My conversation with Senator Coburn

Yesterday evening I was able to meet Senator Coburn at a local Town Hall gathering. We had a short one-on-one conversation in a hallway shortly after the meeting was over. Below is an email I sent Senator Coburn today which should serve to explain the content of our short conversation.

Dear Senator,

Amending the constitution is supposed to be the Peoples' last resort method of solving serious constitutional issues before they become crises. A constitutional crisis exists whenever any part of the government simply ignores its provisions or refuses to obey them. Federal law does not necessarily trump State and local law regardless of whether the Congress “occupies a field,” and “intends a complete ouster.” And tacit acquiescence only matters while States are willing to simply “go along.” That is, if the constitution still means anything outside modern interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

I personally find only one thing in the fourteenth amendment objectionable to myself. Namely the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” By this phrase every other constitutional principle preceding it is effectively declared null and void, with the possible exception of the thirteenth amendment. We still have the original constitution but its principles only mean something in context of the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions. What portions of it that we still observe in American politics and outside that context are only done as a matter of convenience to the central government. If or whenever it decides to usurp State and local authority in those matters, it will do so through the federal courts via the fourteenth amendment citizenship clauses. Count on it. This is the way things are and have been done for many decades in American politics. And it will not change until an explicit and authentic act of the whole People alters the way the game is played because liberalism dominates our politics whether we like it or not.

Therefore, my idea for amending the constitution to clarify the intent of the fourteenth amendment is far from being the “stupid idea” you said it was when I mentioned it to you this past Thursday in McAlester. Closing the borders is all well and good and I certainly agree that that needs to be done. But has the loudness of our declamations resulted in sealing the borders? Has it stopped this talk about granting amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants already here? Has it forced attrition on any of them as yet? Has it done anything to solve this “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal immigrants issue? Keep in mind also that I'm not proposing repeal of the fourteenth amendment, only clarification of its intent for our generations.

But there's a much bigger underlying principle you seem to be missing in all of this debate over State immigration laws, and etc. Ultimately it's not about whether the federal government has neglected in the past, or will continue to neglect in the future, its responsibility to protect our borders. No; what this is all about at bottom is that the constitution reserves to the States and to the local governments power to control or regulate a host of items within their own borders, without federal intervention and at their own discretion. Immigration is one of these reserved powers. Several States, including Oklahoma and Arizona, have made worthy attempts in recent years at exercising their discretion in this immigration matter, but to no avail. Simply stated, their most effective efforts have been railroaded by the federal courts who invariably cite the fourteenth amendment citizenship and equal protection clauses as their just cause for usurping the rest of the constitution. This method cannot be allowed to continue much longer or our fate as a nation is already sealed. And if you think you can get the federal courts out of the business of doing this short of amending the constitution to prevent it, well, I think you're very naïve about the power of the federal courts and the ability of anyone to pressure them into anything they don't want to do. As long as the fourteenth amendment exists as the courts have interpreted it, and without clarification from the People, the federal judiciary is going to continue following this pathway of establishing an absolute federal tyranny over these States.

The personality that I am will not allow me to simply complain about a thing without offering a viable alternative to it. Below is my attempt at solving this veritable constitutional crisis before it gets out of hand (it may well already be out of hand) and we're forced into a situation that none of us wants:

A proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to transform the meaning of the fourteenth amendment back to its original intent; to end government by judiciary; to reinvigorate the principles of the constitution as written; to reintroduce the doctrine of reserved powers and to end the practice of admitting to the rights of citizenship at birth persons born in the United States to foreigners illegally residing therein. We introduce this amendment proposal as a means to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.:

Section 1: The fourteenth amendment to this constitution shall not be construed by the United States or by any State to admit to the rights of citizenship, or subject them to their jurisdiction, children born to immigrant parents illegally residing within the United States, or subject to a foreign state, at the time of their birth. Persons born in the United States to alien parents temporarily and legally residing therein shall be subject to all terms and conditions, privileges and immunities, expressly provided for in their parents' visas and the laws of the States wherein they reside. The United States retains the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, but no State shall be compelled by the United States to admit to the rights of citizenship, nor subject them to their jurisdiction, any person or persons involuntarily.

Section 2: No State shall be compelled to house, harbor, educate, provide food or medical services, grant safe passage to or otherwise assist immigrants illegally residing within its borders, nor to conform its laws affecting such residents to the laws of the United States except those made pursuant to the constitution and this article. The exercise of Powers reserved by the constitution to the States or to the People shall be left to their discretion. No reserved power shall transfer to the United States except by process of amendment, but the United States may exercise reserved powers upon application to and express consent of the legislature of the States wherein they propose to exercise them.

Section 3: The Congress is hereby suspended for the term of twenty years from further enacting laws affecting immigrants to the United States or to any State, and no form of amnesty for illegal immigrants shall be granted or recognized during the term of suspension. No State shall be compelled by existing U.S. law to receive immigrants of any race, color, nationality or kinship.

Section 4: Congress shall have power to enforce the terms of this article by appropriate legislation, but no construction of its provisions, or of the provisions of any other article of the constitution which shall be effective at the time of its adoption, shall ever be effective to establishing unconditional federal supremacy in law making, nor shall the provisions of this article affect the citizenship of persons born or naturalized within the United States prior to its adoption.

Section 5: The terms and conditions of this article are hereby exempted from judicial review.

While I certainly understand that issues will be raised with this proposal as written, it forms a good workable model for ending judicial and federal tyranny via the fourteenth amendment in our generation. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a free and balanced constitutional government to work with. What they do with it from there is, of course, up to them.

As I've barely skimmed the surface of how the federal government abuses the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions to its own purposes, please engage me in further discussion on this matter at your convenience.

Respectfully,

Terry D. Morris Jr.
McAlester, OK

Read More

We live in a world of constitutional illiterates

Over the last couple of months I've read several editorials by several different newspaper authors decrying Arizona's disregard for a "fundamental constitutional principle" in making their own immigration law.

