In Arizona, the Lines of Secession are Being Drawn

May 20, 2010

by D. Scott Anthony

(Editor’s Note: This Arizona situation is a precursor to future events relating to the relationship between states and Washington. Watch carefully how this unfolds, friends. Will Washington just make some noise at first, and allow this to settle down later? Or will the criminals in DC continue to escalate the pressure on Arizona? Both sides must ask: Is this a hill I want to die on?

This editor is predicting that many more of these confrontational situations are just over the horizon. Many states have already taken stands against various Federal laws. Scores of states have joined in the legal action against Washington over the new health care law. Now we just have to wait to see which states will “man up”…or in Texas, “cowboy up”…and take back their sovereignty. It’s one thing to have your pretty-boy lawyers prance into court and argue. It’s another thing entirely to pass a Declaration of Independence, followed by an Ordinance of Secession. Time will show us just which states are full of patriots and free men.)

* * * * * * * * *
Arizona is suffering under a wave of violence and crime, as a direct result of the federal government’s inability to control the border with Mexico. With Phoenix experiencing one drug-related kidnapping every 36 hours, the people of Arizona felt the need to protect themselves by counteracting the daily influx of illegal immigrants.

Most Arizonans believe that this law, which will allow police to determine the immigration status of people who are already being questioned legally by the police, is constitutional. And I agree with them. It is true that immigration laws are federal laws. So are laws regarding drug use. Just because a federal statue exists, it does not mean state and local governments cannot pass local laws which mirror the federal guideline, just as long as those laws do not contradict the federal statute.

Other states are considering similar measures, but it will have to be seen how many can muster the popular support to pass their own version of Arizona’s law. Whether or not these measures pass, this shows that many people throughout the country are sympathetic to the plight of Arizona.

But many Americans on the left are not content to allow Arizonans practicing their constitutional rights. Boycotts are springing up in california and other places, to punish Arizona for their actions. This is a disturbing and dangerous trend of isolating and marginalizing Americans who, while acting legally, violate the political correct code of the left. The left is becoming the party of enforced conformity. Whether on gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, race-based preferences, or any number of other issues; the left is adamant to enforce their will on the nation.

I believe the Arizona law will stand, and be a real benefit in bringing down the crime rate, and the illegal immigrant population. But the left will continue to treat Arizona (and other states which pass similar measures) as if they were South Africa during apartheid.

Boycotts and embargoes between nations is a very serious and potentially dangerous matter. Such actions are usually a sign of worsening relations, and often a precusor to confrontation or even war. The left is taking measures against Arizona that the us has only rarely pursued — against Japan in the 1930s, against South Africa in the 1080s, and currently against Iran and Cuba.

Such treatment of American citizens who disagree with the left on a political issue is frightening, and hints at the actions the left will take against any entity or individual who defies them. More immediately, it delineates the line between traditional Americans and leftist Americans. It is the line that will one day, perhaps sooner than expected, mark the boundary between two separate nations.

Copyright 2010

Arizona, Immigration and Racial Profiling: Liberal Panties are in a Wad

May 7, 2010

OK, my friends. It’s time for some truth about the law, truth about human nature and some desperately needed perspective.

The civil rights activists are not demonstrating to protect civil rights in Arizona. They are protesting to protect brown-skinned people from getting their feelings hurt.

Once again…I’m not a lawyer. There could exist lots of case law that rolls a grenade under the bed of my arguments. But this is a secession website. I look at EVERYTHING through the liberty-tinted glasses of state liberation from the tyranny of The United States of America. As such, I consider all case law and Federal law irrelevant to the new laws of a new nation.

First: stop listening to all the people telling you what this law says and read it yourself.

Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

All I seem to hear on the various media outlets is how the new Arizona immigration law COULD…not will…result in the dreaded practice of “racial profiling.”

According to the redoubtable Wikipedia, Racial Profiling is “the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner. The fact remains that racial profiling is also targeted against Europeans and others with similar ethnic features when abroad, as the practice has been common throughout the world for centuries.”

Profiling refers to a GENERAL description of a particular type of offender as opposed to listing the physical characteristics or behavioral characteristics of a suspect or group of suspects…like cops do when on the lookout for a criminal (age 20-25, white, blue eyes, brown hair, clean shaven, wearing khaki pants and a red T-shirt).

