Big Doins’ in Juarez

September 28, 2010

Why We Ought to Think, but Won’t

September 28, 2010

by Fred Reed

Things change. They change. I arrived in Mexico some seven years ago amid dire warnings from all and sundry that I would instantly die of foul disease, trampling by burros, and splashing sanguinary crime. All of this I regarded as nonsense, because it was. The State Department issued travel warnings and similar alarums, but State would regard Massachusetts as hazardous. There was little to fear. Expats traveled at will and walked the streets without concern.

Things change. While crime is hardly epidemic where we live, and in most places mostly involves narcos killing narcos, and takes place mostly away from the agringada regions rife with Americans, these days there is more of it. Before, you could walk home from a watering hole after midnight without worry. Now, no. There’s not a lot of worry, but more than before.

The local people remain as decent as always, small towns tending to be law-abiding everywhere on the planet. The problem is the growing reach of the drug cartels, causing a weakening of the fabric of law. When one variety of violent crime gets out of control, every other kind more easily flourishes.

If Mexico were not next to the world’s most ravening drug market, it would be a corrupt, but functioning and reasonably successful upper Third-World country. If this were not so, Mexico would not have the huge number of American who have come here to retire. But the country cannot withstand a drug business that, by a common figure, brings the traffickers forty billion dollars a year. The money means that the cartels can buy heavier armament than can the government, as well as buy heavier officials on either side of the border. (It is an American conceit that corruption exists only in other countries. Tell me another story, Grandpa.)

It is getting out of hand. The killing of policemen, judges, and mayors is now common. Journalists die in droves. After the murder of another of its reporters, El Diario, the major paper of Ciudad Juarez, published the following editorial, addressed to the drug lords:

“We bring to your attention that we are communicators, not mind-readers. Therefore, as workers in information, we want you to explain to us what you want of us, what you want us to publish or stop publioshing, what we must do for our security.”

“These days, you are the de-facto authority in the city, because the legally instituted authorities have been able to do nothing to keep our co-workers from continuing to fall, although we have repeatedly asked this of you. Consequently, facing this undeniable fact, we direct ourselves to you, because the last thing we want is that you shoot to death another of our colleagues.”

This is astonishing. It is worse. A blue whale singing Aida would be merely astonishing, but here we have the editors of the major newspaper of a substantial city stating candidly, with perfect clarity, that the narcotraficantes, not the national government, exercise sovreignty over the city. The federal government understandably denounced the editorial. No capital wants to be told that it does not control its territory. But this is exactly what the paper said.

Why is this happening? The root of the chain of causation is plain enough: that Americans want drugs, want them intensely, at almost any price — but the federal government doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. Lots of gringos want dope: We are not talking of a few ghetto-blasted crack-heads and William Burroughs types sticking needles in their arms in rat-infested alleys. These don’t have forty billion dollars. The users are college students, high-school kids, Ivy League profs, pricey lawyers, Congressmen, bus drivers, cosmetologists, and American presidents (though they don’t inhale). All God’s chillun wants drugs. Or at least enough of them do to make fortunes for those who sell the stuff.

Let’s admit it: Americans are drug-mad. Legal, illegal, smokable, injectable, edible—hit don’t matter. They would inject plaster of paris if nothing better were available. When I was in Washington, at least half—at the very least, half—of the single women I knew for whom the clock ticked were on lithium, Depacote, Prozac, Xanax, Zoloft, all the gobbled M&Ms of the quietly unhappy. Shrinks regularly prescribed drugs for high-school girls miserable over divorce and uncertainty. Boys were forced to take Ritalin. My parents generation survived on Miltown and Equanil. In the Sixties, hippies took drugs. Now it’s everybody. We have democratized chemistry.

But Mother Washington doesn’t want Americans to have drugs. Nor does it want to imprison half of Yale for “droppin,’ poppin,’ and tokin’,” as we once said. In effect the feds protect the consumption (through low penalties and slight likelihood of being caught) while penalizing the sale, thus keeping prices high.

The War on Drugs is of course a farce, having accomplished less than nothing over a half-century. Somewhere the other day I saw a story saying that consumption in the US has just risen by seven percent. This is not surprising since, as a society decays, the escape market prospers. And, despite excited hype about having killed this or that drug lord, there is no hope, no hope at all, of eliminating a business that lets impoverished third-worlders drive BMWs.