What is the fundamental constitutional principle commonly cited by all of these writers? That "federal law trumps State law" of course. Yeah, and "immigration is a federal issue" too. Right.

One editorial writer, Mike Jones of the Tulsa World, cites Article VI, supremacy clause, and dogmatically asserts that this provision means that federal law trumps State law without condition or circumstance, thus obliterating the meaning of the provision. Another editorialist declares that Arizona's law must not stand because it violates the constitution by usurping federal power. Hmm., let's investigate the matter for ourselves:

First, Article VI, supremacy clause declares that federal laws made in pursuance of the constitution are supreme to State and local laws. Can we agree on that?

Second, the tenth amendment declares that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, etc. Can we agree on that?

Third, Article I, Section 8 delegates to the federal Congress authority to make an uniform rule of naturalization. Surely we can agree on that.

Fourth, since naturalization is not immigration and vice versa (we can agree on that, can't we?), and since, therefore, the constitution neither delegates authority over immigration to the federal government, nor prohibits it to the States (uh oh, this one is liable to stick in someone's crawl), and since only federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are declared by the constitution to be supreme over State and local laws,

And,...

since Arizona's law in no way infringes upon the federal government's power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

Therefore, I can only conclude that not only is Arizona's immigration law completely constitutional, but that since it IS made in pursuance of the constitution as written, unlike federal immigration law, that Arizona's immigration law trumps federal immigration law, per Article VI, Supremacy clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Good day!

Read More

Is it true, what they say about Oklahoma?

Nora Brinker sent me an email yesterday under the subject line "Did you know about this?", containing a link to this examiner.com article. I sent an affirmative reply to Nora --Yes, I do know about, and can confirm that the legislation is legit. But the assertion that all of our illegals have fled the state is false. Many of them fled initially when H.B. 1804 first took effect back in November of 2007. Two key provions in the law (Sections 7 and 9 specifically), however, have been under federal suspsension since July of 2008 (actually I think it may have been late June, 2008, when the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals preemptively passed down its ... opinion that these provisions probably violate federal immigration law, but who's keeping count?), and under the protection of this illegitimate 10th Circuit opinion, many of our illegals have returned to the state. Indeed, I was in Ardmore, Ok., over the weekend, and it was almost shocking to me, the number of illegal Mexican aliens walking around there as opposed to where I live. Shocking I say because it was almost like I was in another state that happens to border ours to the South.

Anyway, how do I know that these illegals are, well, illegals? Let's just say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and otherwise conducts itself like a duck, chances are very high that it probably is a duck.

Read More

What's up with Janet Napolitano?

What's up with her is this, she's taking the exact position on illegal immigration and border security that she took as Governor of Arizona - leave the flood gates open wide until you're dragged kicking and screaming, three years ex post facto in the case of her governorship, to begin the process of closing them. This woman doesn't belong within a thousand miles of the homeland security department, which ought to tell us something about the judgment, and/or the intentions of Barack Hussein Obama, and the distance that ought to forever separate him and his kind from the presidency.

Read More

"Stimulus" bill passes Senate,...

...will wonders never cease?!

I know, I know, nobody likes a smart alec, but I can't help feeling completely justified in reacting this way. Plus, I'm not really out to win anyone's approval anyway. If you don't like my attitude, move on. If you can put up with it for a couple of more paragraphs, continue reading.

When are people going to wake up? The U.S. Senate, as I've said numerous times since the results of the late election came in, is a filibuster proof Senate precisely because there are a number of RINOs who occupy seats in the U.S. Senate. Obama and the Democrats, I guarantee you, know this. All of this hope and hype about the Democrats needing to be very careful so as not to lose the support of three rogue Republican Senators which was supposedly hanging by a proverbial thread is herein effectively shown for what it is, just that - hype, and hope.

I listened with disgust yesterday to the talking heads claiming that Senate Democrats had at least better be on pins and needles unless they wanted to lose the fragile support of the three lone Repulicans who they'd barely, through tough back room negotiations, managed to swing to their side on the "stimulus" package. Right. And now we learn that not only did they somehow manage to keep their support while simultaneously growing the bill, they managed to do so with the removal from the Senate bill of the House's stipulation for the inclusion of E-Verify to protect American workers from their jobs going to illegal aliens.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

I don't know how much more of this my heart can take. Is it possible, with the Democrats occupying less than 60 seats in the Senate, that Congress will pass so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," thus effectively nullifying all of the work that has been done at the state and local level to do what the central government has neither the will, nor the basic instinct to do, i.e., preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Say it isn't so.

Read More

The Americanism of Russian-American Master Artist Alexei Antonov

I met and became friends with Alexei Antonov soon after he moved his family into our apartment complex in Peter's Creek, Alaska back in the early 1990s when I was a young Airman stationed at Elmendorf AFB, and my wife and I worked in a semi-managerial capacity on the property (We took care of new applications, some maintenance, problems with problem-tenants, etc...).

Actually, Alexei and I became friends through our wives, as Alexei's wife spoke English very well. Our boys were close to the same age and played together, and so forth and so on, and our families, despite our cultural differences, had quite a bit in common at the time. For example, we were just poor folk and young family men trying to make our way in world. Alexei and I also shared another commonality, we both believed strongly in hard work and self-discipline, self-reliance, delayed gratification and all that. And neither of us could abide the thought of taking a handout, particularly from the government.

I thought about Alexei and his family today as I was reading Mark Presco's entry at his blog, The Politically Incorrect Iconoclast. You see, Alexei and his family did not immigrate to America alone. He and his family came to America with another Russian family, with the aid of the Russian Orthodox Church which both families were members of. The differences in these two families, and the two men, were, however, striking. I personally had absolutely nothing in common with the other family. But other than their common nationality, neither did Alexei and his family.

