An Inside Job

Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan is an admin of the Signal Chat that has organized the resistance against ICE in Minnesota.  Yes, the government of Minnesota is actively interfering with federal officers who are just trying to remove illegal aliens.  When the governor of Arkansas tried to keep blacks out of schools in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education, President Eisenhower called out the National Guard.  States don't get to decide which federal laws they will obey.  This sure looks a lot like an insurrection, and Democrats have stated how wrong those are for the past 5 years.

Insurrection: A violent uprising by a group against lawful authority or government power.  It typically unfolds through organized, illegal actions, such as riots or armed resistance, that obstruct the enforcement of laws.

Clearly, they are obstructing the enforcement of laws.  Alex Pretti was armed, which means that Minneapolis has seen more gun-carrying protestors than J6 had.  One ICE agent had his finger bitten off, another was beaten with a shovel, and one was hit by a car.  Organized action by members of the state government to thwart the federal government.  Yeah, we're right on the precipice of insurrection.  Is this to protect hard-working, law-abiding undocumented immigrants from being sent back to their home countries?  Or is it to distract from fraud growing out of migrant communities?  How many illegals voted in Minnesota?  How much of the money acquired from fraudulent daycares and medical clinics was kicked back to politicians, like the suddenly wealthy Ilhan Omar?  How far will insiders take this to prevent that information from being revealed?

The New Nullification Crisis

ICE agents shot and killed a man in Minneapolis.  The man was armed and resisting arrest.  This article reports that his parents urged him not to engage with ICE.  Though I am in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, it does not seem wise to be armed when you know you are going to be in contact with armed police.  Don't bring a gun to a peaceful protest.  Definitely don't escalate things when you are armed.

Combined with Renee Good's death, the situation in Minnesota is spiraling out of control.  Governor Walz and Mayor Frey are making matters worse with their vocal opposition to ICE.  This is a resurrection of the Nullification Crisis of 1832.  President Andrew Jackson threatened to march an army into South Carolina and his Vice President, John C. Calhoun, resigned over the issue.  Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Cynical Publius, an insightful commentator on X, argues that the problem is that no one is asking the right question.  Currently, the Democrats are framing the issue by hyping the protests and claiming that the administration is fascist.  The Republicans are, as usual, on defense.  The simple solution is to turn it around would be to ask this question:

Why do you oppose the lawful enforcement of America's long-standing bipartisan immigration laws?

That is what is happening.  Duly passed laws are being enforced.  There is no good answer to this question, so every politician will dodge it, change the subject, or claim it isn't the law.  That reaction is an answer in itself.

Bleeding Minnesota

In the 1850s, Senator Stephen A. Douglas had argued in favor of popular sovereignty, a system where the people of a state would decide whether slavery would be legal or not.  This idea was tested with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Though both states were north of the previously agreed upon 36th parallel, the act allowed them to organize how they chose.  Unsurprisingly (well, it must have been a surprise to Douglas & President Franklin Pierce), abolitionists and pro-slave forces flooded into Kansas.  Murder and mayhem followed: Bleeding Kansas.  John Brown was quite active, gaining his fame or infamy depending on one's point of view.  It is agreed that this was a big step on the way to Civil War.

Today, the question is illegal immigration.  Again, we have a popular sovereignty where some states encourage illegal immigration and protect those immigrants from deportation.  The term Sanctuary City goes back decades.  There are many who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration.  Unlike the case in the 19th Century where slavery was not only legal, but Constitutional, illegal immigration is clearly illegal.  There is no argument in favor on the basis of law.  Sanctuary cities have always been enabling lawlessness, which the federal government has tolerated to varying degrees.

Just as the slavery question grew more and more contentious as the 19th century progressed, the issue of illegal immigration has done the same.  One could argue that Donald Trump won both his elections on that issue alone.  Trump is to illegal immigration what Lincoln was to slavery.  Why is illegal immigration so important to those who support it?  They would claim human decency.  That is no more convincing than when slave owners declared their slaves to be too stupid to take care of themselves.  No, there are several benefits.  First, illegals count in the census, which is why there was such a ruckus when Trump tried to get a question about legal status on the 2020 Census.  If one accepts the long-stated 12 million illegals, that is 16 seats in the House of Representatives, even if illegals don't vote.  If they do vote (and many have), they are going to reliably vote for the pro-illegal immigrant party (i.e., Democrats).  Then there is the money.  As has been exposed with the Somali daycares, a lot of money is supporting illegals in America.  How much of that gets kicked back to political campaigns or activism?