None of this would matter if it weren’t causing copious bloodshed in countries like Mexico, and threatening the anarchy that is often called “destabilization.” Absent this creeping hecatomb clotting in the streets, everyone would be happy. The narcos would get their money, consumers their drugs, officials their bribes, and DEA types their salaries. All good. But the bloodshed exists.

Intelligent Mexicans of sound mind, to the extent that humans can approximate the condition, worry that all hell may break loose. Not “will,” but “may.” There is a sense here, as there is in the United States, that something is wrong, and that something will hapen. Mexico cannot defeat the traficantes. These are bad, bad boys, willing to ambush police convoys, kill federal judges, and rule towns. By comparison the Italian Mafia was a basket of puppies.

The US had better think about what it wants on its borders. As long as drugs are illegal, they will flow and the gringos will buy and the narcos will roll in dough. Nothing will stop or impede this. American colonels with steely gaze and firm handshakes and the comprehension of flatworms have told me that the Merida Initiative will rid Mexico of corruption, and then the Federales will clean house on the narcos. Is there an adult in the house?

I understand that Americans have no interest in Mexico other than to give jobs to illegals and then complain that they have them. And of course to buy drugs and then complain that Mexicans sell them. But a bit of attention, even of realism, might have its virtues. Afghanistan is somewhere else. Mexico isn’t.

© Copyright 2010 Fred Reed

Solving Immigration in a Seceding State

June 2, 2010

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.
~ H. L. Mencken

Immigration in America is just another shining example of how the US Federal Government destroys everything it touches.

Immigration policy in America, at one time long ago, made some sense. But over the decades, various politicians have made exceptions to garner either territory, power or votes (all variations of power). Latinos are encouraged to enter the US without papers by the American businessmen who eagerly hire them. Children born of illegal parents are instantly awarded US citizenship simply because of the geographical location of their birth. Federal and state welfare programs give benefits to illegals. Public schools educate them. And many law enforcement agencies are forbidden from requiring proof of legal residence…or “profiling.”

My lifelong philosophy has been “don’t listen to what they say…only watch what they DO.” So, America, from the White House to your house…wants illegals in the USA. Consequently, experts estimate that there are now between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living here. I don’t believe that there is any stomach in America…or enough money…to actually round up and deport 12-20 million illegals. And, there is no mechanism whereby this “roundup” could ever occur.

Apply my life philosophy to the Latinos coming to America. There are jobs and government benefits to be had here for the asking. That would be enough motivation for most people. But there is some history here that complicates things.

Here’s a map from 1848 showing the cession of Mexico after the Mexican War of 1846-1848. Notice that Mexican territory ran all the way to the southern border of the Oregon Territory and east to the borders of the Louisiana Purchase, including all of Texas.

Mexico's former borders

Maps and borders are drawn by governments as they divide and conquer. But a line on a map does not divide cultures. What’s true about the Pashtun tribe in Pakistan and Afghanistan is just as true in the Southwest USA. Latinos have not forgotten that most of southwestern United States once was their land.

I’ve written recently HERE and HERE about the immigration issues plaguing Arizona. But even those articles don’t fix the problem. So, what are practical solutions to the headache of illegal immigration? What could a seceding state, becoming a new nation, do to fix this problem?