The other man was supposed to be some kind of an artist too, and though his artwork wasn't that bad, it was (and is, I'm sure), trust me, much, much, much inferior to the work of Alexei Antonov. This man was simply not gifted with Alexei's talent, nor with Alexei's work ethic, but this didn't stop him from demanding from Alexei more and more and more of the proceeds derived from Alexei's work as art enthusiasts became aware of the work of Antonov, and the proceeds naturally followed. I could tell you some stories. And Alexei and I engaged, through his interpreter-wife, in several conversations on the subject. I said to Alexei more than a few times during these conversations, "This is America, not Communist Russia. Part of the American Dream is for a person to be able to use his talents and giftings to create wealth and make his own way in the world, not for someone else to do it for us as we complain, no matter how much they're giving us, that they're not doing enough for us."

Anyway, I've checked on Alexei and his family from time to time since we left Alaska in October of 1992, just to see how they were getting along. And it's good to see, though in no way surprising, that they're doing so well. If you're an art enthusiast, particularly of Classical Painting and the works of Masters of Classical Painting techniques, and if you have ten or fifteen thousand dollars to spend, then maybe you can own your own Antonov.

Read More

Yes, they are hightailing it...

...back to Mexico.

But what is preventing their 'natural born' U.S. citizen children from returning in twenty years -- after having been raised and educated by foreigners, in a foreign country, under the authority of a foreign government -- and asserting their natural born United States citizenship status, and all the priveleges and immunities thereof? (Hat tip: VFR)

As they say (with enthusiasm): Only in America!

Read More

Time for full enactment of H.B. 1804!

An alternate title might be something to the effect of "Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!" That title would be more pointedly directed at the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, of course, where two key provisions in Oklahoma's Immigration law remain under federal suspension pending hearings on the matter.

Perhaps this recent court ruling on the subject in another state might help the 10th Circuit Court to make the right decision so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand. Indeed, there are security, as well as economic reasons for requiring that businesses confirm the eligibility of their employees via E-Verify. Of the two aspects mentioned in the article (there are more), I've focused mainly on the economic implications. But the security issue is very important, and a good argument can be made that the provisions in 1804 are necessary on that basis alone.

Incidentally, I think the record needs to be set straight on this little matter. While I can't be at all places in the state at all times, I do get around enough to know that on one point the author is misled into believing that the initial mass exodus of illegals from the State of Oklahoma ... to points unknown ... is an ongoing phenomenon. Not true. In fact, many of those who left the state initially are back. And they're definitely not currently leaving the state in droves as he says. In point of fact, I'd venture an educated guess that the illegal Mexican population in Oklahoma is on the rise again due in part to our inability to enforce certain provisions in 1804, namely sections seven and nine of the law as mentioned above.

The author also forgot to mention that our popular Democrat Governor has some kind of a fetish for Islam and Islamic subversives. It takes the form of something he calls the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council. But I guess that's beside the point.

Read More

Have I been vindicated?

I wrote in an entry to this blog back on November 7 that ... well, here's what I wrote:

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order. (emphasis added)

So have I been vindicated? Well, certain people in certain key positions of power seem to think so, or that I soon will be.

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

Vague update on a previous entry

Here's the link to the entry in question, and the update is this: our dialogue on the issue continues.

I wish to thank the party in question for his attention to detail in addressing the concerns of his constituents, namely me. It is this quality in him, among other things, that has compelled me to vote for him and to hold him in the highest possible esteem, his endorsement of the RINO candidate in the late election notwithstanding.

Hey!, we can't possibly agree on everything.

Read More

Attention Arizona Voters

In a comment to my entry yesterday, a poster appearing under the name politics 101 leaves the following message intended to inform Arizona voters of the leftist attempt to deceive them with their ballot initiative Proposition 202.

(To the poster who left the message, rest assured that the people of the state of Oklahoma overwhelmingly support LAWA and its groundbreaking sanctions on unethical Arizona employers. And we despise with you any and all attempts from the left to deceive the voters of Arizona into supporting any ballot initiative meant to undermine the provisions of LAWA. It is vital that Arizona voters understand the true nature of this initiative and vote overwhelmingly in opposition to it, thus sending a clear message to leftists across America that an informed and determined citizenry cannot and will not be deceived by such tactics as employed in this initiative; that the left deceives itself in perceiving Americans so naive and so easily deceived as to cast their collective vote in favor of the destructive Prop 202.)

To Arizona voters:

VOTE NO ON PROP 202!!!

This November 4th Election
Arizona Prop 202 – Stop Illegal Hiring Fraud for Arizona voters.

HISTORY
Arizona has the most effective, non-discriminatory employer sanctions law in the nation. It has been upheld in four court challenges. The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, requires all Arizona employers to use the E-Verify program. E-Verify is an essential tool to assure a legal workforce. It achieves an accuracy rate of 99.5 percent by matching names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and, in some instances, photos for job seekers.

As early as October of 2007, before the new law went into effect, Arizona saw positive results. Illegal workers were leaving voluntarily. Fraudulent documents and identity theft that were previously used were no longer enough to obtain employment.

The Stop Illegal Hiring Act (Prop 202) was drafted for a consortium of businesses, chambers of commerce, and trade associations seeking an endless supply of cheap illegal labor. Those organizations would profit from a modern-day form of slavery − exploiting illegal aliens. Those same groups were responsible for legal efforts that were rejected by District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When legal challenges were thrown out, those groups devised Stop Illegal Hiring. This brilliant scheme is so deceptive. It counts on Arizona voters to only read the title and not pay attention to the contents. These authors of this proposition believe that the 70-75 percent of Arizona voters who want only legal workers employed will not look at the details.
Here is their deception.

THE PROPOSITION
The “Stop Illegal Hiring Act” guts the primary enforcement mechanisms of the current employer sanctions law and in actuality it is Employer Amnesty. It was designed to make sure you cannot prosecute employers if they use the I-9 process or the E-Verify program even if they are proven to have cheated the system:

• It abolishes required use of E-Verify. The initiative’s backers cleverly buried this key point on page seven. Even Governor Napolitano has stated that E-Verify is a very simple process and takes only minutes to accomplish. It would return E-Verify to a voluntary program and allow employers to resume the former “wink and nod” method of verifying employment eligibility through the I-9 process. Federal Judge John Walker blasted the current federal I-9 process, “The I-9 documents (that workers present to companies) are fraudulent.” Proposition 202 backers wish to perpetuate the same verification system that has been proven over 20 years to be rife with fraud and identity theft. If an employer complies with the I-9 requirement (which we know is not enforced by the feds) a court cannot find them guilty.