Much as the American South had built a culture on exploiting slaves, the Democratic Party of today has built a system that exploits illegal immigrants.  Like the slave, the immigrant doesn't have recourse to law; he will be deported.  The illegal immigrant is just a variation of the same old Democratic playbook: cheap labor and greater electoral representation.  Just as they resorted to violence to protect and extend slavery in Kansas, they are resorting to violence in Minnesota.  ICE represents the abolitionists.

No Welfare for Foreigners

Inexplicably, illegal immigrants are receiving SNAP benefits.  Of course, they are also receiving other benefits, but this is the topic of the day on account of the shutdown.  Why are they receiving ANY benefits?  Not only did you cross the border illegally, but now you are a drain on our economy rather than a contributor to it.  We are poorer as a country because such people are here.  Deport!  At the very least, no benefits.  I am not a fan of government-provided welfare in the first place, but if we are going to have it, only US citizens should qualify to receive them.  All others, go back to your home country and be non-productive there.

Funding a Riot

The current riots in LA, which will soon spread nation-wide, are planned events.  Someone is funding them.  Pallets of bricks don't just happen to appear at the scene of a 'protest' where there isn't any construction.  Drivers don't arrive with supplies of high-end masks to protect from tear gas without someone footing the bill.  Both the governor and mayor are in league with the funders.  This 'protest' is designed to thwart the entirely lawful enforcement of immigration law.

During the Obama presidency, the state of Arizona was miffed that the government wasn't enforcing immigration law.  Arizona passed a law to allow it to enforce the border.  The Obama administration sued Arizona and won.  Border enforcement is a federal responsibility.  States don't get their own immigration laws.  California doesn't get to opt out of ICE enforcing the law.

Due Process for Illegal Immigrants

In response to Trump's wholesale expulsion and deportation of illegal immigrants, the democrats are crying out for due process.  Apparently, these illegal entrants should be allowed to stay - at our expense - until we can give them a court date.  And what is going to happen at that court date?

Judge: Are you a US Citizen?

Immigrant: No

Judge: Do you have a green card or visa?

Immigrant: No

Judge: Clearly, you do not have a legal right or permission to be in the US.  Deportation order is hereby upheld.

What a waste of time and money to go through this.  Once someone crosses the border, the US is now obligated to pay for a public defender and a court date to shove them back to the other side?  Imagine if someone moved into your backyard and you couldn't just kick them out.  Nope, you need to wait on a court date and let a judge permit you to kick them out.  Ludicrous.  Asinine.  Of course, even in the above example, there will be demands for appeal.  Craziness.  This is a strategy that will lead to bankruptcy just trying to get the trespassers out of the country, and that is the point.  The other side wants to make it as expensive as possible to return illegal aliens to their home countries.  Why are they so keen on keeping illegals in the US at the expense of the American taxpayer?

The Border

Throughout the Biden Presidency, we heard that there was nothing he could do about the border.  He needed new laws to stop the flood of immigrants across the border.  Congress must pass new laws to stem the tide.  The president's hands are tied without additional legislation.  Really?

President Trump has been back in office for just over 6 weeks and border crossings have plummeted by 85% or more.  Amazingly, Congress has passed no new laws.  Nope.  Trump is just enforcing the laws that are already on the books.  It is illegal to enter the United States without permission.  The border crisis that Biden claimed to have no power to reverse somehow turned on a dime when a new president was inaugurated.  It is exactly events like this that destroy faith in media.  For the last four years, the media uncritically echoed the Biden Administration's claims of helplessness in the face of illegal immigration.  How does one trust what the media reports now when current events demolish previous reporting?  There is a reason that some have referred to the mainstream media as Democratic stenographers.

Birthright Citizenship

Nigel Piddlewhite arrives in the US as an exchange student from York, England, to attend the University of Nebraska.  To his great delight, he meets Fiona Feversham who happens to be from Leeds, England.  Both are freshman and quickly hit it off.  By their sophomore year, they have married and have a son, Algernon Piddlewhite.  Upon graduation, Nigel and Fiona return to England with young Algernon to begin careers and have another child.  Life is great and Algernon soon has a younger brother and sister.  On his 18th birthday, an official-looking letter arrives from America!  It is a request for him to enroll in Selective Services.  Is he legally obligated to do so?  Might an effort to extradite him be made if he failed to enroll?  Is Algernon an American citizen?  Certainly, neither of his parents are American citizens.  Nor are his siblings.

Maria Cortes is 6 months pregnant when she pays a coyote to get her across the US border into Arizona.  She has cousins in Tucson who support her until she has the baby.  Little Ximena is a healthy baby girl.  However, ICE has grabbed Maria and want to deport her.  Immigration lawyers declared that Ximena is an American citizen and the US must let her mother stay to raise her.  Is Ximena an American citizen or is she the same nationality as her mother who just happened to be born in another country?