1. The first solution is the creation of the new government. If the new government is of the corporate model of governance, there is a structure to build on. Citizenship is voluntary, never automatic for anyone.
2. Seal the border between that state/nation and Mexico. This will require a state militia which none of the states except TEXAS presently have.
3. The new immigration laws codify the process of becoming a citizen. Part of that is allowing illegals presently in the nation to report to the county Sheriff’s office or county courthouse and declare their presence, and plead guilty of a misdemeanor. The fine will be $500 payable in only gold or silver (or Egold or Esilver). At that point, the illegal will have the one-time choice of either becoming a citizen by paying one dollar and receiving one share of the national stock…or filing papers for resident alien status, both subject to a criminal background check. Parents would have to file for resident alien status for their children until the children reached age 18. That should be the only amnesty program necessary to effectively deal with the problem and allow the new nation to move forward. It also raises hard money to pay for the amnesty program.
4. Make English the official national language. That means that all government communications of any sort will be in English. Schools, books, forms, traffic signs, legal papers…everything official is in English. If the free market wants to promote any other language, OK. By encouraging immigrants to learn to read and write English, they are not assigned to being in a permanent underclass. But remember, at the southern border of the southwestern US border states, the culture is predominantly Latino. “English only” does not force anyone to forsake their culture, but smoothes the path to achievement and assimilation.
5. Once this program has been competed, then deport the remaining persons found to be in the new nation illegally.
6. Enact NO LAW that establishes the minimum wage. Much of the hiring of illegals is done to avoid minimum wage laws. Wages are supposed to represent the cost of labor for any goods or services. The only so-called “living wage” exists when your income equals or exceeds your outgo. Price controls imposed by government have NEVER worked positively. The minimum wage forces prices upward artificially, and that affects EVERY person’s wallet.

Let’s face reality, my friends. You and your neighbors want cheap labor for menial jobs. Businesses want the cheap labor. And most people don’t care a whit about immigration issues. Lots of talk…little action.

That’s MY solution. Probably needs work. You got a better idea?

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.

Rand Paul: The Tea Party Can Have Him

May 23, 2010

So Dr. Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is the newly nominated Kentucky Republican candidate for US Senate. Dr. Paul wants to be a DC criminal and is fighting hard to get his chance.

Think that’s too harsh? Sorry to ruffle your delicate sensibilities. In my article entitled Criminal Congressional Compromise, I show that accomplices and accessories to crime are entitled to the same sentence as the main perpetrators. And plenty of crimes come out of the US Senate.

The drive-by media has had its collective panties in a big wad since Tuesday’s primaries. Paul has been labeled the “Tea Party Candidate.” From what I’ve seen of the Tea Party movement, and the things that Rand Paul believes, they seem to be made for each other.

But not made for individual liberty and property rights.

Dr. Paul still thinks that the nation can be saved. He believes that the solution is to simply get the Federal Government to operate within the limits of the Constitution, and then everything will work out all right. That’s the message coming from the Tea Party movement. Seldom mentioned are the seditious words “secession” and “nullification.” Oh mercy, no. Electing better politicians is the Tea Party answer, and that’s right up Rand Paul’s alley.

I went to Rand Paul’s candidate website and read his positions on various issues. Here are some quotes from his posted positions, followed by my caustic comments:

Rand on Immigration: “Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”

Editor: So clearly you favor spending money the Federal Government doesn’t have. This administration is overdrawn just this year by a couple TRILLION dollars. There is no money for an underground fence, Rand…any more than there was money to build a fence along the length of the Mexican border. There is no money to build new military bases along the border with Mexico, either. Closing the foreign bases is good, but spending the savings is bad.

Rand on the Federal Reserve: “For too long the Federal Reserve has operated behind a shroud of mystery. As Senator I would make sure that all Americans understand the dangers of unsound monetary policy and shed light on this secretive organization. Given this incredible power given to a semi-private institution, one wonders why we don’t hear more about the Fed and its actions from the Congress. As Senator I would make sure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable and restore transparency to our monetary system.”

Editor: How exactly are you going to “make sure ALL Americans understand” ANYTHING? We don’t need transparency, Rand. America needs to abolish the Fed. Period. And from the news reports about HR 1207, the Transparency Act your father sponsored is dead…smothered to death by the guys you’re going to be working with. The Federal Reserve is the world’s largest counterfeiter, and the funny money needs to stop…even though it’s too late. If the Fed stopped printing money today, the money in circulation is guaranteed to cause hyperinflation soon.

Rand on National Defense: “I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none. I believe we try the terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO. I do not believe in trying them in civilian court. I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates and we fight to win. That we fight only under US Commander and not the UN.

I believe that defending this country is the primary and most important Constitutional function of our federal government.”

