeking religious freedom. By 1912, the United States was just about completely formed (New Mexico and Arizona became states that year, becoming the 47th and 48th states to join the union; Hawaii and Alaska would complete the union in 1959). While America had become a land of immigrants, the country began to re-consider how exactly it wanted to grow even before the start of the 20th century, which is its sovereign right. The first significant pieces of federal legislation restricting immigration were passed in 1875 and then in 1882, when they specifically restricted Chinese immigrants. The Page Act of 1875 restricted the immigration of forced laborers coming from Asia, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 halted all legal immigration of Chinese laborers (our country’s first major exclusionary immigration restriction), and then the Immigration Act of 1882 which restricted other classes of persons from entering the country. Additional restrictions, including compete bans, followed in the early 1920’s.

Yesterday’s immigrants have become generational Americans. Many can trace their roots to colonial times and to the American Revolution. Many can point to relatives that were killed during the American Civil War. And still more can take immense pride in the fact that great-grandparents and grandparents fought for our country in World War I and in World War II, respectively. These one-time immigrants truly contributed and help build this country; they came here legally with nothing to support them but the money in their pockets and the desire to work or find a niche in the community to support themselves and their families. There were no welfare checks, no social programs, no Food Stamps, no tax credits, no free healthcare. There were ethnic communities but no ethnic protesting or ethnic rage; no flying of home country flags and burning of American flags.

During her years of robust immigration, America offered something special – opportunity and freedom, two things that other countries around the world could not offer or deliver. The inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poignant reminder of how the United States embraced immigrants to its shored: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” Indeed, Lady Liberty represents an exciting new chapter in Lady Liberty’s story of freedom. ” The statue was given to America as a gift of friendship from the people of France and dedicated on October 28, 1886. France gave it the name “Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World” to recognize its mission of freedom and democracy. The very design of the statue reflects that message of freedom and democracy: At the feet of Lady Liberty, partially hidden by her robe, are broken shackles (signify a breaking away from tyranny and oppression), in her outstretched hand, she carries a torch, lighting the way to freedom and showing the path to Liberty, in her other arm, she cradles a tablet (evoking law; the Rule of Law), and on her head rests a crown with seven rays (representing the seven continents).

The years after our Civil War and then Reconstruction were years of rapid industrialization, western expansion, and rapid growth. Yes, it was a time for immigration. It was a time when immigration was necessary and important for the growth that the country was experiencing and the production it was becoming world famous for. So yes, at one time (and for many years at that), “America was a land of immigrants.”

But it is false and misleading to think that our country needs to perpetuate the idea that our country still a land of ” – that notion that we need to continue being a “land of immigrants.” Our country is now fully developed and fully populated (lest we truly believe in a diminished quality of life) and our focus is to grow our country mostly from within. The country belongs to its citizens and its citizens have spoken clearly – they want a wall and they want legal immigration – with a sensible policy to guide immigration here.

Reference:  Francisco Gonzalez, “Open Borders Are Bad for America’s Immigrants,” The Federalist, October 16, 2018. Referenced at: http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/16/open-borders-are-bad-for-americas-immigrants/

*** Francisco Gonzalez is the director of philanthropy at National Review Institute.