The 14th Amendment states that:

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

Was it the intent of the authors of this amendment to provide such a path to citizenship?  It must be remembered that this amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and with the intent of countering the Dred Scott Decision.  The 13th abolished slavery and the 15th provided the vote regardless of race.  The 14th granted citizenship to former slaves.  What was meant to be a one-and-done granting of citizenship has somehow morphed into birthright citizenship for the children of whomever can get across the border and give birth.

President Trump has signed an executive order that will see this issue hashed out in the courts in the near future.

The New 3/5ths Rule

Back in the 1780s when the Articles of Confederation were failing the newly independent United States, a constitutional convention was called.  The putative plan was merely to amend the Articles to deal with recent troubles.  Instead, a new constitution was composed.  One of the difficulties was that the southern states had sizable slave populations.  Slaves were property and thus, it was argued, shouldn't be counted in the population.  As representation in the House was going to be based on population, the South didn't like that plan.  Of course, the North didn't think slaves should get the same representation as citizens.  What to do?  The two sides agreed to the 3/5ths compromise.  Thus, a state with 50,000 citizens and 50,000 slaves would be allocated House seats as if the population was 80,000 people (100% of the citizens plus 60% of the slaves).  This compromise allowed the South to keep pace with the far more populace North for decades.  Though the 3/5ths rule is still written into the Constitution, the 13th Amendment - which abolished slavery - ended it.

Today, a new means of inflating representation in the House has been developed.  Though it would seem obvious that the purpose of the House of Representatives was to represent the interests of the citizens, such is not quite the case.  The huge influx of illegal aliens - or undocumented workers, if you prefer - has inflated some regions.  In 2018, it was estimated that 11 to 12 million "unauthorized immigrants" were in the United States.  That was about 3% of the population, or 14 seats in the House of Representatives.  Now, if this 3% was evenly spread across the US, the representation would be a wash.  But they are not evenly spread.  According to this 2019 story, most of them live in 20 metro areas.  By having a large illegal population, a state can gain a House seat or two.  Within the state, the balance of representatives will tilt toward the metro areas, disenfranchising the rural areas and smaller cities.  It should be noted that several million more illegals have immigrated into the US over the last 3 years.

Though there are financial costs to hosting illegal aliens, the political gains are clearly enough to have the majority of politicians turn a blind eye.  Illegal immigration is so unpopular with the citizenry that Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 by campaigning on it.  He may win in 2024 by campaigning on it again!

Much as it was wrong to allocate representation to slave states through the 3/5ths rule, it is also wrong to grant sanctuary cities and states more representation because they flout US law.  Citizenship should have benefits.  If Dieter from Germany happens to be attending the University of Iowa, that does not mean that he should count toward Iowa's number of Representatives in the House.  Incentives matter and right now the incentive is to give more representation based on population rather than citizens; politicians are responding to those incentives by opening the borders.

Not Criminal If the Government Does it

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition."

Richard Nixon

If Pablo Delgado the cartel coyote cuts razor wire along the US-Mexican border to allow illegal immigrants into the United States, that would be a crime.  Pablo would be subject to arrest and imprisonment.

If Greg Moss the fruit farmer cuts razor wire along the border and allows illegal immigrants into the country to pick strawberries, that would be a crime.  Greg would be subject to arrest and imprisonment.

If Officer Hernandez of the Customs and Border Patrol cuts razor wire along the border and allows illegal immigrants into the country, well that's just fine.  It's humanitarian and living up to our values.  Besides, Officer Hernandez is just following orders from President Biden.

The federal government has, for some inexplicable reason, decided to aid illegal immigration into the country.  The vast majority of Americans - around 67% - are opposed to this flood of immigration and yet the government is abetting the flow rather than stemming it.

Sometimes it is necessary for the government to govern against the will of the people, but when it does so, it needs to explain why.  It needs to lead and bring the people to understand the reasons why the unfavored course is correct.  President Biden has failed to do that.  His spokespeople have gaslit the American people by saying the border is secure and everything is fine.

Close the border or explain why floods of undocumented immigrants are a benefit.  Pick one.