• It requires Arizona to wait until the Federal Government has taken action against an employer before the state takes action. We all know how ineffective and useless the Federal Government has been.

• It exempts thousands of Arizona employers by offering the use of the same standards that have not worked in the past. It removes corporations from the definition of “license.” It has introduced language to subject an employer to sanctions “if the employer has more than four employees and pays hourly wages or salary in cash and not by check or direct deposit to a financial institution” and fails to make withholding deductions, fails to report new hires to the Department of Economic Security or fails to provide coverage for workers compensation. The same provisions already exist for violations by employers with just one employee. It also provides that out of state employers (who are licensed in AZ) are not governed by the employer sanctions law.

• It eliminates the Silent Witness portion of the current law. All complaints regarding employer violations of the law must be written and signed. This would stop employees from reporting violations. Anonymous tips are an important tool in taking criminals, including serial killers, off the streets.

• It imposes an impossible standard of proof. High-level managers who are not officers or owners could hire illegal aliens with impunity, and would not face any enforcement.

CONCLUSION:
Arizona citizens are not as naïve as this proposition's sponsors assume!

The truth is Stop Illegal Hiring (Prop 202) allows employers the ability to continue to hire illegal aliens with impunity.

Don’t let the name fool you, this proposition will nullify Arizona’s current Fair and Legal Employment Act and make hiring of illegals easier with less chance of penalty.

Proposition 202 is simply Employer Amnesty.

Vote No on Proposition 202.


Don Goldwater
don@dongoldwater.com
http://www.dongoldwater.info

As I said in the other post, such examples of deceptive tactics employed by the left are in no way surprising to those who understand what the left is all about fundamentally. Indeed, the left could not have ever established its current dominance in America without employing various and sundry methods of deception, exploiting the goodness and the good will of average Americans. But it's all deception at bottom which constitutes the left. So we should not be shocked whenever the left acts like the left; whenever leftists employ fundamentally leftist tactics to move their points.

The parallels between the left and Islam are striking, as was mentioned in the other entry, perhaps the most striking example of which is the aforementioned Deceptive Quality inherent to both inordinate belief systems. But this deceptive quality inherent to both belief systems has a fundamental drawback and fatal flaw, it deceives its own adherents into believing that their deceptions will forever go on undiscovered.

Read More

Federal Preemption on Immigration, cont.

In the previous post I lamented the popularity of the belief in this country in the concept that the federal government has "exclusive" authority over control of immigration.

This whole idea is such a no-brainer to me that it renders me almost incapable of seeing the issue any other way than the way in which I see it, which is to say that the national, state, and local authorities, under a (relatively) balanced federal system of government, each have a share of the reponsibility for controlling immigration and enforcing immigration law. I've quoted the old saying before in this connection, but it bears repeating: "There is nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough that people begin to believe it." But what is the result of repeating something often enough that people begin to believe it?

Well, here is a prime example of the kind of absurdity which results:

The federal government pays for part of the program -- but not for services to illegal immigrants. The state picks up that cost. Up to now, the state has used a statistical formula to calculate the number of illegal immigrants who use Family PACT. Suddenly, the Bush administration is giving the state 30 days to switch to a system in which each client would be individually vetted for legal residency, a ridiculously inefficient arrangement that would increase the state's costs by an estimated 40%.

But the administration's demand isn't just wasteful; it's duplicitous. Immigration is a responsibility of the federal government, not the state. In fact, the feds should be stepping up to pay the full costs for illegal immigrants. The presence of immigrants in California who lack the legal status to use many public services represents a dual failure on the part of the federal government: It has neither prevented illegal immigration nor enacted comprehensive immigration reform to resolve the conundrum within its borders.

Boy, it must be just wonderful to live and operate in a fantasy world in which the federal government is both the source of all that is good and all that is evil in the world at the same time; a world in which one can half-wittedly contradict oneself, proclaiming that immigration is an exclusively federal issue and then denying it; a world in which one builds his opposition to a given federal initiative on the basis that the state to which it applies picks up the tab for its own illegal immigrant population, then in the next breath insists that the very arrangement which forms the foundation of his opposition to the fed's imposition on the state is itself an illegitimate arrangement.

As Stephen Hopewell recently remarked at his blog:

If the goal of higher education is to inculcate in young people the knowledge, mental skills, and virtue of character needed to act as leaders of society, we are being led by what is probably the worst-educated group of people in our entire history. We have experts in finance who are unaware that you can’t spend money that you don’t have; experts on gender who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman; and experts on religion who don’t understand that Islam is the religion of jihad. And so we stumble along, blind to the dangers looming up ahead, absorbed in the particular tasks of our profession that seem oddly disconnected from the big picture.

Quite so. Or as dad long ago denominated them, "educated fools."

**********

Call Me Mom writes:

I've asked my State Sen. this before, but it seems like it needs to be asked again. Why would we be paying for anything for illegal aliens other than their transport out of the country?

I don't understand how any government agency, local, state or federal could possibly justify giving anything to illegal aliens, much less codifying which level is responsible to pay for it. If government officials want to "be nice" to some illegal alien who's down on their luck, then let them take the funds out of their own pockets to do so and leave mine alone.

Or am I loopy?

Mom continues:

Are government employees exempt from the duties of citizenship? How can they even fill out such forms without being thrown in jail for aiding and abetting?

TM replies:

Mom, you raise some valid points. I think much of the confusion over which sphere of government has the responsibility to effect immigration law and law enforcement comes from the government itself. Consider that California passed Proposition 187 way back in 1994. All the experts seem to agree in one fundamental point concerning immigration law, it is the exclusive domain of the federal government to enact and enforce it.