Editor: My God, where do I start? (a) “National defense” is not invading other nations or having military bases in over 130 other countries. (b) People defending their own countries are not terrorists. America invaded THEM. (c) When has the US actually needed to defend its own borders since 1812? Rand, you’ve drunk deeply of the neocon Kool-Aid. (d) Tea Party member love guys who love the military, and you’re their guy. (e) GITMO is one of the blackest marks on the American character since Japanese-American internment during WWII. By supporting GITMO, you also support torture, since torture is a daily functional tool at GITMO. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Rand on Energy Policy: “As Senator, the only question I will consider is whether government involvement is the most efficient approach to energy innovation. I will vote to cut taxes and lift regulations on companies developing new sources of energy.”

Editor: The only question you should consider is how quickly you can sponsor legislation to dissolve the Department of Energy, Rand. Washington has no Constitutional authority to regulate the exploration and production of any type of energy whatsoever. It is usurpation of state sovereignty. Did you miss that when last you read the Constitution?

Rand on Sovereignty: “We are a nation of laws. Our allegiance to foreign institutions sacrifices our autonomy as a nation by transferring our legal authority to unelected and unaccountable leaders. Our fiscal, trade, and monetary policy should be in the hands and best interest of ‘We the People.’ The US Government must answer only to the Constitution and the citizens protected by it.

Editor: We started as a “nation” of states. Now we are a nation governed by elected and unaccountable “leaders”…a position to which you wish to attain. The US government should be tightly controlled by the states and operate within the strictures of the Constitution. Even better would be the states simply opting out of “the Union” and becoming sovereign nations themselves. But Dr. Paul wants to be a part of the criminal element of Washington, not a state patriot. Remember, the moment Rand is elected and sworn in, he gets his paycheck from Washington, not Kentucky.

Rand on Inflation: “Dr. Paul will demand far greater transparency and accountability from the Federal Reserve, whose monetary policy has devalued our Dollar by approximately 95% since its inception in 1913. By restoring fiscal responsibility and honest monetary policy, we can regain our financial independence from China and other foreign lenders. Rand will fight to strengthen the value of our Dollar so our purchasing power is not destroyed by the sneakiest tax of all: inflation.”

Editor: Like the Federal Reserve item above, Rand…you need to dissolve the Federal Reserve’s authority to print money and manage monetary policy. Who cares about accountability? Get rid of the counterfeiters! And another thing…China holds $877 billion in US debt, and Japan holds $769 billion. “Transparency” at the Fed is not going to pay off the total American debt load of over $14 TRILLION that many experts say can never be repaid, even if the IRS collected 100% of the income from all Americans for years into the future.

Rand on Campaign Finance: “I propose mandating a clause in all federal contracts over $1 million that requires the recipient to pledge not to lobby government or contribute to campaigns during the terms of the contract. Companies that have willingly entered the public sphere by taking taxpayer funds should not be allowed to use part of that money to secure more funds.

But this proposal is only part of the answer. While it is important to cut down on the demand for lobbyists, the supply side is even more important. Washington, D.C. has a supply of money and power that it can dole out to the highest bidder. As long as this golden goose exists, people will find ways to take advantage of it. The problem is not the abuse of power, but rather the power to abuse.

The only answer to that problem is for Congress to reduce severely the size and scope of the federal government, so that the market is allowed to operate according to the free forces of a laissez-faire economy. Regulations, price controls, and political cronyism only distort the economy, foster corruption, and decrease our wealth as a nation.”

Editor: Forget campaign finance, Rand. That’s the least of your worries. Besides, you’re not going to change anything as a freshman Senator. DC does not have a “supply of money” of its own. DC plunders the American taxpayers and then prints fiat money or borrows money to make up the difference. Concentrate on forcing the Federal Government to only spend money on Constitutional things. Better yet, lead Kentucky to draft a Declaration of Independence and Ordinance of Secession and leave the Federal Government altogether. That would solve all the problems you naively enumerate at the Federal level.

Dr. Rand Paul may become the next Senator from Kentucky, but he will not lead Kentuckians into more individual liberty. He will be just like all the other Senators…receiving lobbyist funds, raising campaign cash for himself and others, and presiding over the last days of The United States of America.

Isn’t it amazing, friends? There is still a long line of people at the employment office of the USS United States…eager to be an employee on the last voyage of the ship as it sinks.

Secession…not new Senators…is the hope for humanity. 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.

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.