Martha's Vineyard Immigration Policy

I have discovered an immigration policy that I like.  Martha's Vineyard recently had an influx of 'undocumented' immigrants.  Within 48 hours, those immigrants were deported from the island.  Yes!  There we go.  The self-proclaimed sanctuary had a different view once those asylum seekers landed on their tony shores.  Much like windfarms, the wealthy elite are heartily in favor, as long as it doesn't ruin their picturesque views or property values.  When it was the border states absorbing the floods of migrants, it was immoral to oppose the migrants.  No human is illegal!  That formulation changes a bit when they are expected to carry their "fair share" of immigrants.  Apparently, 50 was too many.  In any case, all jurisdictions should have the same deportation authority as Martha's Vineyard.

Sanctuary in Name Only

Mayors, governors, senators, and representatives from cities and states that are far from the border have long labeled anyone who wants a border wall to be racists.  The sitting vice president has repeatedly declared that the border is secure and the fact that a couple busloads of illegal immigrants just arrived near her residence has not changed that view.  Governor Ron DeSantis raised the ante by chartering a flight to Martha's Vineyard for 50 undocumented migrants.  The very people who virtue signal by stating that no person is illegal are now crying foul.  They don't have the resources to deal with all these people.  Oh, really?  Thousands are coming over the Texas border on a daily basis, but home of the super wealthy Martha's Vineyard is unable to cope with 50.  Similar caterwauling has been heard from New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.  What happened to the compassion that dripped from every proclamation about the border?  Yeah, it was great as long as it wasn't in your backyard.

Vaccine Passport

Can we implement that at the border first?  If undocumented immigrants are allowed to cross the border into the United States without a vaccine passport, I don't see any reason an American citizen should be held to a higher standard.  Citizenship should have some privileges.

George Will the Democrat

In his latest column, George Will calls on his readers to vote for the Democrats in November.  Less than a month after he heaped praise on Mitch McConnell's recent achievements - made possible because Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, he demands that it be torn down.  Yes, the Zero Tolerance Policy on the border - where the laws are finally being enforced as they were written - is a demonstration of bad government.  Hmm.

 

Though I dislike much of Trump's style, his results have been nothing short of amazing.  Regulations rolled back, conservative justices, tax reductions, economic growth, improved employment numbers, unbelievable shifts in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.  Jerusalem recognized as capitol of Israel (something the previous 3 presidents said they would do), women can drive in Saudi Arabia, and there may soon by a railway link between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  I have been an avid reader of George Will for years; policies that he has advocated for decades are being enacted and he is furious.

 

It should be noted that Will references a recent incident where Corey Lewandowski - Trump's former campaign manager - dismissively said "Wah, wah," when confronted with a story of a Down syndrome child separated from her parents at the border.  George Will's son has Down syndrome.  Trump may be implementing policies that Will should like but Trump is not at all presidential in the common usage of the term.  Trump is a Washington outsider while George Will has been an insider for most of his life.  If Trump had the demeanor of Romney and was accomplishing these same things, I suspect Will would be far more supportive.  Clash of personalities more than policies.

Due Process Not Required to Stop Crime in Progress

In a recent tweet, Trump said, "We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came."  Of course, this has resulted in panic and hysteria.  But let's look at this a little differently.

One day, you come home to find that Walter has setup a tent in your backyard.  You call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing.  The police arrive and say they will not remove him without due process.  So, Walter gets to continue trespassing in your backyard for as long as it takes for a court date.  Illegal aliens are trespassers.  Taking them off the property necessarily means kicking them out of the country.  As it happens, there are US Consulates in Matamoros (across Rio Grande from Brownsville, TX), Nuevo Laredo (across Rio Grande from Laredo, TX), Ciudad Juarez (across Rio Grande from El Paso, TX), Nogales (across the border from Nogales, AZ), and Tijuana (across the border from San Diego, CA).  Drop them at the nearest one and let them make their case.  If you reward trespassers by letting them continue to trespass at your expense, you are encouraging more trespassers.

 

Do we let the drunk driver continue to drive until his day in court?  In Texas, the driver's license can be confiscated on the spot.  In the case of trespassers, they are escorted off the property.  In this case, the property is US soil.  If that was government policy, we wouldn't need a wall.

Peaceful Vikings?

This is a funny twist on current events.

The Establishment Protests

George W Bush has once again spoken his mind on the state of affairs.  Amazing that he was able to hold his tongue for 8 years while Barack Obama hammered him on everything from the state of US foreign policy to the state of the economy.  No more!  He needs to speak.  According to Bush, the forces of bigotry have been emboldened of late and he fears that the US is slipping toward white supremacy.  No names are mentioned but it's pretty clear who he is blaming.  Just the other day, John McCain criticized spurious nationalism.  Yes, the establishment is furious.