In the entry preceding this one I linked to a "fact sheet" produced by the National Immmigration Law Center (NILC). Here are a couple of excerpts from the paper concerning federal preemption in California's Proposition 187:

A federal court found unconstitutional a California law, Proposition 187, that required state and local law enforcement agencies, social services agencies, and health care and public education personnel to (1) verify the immigration status of persons with whom they came in contact; (2) notify certain individuals of their immigration status; (3) report those individuals to state and federal
authorities; and (4) deny those individuals health care, social services, and education.13 The court found that the “verification, notification and cooperation/reporting requirements” in Prop. 187 “directly regulated immigration” by “creating a comprehensive scheme to detect and report the presence and effect the removal” of undocumented immigrants.

Not all state laws involving immigrants are preempted. For example, in LULAC v. Wilson, the court upheld the benefit denial provisions of Prop. 187 because those provisions could be implemented “without impermissibly regulating immigration,” since state agencies could verify eligibility for services and benefits through federal determinations of immigration status through SAVE.

But as is noted in the Wiki article linked above, the law was killed, not by the federal government, but by the State's own governor Gray Davis when he dropped the state's appeal. So what can be said -- besides the fact that the NILC conveniently leaves certain facts out of its self-styled "fact sheet" -- about the case of Proposition 187, that Governor Davis preempted federal preemption?

One can understand, given its purpose, and given the fact that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in a "field it has occupied," and intended a "complete ouster," why the NILC would propagate the "federal preemption" principle (somehow I get the feeling that the NILC would be vying for states' rights on immigration were the federal government actually enforcing federal immigration law in a meaningful and "measurable" restrictionist way), but they ain't the only experts doing so. Consider Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies Jessica Vaughan's Sept. 20, 2005 testimony before the Joint Committee on Housing, Massachusetts State House:

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration at the state level are evident to most anyone working in state government. Most people also realize that immigration policy is a federal responsibility. But if you're waiting for the federal government to solve this problem, you're going to be waiting a very long time. There are no proposals currently being considered at the federal level that will solve this problem. (italics mine)

There you have it, even immigration restrictionists like Vaughan adhere to and propagate the doctrine of federal preemption, albeit in Vaughan's world the federal government is to dictate immigration policy to the states and the states, in turn, are to enact laws which do not conflict with federal immigration policy. But what, in principle, is different about Vaughan's perspective and that of NILC?

Vaughan continues:

That is why states around the country are beginning to take the initiative and adopt policies to address this problem, both to minimize the fiscal costs, and also to contribute to the larger federal effort to reduce illegal immigration. The SAVE program, which is used by numerous state agencies around the country, is a proven low-cost, reliable, non-discriminatory way to serve these goals and to help enforce the existing General Law on eligibility for public housing.

But wait! If the doctrine of federal preemption is legitimate, as Vaughan and the NILC agree, then on what legal basis do the states preempt the federal government by enacting their own laws? It's all just very confusing.

Would the immigration restrictionist Vaughan continue to adhere to her belief in the doctrine of federal preemption if the federal government managed to pass a "comprehensive immigration reform" package such as the one the Senate tried to pass last year?

It's this doctrine of "federal preemption" that I have an issue with. By this doctrine, and the all encompassing basis on which it is founded, no state in this union has the right to protect itself and its legal citizens against invasion by foreign migrants unless our masters the federal government grant us this right explicitly. But to borrow Vaughan's phrase, if you're waiting on the federal government to do that, you're going to be waiting a long, long time.

Like I've said before, let's stop beating around the bush and make this idea official.

Read More

Federal Preemption on Immigration

I wrote, on Sept. 23, to Senator Coburn asking that he do all in his power to effect a clean reauthorization of the E-Verify system. On Sept. 29 I received from Senator Coburn's office, and under his signature, a reply concluding with the following two paragraphs:

Please let me assure you that I am strongly supportive of this extension. This is the only tool our employers have currently to help them stay in compliance with the law. I will vigorously work the rest of the year to ensure that E-VERIFY does not expire.

If we are to take any measurable action in curbing illegal immigration, one of the first things we must do is to turn off the job magnet and eliminate employment incentives - this is why an employer verification system is an essential part of any immigration reform. However, as long as the system is voluntary, we will not have a level playing field. I am aware of this problem and an immediate solution must be found. In addition, we must secure our borders and reform our visa system. I will continue to work for sensible immigration reform and I appreciate any additional feedback you may have. It is imperative we end illegal immigration if we are to maintain the security and prosperity of our nation. (emphasis mine)

Well, I'm not sure what to Senator Coburn's mind constitutes a "measurable action in curbing illegal immigration," but for my part a reduction of 1.3 million illegals in a single year IS "measurable" and significant. If we stayed on pace, in just five years the number would be reduced by a full half.

For our purposes here, however, I want to focus on the italicized statements in Senator Coburn's reply to me. As a United States Senator, Senator Coburn must mean, in his comments, that he intends to push for a federal initiative to make registration with E-Verify mandatory, thus creating a "level playing field" between state and state, employer and employer, individual and individual.

As a strong advocate for a (gradual) return to balanced constitutional government -- which would include, in part, a return to state initiated immigration law and law enforcement -- I have a bit of a problem with Senator Coburn's "top-down" approach to this issue. However, I do understand, I think, why Senator Coburn and other immigration restrictionists would feel compelled to take this position. In this connection let us look at this CIS article from September 16:

Another court rejects challenge to mandatory use of E-Verify
By Jessica Vaughan, September 16, 2008

Yesterday, a Rhode Island judge rejected a request from the ACLU and three others to halt the state’s implementation of Governor Don Carcieri’s Executive Order requiring all state contractors, vendors, and grantees to use E-Verify, or lose their government contracts. This ruling, while preliminary, is the latest positive test of strength, both for the E-Verify program and for state action to prevent illegal employment.