Another less pejorative word for profiling is “generalize,” which means “to infer trends from particular facts.”

Human beings generalize every day because for the most part…generalization works.

Are farmers “profiling” beetles that eat his corn crop? He learns the particular appearance and behavior of the corn eaters. It ain’t the Monarch butterflies munching on his crop.

You’re on a dark street at night when five young black men approach you. If the young men are heavily tattooed with their pants hanging down, you’ll probably react differently than if you are approached by five young white men in business suits all carrying Bibles. Are you profiling?

Parents see that the neighbor kids have spots all over their skin. Is it profiling to generalize that the kids may have measles or chicken pox? Is it wrong to keep your kids away from the neighbor kids because of what their appearance could mean for your family’s health? Maybe you should keep your children away from ALL the other children, so the children with measles don’t get their feelings hurt.

Consider this scenario: You are driving on a city street. A police car behind you turns on his blue lights, and you pull over. The officer comes to your car window and asks to see your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. At this moment, you do not know why he stopped you. Before you ask why you were stopped, answer this question: Has the police officer violated your civil rights by stopping you and asking for your “papers?”

“No,” you say? Why is this not a civil rights violation? Why is it not a civil rights violation for police to request to see your driver’s license without FIRST giving their probable cause, yet it somehow violates a person’s civil rights to ask a person to produce proof of legal residence other than a driver’s license?

The driver’s license serves as your proof of legal residence SOMEWHERE, even if you don’t live in that state. So, unless the police officer suspected that your driver’s license was a forgery, no further inquiry into your citizenship would likely occur.

Here’s another example: You’re a new employee in training at a bank. In training, they show you photos of past bank robbers, and give you a list of the common characteristics of people who rob banks. Is that profiling?

Another: Zimbabwe shares its southern border with South Africa. Let’s posit that southern Zimbabwe has had a long history of criminal vandalism…toilet-papering houses. It is determined after analyzing arrest records that 99% of the crimes were committed by white Afrikaner men coming across the border from South Africa. You’re a Zimbabwean border inspector. When you saw a white Afrikaner man with a backpack coming through the line, would you be profiling if you looked inside the backpack for Ultra Charmin?

Let’s all agree for a moment that the US Constitution still has some relevance, since the majority of Americans still think that it is the highest law of the land. A discussion of constitutional authority is a topic for another day.

The Fourth Amendment says “The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against UNNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis mine)

So please notice:

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 says: All citizens BORN OR NATURALIZED in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis mine)

The Arizona immigration law does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. It does not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

What the immigration law does is acknowledge that the predominance of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Latinos, and as such, empowers law enforcement personnel to use their common sense to investigate whether any individual Latino human being can proffer verifiable identification and proof of US citizenship. Said another way – if we know that nearly every illegal immigrant in Arizona has Latino physical characteristics, it is not an “unreasonable search” to require that they produce identification and proof of citizenship.

In my never-humble opinion, racial profiling for immigration violations is far superior to the DUI check-points that police like to set up on busy thoroughfares to check EVERY DRIVER for driving under the influence of alcohol. Perhaps civil rights activists would rather have those kinds of random checkpoints scattered throughout Arizona where EVERY DRIVER must produce an ID.

Then, Arizona officials would have embraced the very idiocy that we experience whenever we board a plane at any American airport. Is that what you want?

Speaking of airports and profiling, consider this: EVERY PERSON involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and EVERY PERSON involved in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a Middle Eastern male Islamist. No grandmas…no children…no blacks…no whites…no Latinos…no Asians…no active duty military personnel. Only Middle Eastern Islamists.

How about we go back to using common sense, and only inspect those people in line who APPEAR MOST LIKELY to pose a threat to public safety?

In conclusion: What is Arizona going to do WHEN…not IF…Washington decides to assert its superiority over Arizona in this immigration matter? Will Arizona kneel and obey? Arizona needs to secede from the Union. Once they secede, they will be free from the Federal idiocy under which they are burdened.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Secession and Immigration: Who Should Be In Charge?

April 30, 2010

In light of the Arizona immigration bill just signed into law, I’ve had some thoughts about this whole issue. And grant me this: I’m no lawyer, but I am a thinker…and I can read. Hang with me as I chew this over.

Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan has a column in “Human Events” entitled Whose Country Is This? He asks a lot of questions, and pretty much blames President Obama and Washington for the mess at our borders.

But is it really THEIR fault that things are so horribly messed up?

That ragged, toothless old document, the US Constitution, authorizes Congress only one duty remotely related to immigration…with only seven words. Article I, Section 8 says: “(Congress shall have the power) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

That’s it, friends and neighbors. There isn’t even a definition of the word “naturalization” in the Constitution. But generally speaking, naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.

But that has NOTHING to do with immigration or securing borders against illegal immigration. Remember that not all that enter the USA WANT to become citizens. Some just want to live here.

The rule of naturalization, in its simplest form, would define which persons are eligible for citizenship, and the steps whereby they would become US citizens.

Beyond that, I cannot see any authorization for the United States to enact laws or enforce laws dealing with ANY persons entering any state legally or illegally. That would include those who enter any state legally but remain in the state after their legal immigration documents expire.

Seems to me that immigration laws are the purview of the states, since under the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

At first, immigration in America happened slowly. Historians estimate that under one million immigrants…perhaps as few as 400,000…came from Europe to the Americas during the 200 years after the settlement of Jamestown in 1607. But immigration began its long boom period around 1820. Between 1820 and 1860, over 5 million immigrants crossed the Atlantic.

And the flood of immigrants continued: in the 1860s, 2.3 million came; in the 1870s, 2.8 million came. Between 1880 and 1920, nearly 26 million men, women and children flocked to America.

All during these centuries, the Federal Government set no limitation on immigration. In fact, at least thirty states actively recruited overseas. Most of the barriers to immigration were set by European nations, not American states. For example, England prevented the emigration of skilled artisans until 1820. But soon, those barriers fell and foreign governments released their people to emigrate to America.

But in 1921, it came to an abrupt end. Congress bowed to pressure from those who had already immigrated and settled here to stem the tide of immigrants. Congress passed The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, a strict law based upon national origins, that limited immigration to no more than 150,000 entrants annually. This law favored immigration from those of British and European origin. This law was further tightened by the Immigration Act of 1924.

All during the period from 1776 to 1921, the Federal Government played almost no role in immigration, leaving the responsibilities to the states. In 1790, Congress had set a two-year residency requirement for naturalization…but it did not interfere with the rights of the states to accept as many immigrants as they desired. After Jefferson’s inauguration, the term of residency was set to five years, and remains the same to this day.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

Once again, seems to me that Congress has entirely overstepped their Constitutional authority and enacted law upon law upon law dealing with an issue that should be handled by each state.

What if Michigan decides that they want to increase the number of immigrants into their state? That should be their business alone. If neighboring Ohio doesn’t want immigrants and passes laws that effectively close its borders, so be it.

And the same thing should be happening at the border between Mexico and the Southwestern states, from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the Rio Grande in Texas. Each state should decide their own immigration policy, enact laws pertaining to it, and go about enforcing the law.

I know that present immigration woes are hopelessly intertwined with US drug policy and the stupidly-called “War on Drugs.” But acknowledging how the DC criminals have bungled many issues, costing billions of dollars and countless lives, only shows how much Americans need to separate themselves from Washington.

The schizophrenia of Washington is writ large in this issue. If Washington understood the Constitution, it could tell the states that immigration is their problem, thereby saving Washington jillions. But DC likes power and the jillions it takes to screw up immigration for all 50 states and the rest of the world. So DC muscles everyone like a mob enforcer.

So, to answer the title question: the 50 states all bear principal responsibility for the woeful immigration debacle in America today. If the states would have asserted their sovereignty over the last 160 years, they would control immigration and the DC criminals would have no voice whatsoever in the matter.

Any seceding state would instantly face immigration and naturalization issues. Why not start dropping off the shackles of DC tyranny NOW? If Arizona can tell Washington to go pound sand, why can’t the politicians in YOUR state do the same…even before secession? Even if you never want to secede?

I call on all 50 states to nullify ALL Federal immigration law beginning with the 1921 law, and all subsequent laws regarding immigration. Then the states can re-assume their sovereignty in this matter and pass their OWN laws.

Secession can cure all the terminal political illness of the United States. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.