 

The source of all this nationalism and white supremacy nonsense is that Trump has instructed ICE, the Border Patrol, et al. to enforce the laws that Congress had passed and his predecessors had signed.  No new laws have been passed.  After decades of neglect, those laws appear draconian.  Amazingly, enforcing immigrations laws has long been a winning issue that neither party was interested in pursuing.  Bush sought to pass an amnesty - Path to Citizenship - and was shot down.  Bush's brother, JEB, described illegal immigration as an 'act of love.'  McCain is a big amnesty proponent except when he is running for re-election every 6 years.  Obama didn't even bother with Congress and enacted a limited amnesty via executive order: DACA.  The establishment doesn't like the voters and is importing new voters.

 

Bush is part of the establishment, a true believer in big government, which he termed 'compassionate' conservatism.  Moreover, he has personal reasons to dislike Trump, the man who easily squashed his brother's presidential run.  These are not the wise musings of a dispassionate statesman.  This is a member of the establishment trying to damage an outsider lest that outsider derail the deep state.

 

The rebellion against the establishment is a global phenomenon.  Brexit?  Catalonia?  The rise of the right in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary?  Trump is just the American version of this rebellion.  Remember, the establishment with all their Ivy League degrees managed to estrange the electorate to such a degree that the electorate voted for Trump!  Bush and his fellow scolds need to take a long look in the mirror to discover how we came to this point.

DACA

 [The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 3

The Dream Act, which was first proposed in 2001, was legislation that would allow those who are brought into the United States as minors to be granted a conditional amnesty.  Though technically illegal immigrants, they had no say in the matter and have spent the majority of their lives as Americans.  The Act has been debated repeatedly but never passed.  That last point is significant.  There was no law passed for the president to faithfully execute.  When President Obama pushed for the Dream Act, Congress declined to pass it.  Therefore, immigration law treats 'Dreamers' no differently than any other illegal immigrant.  The president takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed, not laws he wished had been passed.  However, limited resources often mean that a president must chose where to put emphasis.  DACA was more than that.  President Obama implemented an executive amnesty that not only told prosecutors to ignore Dreamers but also granted legal status via work permits.  The president was not only being unfaithful to the laws that Congress had passed, he was enforcing laws that they did not pass.  Yet another impeachable offense by President Obama.  Of course, impeachment is pointless in our era and the Republicans were too spineless to use the power of the purse.

 

DACA is unconstitutional and should be revoked.  This is something Congress must legislate.  President Trump has provided Congress with 6 months in which to pass the Dream Act.  Let's see if they pass it this time.  If not, let the deportations begin.  Enforce the laws or change the laws but don't ignore the laws.  That is the path to anarchy and collapse.

Two-Faced Speaker

Having said all of that, there are people who are in limbo. These are kids who know no other country, who were brought here by their parents and don't know another home. And so I really do believe there that there needs to be a legislative solution.

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House

Yet again, the speaker is showing his true colors.  When President Obama put forth the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) as legislation in 2012, the Congress - notably the House - shot it down.  Despite lacking any legislation, Obama directed the executive agencies to enforce immigration law as if DACA had passed.  Now that President Trump is proposing to enforce the laws as the Congress has written them and past presidents have signed them, Ryan has an about face.  Oh, he was only too happy to let Obama ignore the law while he could claim the moral high ground.  He was just fooling the rubes in flyover country.  It looks more and more like the two parties have been engaged in Kabuki theater, giving the impression that they oppose one another when they have really been working in concert.

 

Never trust a politician.

Illegal Voters

Here is a story to shake one's faith in the integrity of US elections.  On the one hand, it comes across as the ravings of a lunatic conspiracy theorist.  On the other hand, the government had demonstrated an almost limitless capacity for incompetence and for creating programs that exacerbate the very problems they were established to cure.  There have been several stories that have exposed fraudulent voting on the small scale and demonstrate that there is a problem that should be addressed.  However, this story proposes that as much as 4.3% of the votes in the 2008 presidential race were illegally cast.  Of course, Obama won by 10 million votes so even factoring out those 5.7 million votes leaves him the victor.  The offered 3.6 million illegal votes for 2012 put Obama on somewhat shakier ground but still the likely winner.  The proposed size of the illegal voting is gargantuan, far beyond what seems reasonable.  How could it possibly be this bad and yet widely unknown?  If it is this bad, one could understand that government would not want this level of incompetence to be publicized.  Still, the sniff test says this has to be crackpottery, especially since it plays into Trump's claim that he would have won the popular vote except for all the illegal votes.   But this comes from Harvard, a source not likely to intentionally feed a narrative mostly floated by Republicans.

 

The data for the Cooperative Congressional Election Study is available for download here.