The ruling is noteworthy for several reasons:

1. The court appears to have ignored the main complaints from the ACLU and other plaintiffs (a domestic violence non-profit and two college professors who have contracts with the state to provide professional services) that E-Verify is “riddled with significant flaws” and “inaccurate”. Actually, the independent evaluations of E-Verify, one by the research firm Westat and the other by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general, have found the E-Verify is remarkably accurate. (See my recent testimony for more information with links to the Westat and SSA/IG report). It provides swift confirmation for eligible workers – 99.4% are confirmed on the first try. It also accurately identifies illegal workers – of all the workers who are flagged as possibly ineligible on the first try, 95% turn out to be illegal.

2. The judge stated clearly that the Governor has the authority to require state contractors and others named in the order to use E-Verify.

3. Interestingly, the ACLU did not try to argue that the Governor’s order was pre-empted by federal law, which has been one of the most common objections that opponents of immigration law enforcement have raised against state-level immigration initiatives. ...(emphasis mine)

In this case I'd like to focus our attentions on no. 3 in Miss Vaughan's list of noteworthy items attending this particular court ruling.

Indeed, as Vaughan says, this has been one of the most common objections raised against state and local initiatives on immigration. Arizona's law was challenged on this basis in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and Oklahoma's law was challenged on the same basis in the Tenth Circuit Court. And as you all know the two cases have resulted in very different outcomes. Somehow I get the feeling that these disparate lower court rulings are bound to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court for final settlement. I won't venture a guess as to what the outcome will ultimately be, but if past history (particularly over the last hundred or so years -- I think I smeall that pesky fourteenth amendment again.) is any indication, we may safely assume that federalism, as a governing principle in America, will receive, in this case, yet another death blow. To wit:

Increasingly, lawmakers in states and localities within the United States are proposing, and in some cases enacting, laws and ordinances that would, in effect, enforce existing federal immigration law or create new immigration law. The localities claim that they simply are passing laws pertaining to the
state or locality’s power to regulate licensing, contracting, or the like. These state and local laws — which their authors dress up as laws to regulate housing, employment, and local law enforcement — are in actuality attempts to regulate immigration. Almost all of the proposed state and local initiatives are preempted by the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration and are therefore unconstitutional.

This fact sheet explains general preemption principles and provides immigrant rights advocates with analytical tools for determining whether anti-immigrant initiatives proposed in their states and localities can be legally challenged on preemption grounds. (emphasis mine)

I don't really care to get into a discussion about the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of a given law or governmental principle. As I've said so many times before, this term "unconstitutional" is greatly overused from both the left and the right. What it generally boils down to, by my experience, is that if you think a law or some ruling principle is wrong or unfair or immoral, or whatever, then to you it is unconstitutional, and vice versa.

I simply reject the idea that the federal government has "exclusive" authority over the matter of immigration. And I damn sure object to the idea propagated by this organization that all that is needed for our masters the federal government to secure to itself exclusive authority in this matter is for the Congress to simply act to occupy the field. Taken to its logical conclusion, this makes all state powers subject to the whims of the federal Congress. What a dangerous, unAmerican concept!

I could, and probably should, say a lot more on this subject. But for the time being I'm going to end the entry here. Suffice it to say that while I'm an admirer of Senator Coburn and I appreciate much of what he's done as a U.S. Senator, I don't think I can get on board with his implied solution to the immigration crisis. And I've written him to this effect.

Read More

No more loans to illegals

Here is Tom Tancredo on the proposed bailout:

Dear Colleague,

In the midst of the turmoil in our financial markets, we should take pause to reflect on the lessons we have learned in the past few years. With the benefits of that wisdom, we can include the prudent provisions that will close loopholes in any potential “bailout” legislation. One such suggestion is to incorporate safeguards to verify the legal residency and identity of potential homebuyers to ensure that illegal aliens are not obtaining federally backed home loans.

I sent a letter to the Secretary of HUD a year ago about this very concern. I also pressed the agency to disclose the extent to which this type of fraud is contributing to volatility in the mortgage markets. I believe this kind of fraud has contributed to the tumult we are seeing in the headlines daily.

I have seen this ugly issue up close, as a Colorado-based mortgage fraud ring in which realtors, loan officers, and sales agents were indicted and arrested for obtaining federally-backed loans for some 250 unqualified buyers by manufacturing false financial information, fraudulent identities, and bogus citizenship documentation. All of the 191 houses involved were purchased with HUD-guaranteed loans. According to one expert, banks in Colorado alone lose upwards of $75 million per year to fraud – so I can only imagine what the numbers are like nationally.

I recognize that any infusion of foreign investment – especially now – is a welcome addition to our capital-starved market. But there is a difference between the wealthy foreign real estate investor or financier of a vacation home, and the inherently unreliable illegal aliens who are prone to fraud and may be forced by circumstances to return to their home nation at any point. Certainly, we should seek to differentiate between these two categories of buyer.

Including a mechanism to make sure that taxpayers are not providing any assistance to illegal aliens, or absorbing any bad debts owed to financial institutions (such as mortgages) by illegal aliens is a “must” for any “bailout” legislation. If such protections are not included in the package, I hope you will join me in opposing its passage.

We need to ensure that the ‘American Dream’ remains within reach of American families – and that means enacting some long overdue safeguards that prevent illegal aliens and their unscrupulous allies in the financial industry from undermining its integrity.

Read More

Illegal Aliens and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

I try to shy away from speaking to topics that I do not at least have a cursory understanding of, and this subprime mortgage crisis is a topic that I'd have a difficult time carrying on an intelligent conversation about. I've been, however, reading with interest the discussion on the topic at VFR and elsewhere, trying to learn something.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. And with the benefit of hindsight, and a little background knowledge and a few personal experiences that serve to inform me, the connection that many are making between bad loans given to illegals and the subprime crisis makes a lot of sense to me.

For instance, of the 1.3 million illegal Hispanic aliens that fled the country over the last year, the question comes to mind, how many of them also fled their homes and mortgage payments? With the downturn of the economy and the slow-down in the construction industry (not to mention state and local efforts to remove the insidious presence of illegal aliens from their midst), we can safely assume that this trend is continuing. How many of those that are currently leaving are also abandoning their homes and ballooning mortgage payments? Many are just renters, but the question keeps coming up in the discussion, How Many illegal aliens had secured to themselves an illegitimate subprime loan?

Here and here are a couple of articles that I picked up over at OutragedPatriots.com in which this very question is asked. But I need to forewarn you, don't expect to get an answer. While everyone seems compelled to ask the question, no one, it seems, has the slightest inkling what the answer is, except to say that MANY of these bad loans were given out to illegal aliens.

How many is many?

Read More

Saving E-Verify

Here again, I've written numerous times about the E-Verify system and why it is essential to maintain it as a federal clearinghouse for determining employment eligibility of prospective employees.

Below is what I wrote to Senators Inhofe and Coburn this morning on the importance of reauthorizing E-Verify this week:

Dear Senator,

I'm writing today to ask that you do all in your power to stop Senator Menendez's attempts to force his will on the Senate body and the People at large regarding reauthorization of the E-Verify system.

As a strong advocate for state initiated immigration law, and cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the clean reauthorization of this vital tool for determining the eligibility of prospective emplyees.

Recent Census Bureau reports indicate that our efforts at the state and local level to force attrition on the vast number of illegal immigrants currently in our country are working, but we must do more. The efficacy of Oklahoma's (and Arizona's and Georgia's, etc.) law depends on the existence of E-Verify as a federal clearinghouse for verifying employment eligibility of all new hires.

However, I believe that yielding to Menendez's demands for an additional 550,000 greencards issued to aliens in exchange for his ending his filibuster would send the wrong message and set the wrong kind of precedent. We need to be reducing the number of greencards we're alloting, not increasing them. And we should not allow a rogue Senator from a sanctuary state to determine policy for the entire nation, nor to set such a precedent.

Again, please do all in your power to force a clean reauthorization of E-Verify.

Sincerely, ...

Here is Roy Beck's appeal on the subject.

Read More

Will Texas go the way of Okahoma and Arizona?

Texas is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants, but have Mexicans finally begun to wear out their welcome in Texas? Might we be seeing in Texas a classic case of "giving them an inch, and their taking a mile"? Here's a story that suggests that at least in some Texas cities, this is the case:

Opponents of a Dallas suburb's ordinance aimed at barring illegal immigrants from renting housing asked a federal judge Monday for a temporary restraining order to block its enforcement. A group of landlords and a former city council member suing Farmers Branch over the ordinance filed for the restraining order.The ordinance would require prospective renters to obtain a city license. The city would then forward information from the license application to the federal government for verification of the person's immigration status.

Anyone who couldn't prove legal U.S. residency would be denied tenants licenses, and the city would penalize landlords who rent to people without a valid license.

Opponents say the city is trying to regulate immigration even though that is the domain of the federal government.

Here again we have the same argument that we've heard over and over from the usual suspects, and for the umteenth time, it is not just the domain of the federal government to regulate immigration. States and local governments have an immediate interest in protecting their own communities. And once again, the city of Farmer's Branch is simply trying to deny illegal immigrants access to housing, legal immigrants would not be denied this access per the new ordinance.

Also, I'd point out that Farmer's Branch is attempting to partner with the federal government in determining the immigration status of prospective renters. Undoubtedly the federal system to which these applications would be forwarded is the E-Verify system which I've written about here before. But what is it that's causing all this confusion in Texas; what is it that pits Texan against Texan, landlords against their own city governments in a state that, as I said before, is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants? Part of the answer may be found in this WND story:

While illegal aliens flee strict immigration enforcement policies in several states and settle in Texas, the state's budget is suffering and violent crime, soaring.

News reports indicate a flood of illegal aliens is coming from states such as Arizona and Oklahoma – where immigration crackdowns have made life more difficult for them. In the meantime, Texas' violent crime rates have taken a turn for the worse.

Now, don't get me wrong, I derive no pleasure from learning that our neighbors to the south are beginning to feel the effects of a rapidly growing illegal population which consists largely of cultural incompatibles. Texas is a large state with a large population. But no population of any size has an unlimited capacity for taking on hordes of immigrants, legal or illegal. That my state's law, which I've advocated for since it was first initiated in the Oklahoma HoR, is partially responsible for the current unrest in the state of Texas gives me no pleasure. I simply have the satisfaction of knowing that I've been predicting this very thing, this very outcome all along. I've pleaded with and warned other states before, in very plain spoken language, 'you'd better get your ducks in a row on this immigration situation, because once Oklahoma's law goes into effect our illegals are going to invade your states, causing the same kinds of problems they were causing here.'

At least one state which borders Oklahoma did recognize what was happening very quickly following the enactment of H.B. 1804. Missouri responded by writing and passing its own law which closely resembles that of Oklahoma. But like Oklahoma, Missouri is a small state with a relatively small population by comparison to Texas.

But as I've written so many times before, the preferred direction for these illegals to travel is south. The problem with that for Texas, in the short run, is that Texas, already feeling the effects of an overpopulation of illegal immigrants there, is going to incur even more of these, and all the undesirable things they bring along with them. Whereas it used to be that Texas was simply being used by Hispanics, legal and illegal, to smuggle illegal Hispanics into neighboring states like Oklahoma, the tables now have been turned.

The good news is this, Texas will soon find itself at a crossroads. Indeed, it would greatly surprise me if the Texas legislature is not currently working behind the scenes on its own law in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem before it becomes completely unmanageable. But Texans are quickly learning that there is a limit to how many immigrants they can take on. And let's be frank, most of Oklahoma's illegal Mexican population made its way here from Texas. It's only natural, then, that those who are now seeing the handwriting on the wall would make their way back through that state.

To my friends and relatives living in Texas, my sympathies are with you. My fondest hope is that the Texas legislature will act on this crisis in short order; that Texas will soon join the growing list of states in this union who have already passed, or are in the process of passing their own immigration legislation.

Read More

FrontPage Interview with Mark Krikorian

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the author of the new book The New Case Against Immigration.

Over at the CIS website, where I've spent a lot of time this morning, is posted the FrontPage July interview with Mark Krikorian concerning his new book. Here is an excerpt from the exchange in which Mark Krikorian says something very familiar to yours truly:

FP: What are some of your policy recommendations for legal immigration and illegal immigration?

Krikorian: I go into some detail in the final chapter of my book about what reform would look like. With regard to illegal immigration, we need to pursue a policy of "attrition through enforcement," steadily and comprehensively applying the law to promote increased self-deportation by illegals so the total illegal population starts shrinking each year instead of continually growing. This isn't a pipe dream -- even the stepped-up enforcement we've seen over the past year seems to have caused a non-trivial drop in the illegal population. Maybe the two most important things to do in this regard are to require electronic verification of Social Security and related information for all new hires (something that's now voluntary) and to fully implement the check-in/check-out system for foreign travelers at our airports and border crossings (it's not even close to done). (emphasis mine)

Respecting the idea of self-deportation which Krikorian alludes to, I've personally always thought that the "we can't round them all up and deport them" argument is a poor one, emotionally based, and really just irrelevant to the issue. As I've said numerous times over at least the last two years, we needn't deport them, they will deport themselves if we'll remove the incentives for their being here. And this is exactly what began to happen -- they began deporting themselves -- when states such as Oklahoma and Arizona and others began to write their own laws denying social benefits and employment to illegals. As Mr. Krikorian says, it's not a pipe dream, it actually works, and we have solid evidence that it works. But of course anyone can see this who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool multicultist liberal.

But the entire interview is good, and I recommend that you read it. And even though I've not yet purchased my copy of the book (though I certainly plan to), I've read several reviews of the book by several respected authors, and based on what they've written I also recommend that you read the book. (Incidentally, here is a page at the aforementioned site which lists and provides links to numerous reviews of Mr. Krikorian's book if you're interested.)

Read More

Why E-Verify?

I've written before about the E-Verify system, how I learned of its existence, its inclusion in the provisions of H.B. 1804, and so on.

To learn more about the E-Verify system -- how it originated, how it has transformed over the years from the Basic Pilot Program to E-Verify, its current accuracy rate, ease and rapidity of use as well as affordability, states which currently require its usage and under what conditions, and etc,... -- read this lengthy and informative CIS report. It is loaded with very useful information concerning all of the above and much more. For instance,...

Did you know that President Bush, in 2007, signed an executive order (EO) requiring all businesses which contract with the federal government to register with E-Verify? That and many many other useful tidbits of information are contained within the piece.

Below is an excerpt from the report concerning the current status of E-Verify as a lawfully established federal clearinghouse for determining the employment eligibility of prospective employees:

E-Verify statutorily sunsets on November 30, 2008. The Basic Pilot Program was authorized for four years under IIRIRA, with a one-year implementation period. In 2002, the pilot was extended for two years, and then for five more years in 2003 under The Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003. 25 In July 2008, the House of Representatives reauthorized the program for another five years, 407-2. 26

The Senate has yet to reauthorize E-Verify. Two reauthorization bills are pending, one by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) 27 and the other by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). 28 The Specter/Leahy bill is a straightforward five-year reauthorization similar to the measure passed by the House. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has put a hold on the Specter/Leahy bill. If the hold is not lifted, or if the House-passed version can't be voted on, E-Verify will disappear.

Do read the rest of the report, which as I said contains a great deal of useful and interesting information. But it's really no surprise to anyone, is it, that a Senator by the name of Menendez would oppose reauthorization of the E-Verify system, and stand in the way of its re-enactment?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a couple of letters to write my Senators, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn. I'm sure you know what it's about.

Read More

On the immigration front, cont.

I wrote two days ago about the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law. The part of Arizona's law which had been challenged were the sections dealing with non-compliant employers, those sections intended to remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal (mostly) Mexican labor, and thereby remove the employment incentive for illegals to stay in Arizona. As with Oklahoma's law, as I said in the other post, these sections of the Arizona law are vital to the final achievement of the Bill's intent.

However, it occured to me later that what I'd read in the article about Arizona's law concerning employers of illegal aliens actually made Arizona's law tougher, quite a bit tougher as a matter of fact, than Oklahoma's law when it comes to employer sanctions. According to the article, which is linked in the other post, Arizona employers who are caught violating the law can lose their business licenses. Whereas, as I've explained before, Oklahoma's law does not go that far. In fact, according to the provisions in Oklahoma's law, employers are only required to verify the employment status of their employees if they wish to enter into contract with government organizations. Otherwise, Oklahoma employers are left free to hire illegal aliens, though they remain subject to surprise factory and jobsite raids by local, state, or federal authorities.

So the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's much tougher restrictions on employers while the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thus far refused to do so with Oklahoma's comparatively weak employer sanctions -- sections seven and nine of the bill respectively -- saying that Oklahoma's provisions probably violate federal law and are therefore probably unconstitutional. That's pretty interesting, don't ya think?

Well, as I said in the other post, the Ninth Circuit's ruling gives me some hope that Oklahoma's provisions will eventually be upheld in the Tenth Circuit. Additionally, the author of Oklahoma's bill, Rep. Randy Terrill, has stated before that Oklahoma would like to expand on the law, and as I recall (though I could be wrong) part of Terrill's plan involves toughening up our employer sanctions once we've gotten over the initial legal hurdles we're facing at the moment. Hopefully the recent ruling on Arizona's law will help us achieve that as well. I for one am completely and utterly unsympathetic towards employers who would commit treason against their countrymen in this fashion, and fully support the introduction of stricter penalties against such non-compliant businesses and business owners. (Some of you may think the term "treason" is a bit harsh. I don't.)

Read More