An Open Letter to Paul “No Wall” Ryan

Congressman Ryan:

As the Speaker of the House you hold immense power. That power is granted to you by the voters. Those voters ensured a conservative Supreme Court, and sought to obtain from Congress a border wall to protect them, tax reform to generate prosperity, a repeal of Obamacare to eliminate federal interference in the healthcare marketplace, and national concealed carry reciprocity to ensure their personal safety in a world dominated by crime and violence.

You have failed in your quest to repeal Obamacare.  You seem much more interested in protecting a bunch of illegal aliens that will never vote for you than in enacting tax reform, and in your wisdom – a term that must be used only the in the loosest form – you have said that not only will the voters not get their wall, but that they won’t get conceal and carry reciprocity because the time “isn’t right.” In spite of more than 80 co-sponsors, you’ve determined now is not the time. So the voters have one question: Do you want to keep your job?

It may come as some surprise to someone in the public service sector, but out here in the real world (where people work 8 to 12 hours for a days pay) we employees are required (it’s not a suggestion, we’re not “encouraged,” we are required) to follow the dictates of our boss. If the construction foreman tells the carpenter to cut a four foot board, a four foot, two inch board doesn’t work. It’s the kind of thing that gets employees – even ones who honestly think that they know better about how long the board should be – fired from their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we have one boss: the president.  You sir, are not doing what the boss wants.  It is time to quit cutting the wrong sized boards!

I realize that you have been in Congress so long you now believe (1) rules that apply to others do not apply to you; and (2) all you have to do is continue to con Wisconsin voters and you get to keep your job. This is not true.

There is a growing movement in this country to replace you with someone who will do the will of the Commander in Chief and who will work arm-in-arm with the administration to do the actual will of the people who elected you. Right now I will be contributing as much as I can to your primary challenger, and, if you succeed in conning the Republican electorate, to any Democrat who opposes you.  The voters will not tolerate their agenda being ignored;  you need to be fired!

Even should you manage to use all those corporate donations from deep-pockets companies to continue to bamboozle Wisconsin voters, I have instructed my representative to vote for anyone who opposes you for Speaker. I will continue to remind my representative frequently that you need to be replaced, and that his continued service is contingent on you not having the Speaker’s gavel next term.

I realize you think you’re the smartest guy in the room. And, in some limited respects, you may be. But guile and charisma only carry you so far. When the voters are angry that they are not getting what they were promised (remember how you said you would repeal and replace Obamacare and then blew that?) they tend to vote against the people who are screwing them.  Right now, Mr. Speaker, that’s you!

Fortunately, for you, there is still time to avoid this outcome. You could still have a reasonably successful term as Speaker if you cooperate with the administration and if you pass the bills we need passed: border wall, Obamacare repeal, tax reform, and concealed carry reciprocity.  Stop currying favor with Democrats and start doing what you were elected to do!

You badly underestimated the anger of the electorate in 2016. You may not like the President, but you owe him the duty of cooperation in his agenda because it is the people’s agenda. And if you do not discharge that duty, we will discharge you.

So, please, for your sake, and more importantly, for the country’s sake, do your damned job Mr. Speaker. Do your damned job!

Your Dream is my Nightmare

John McCain: @POTUS’s decision on #DACA is wrong approach at a time when both sides need to compromise on #immigration reform mccain.senate.gov/public/index.c…

AJ: Regardless of what President Trump says or does, #DACA recipients still have rights

Harry Shrum Jr. Cruelty on display and hidden agendas from this administration. I stand with you #DACA Dreamers. Your voice is louder now, more than ever.

Allan Marshall: 100% #Dreamers have NO criminal record. 91% have jobs. Find me a single Trump rally where that’s the case.

Anthony: #EnoughIsEnough ending #DACA is plain out Racism! DEFEND DACA or pay the price of your job in 2018 @SenDeanHeller @SenWhitehouse

 

These are just a sampling of things people have said on Twitter in the last 24 hours about the fact that DACA is ending. These tweets evidence a number of terrible misunderstandings about law and politics

McCain is Wrong…. Again!

First, the idea that what is needed is compromise is a ridiculous notion. Compromise is something that happens when people want to achieve a goal that is shared, but the method of achieving the goal is up for discussion. It’s a win win strategy that says “you get something, and I get something.” The idea being we can get a border wall if we let these “dreamers” stay. McCain’s brain cancer has started to muddle his thinking, that much is clear.

DACA folks have due process rights only

The idea that DACA people still have rights is correct as far as it goes. They have the right to due process. But they have no right to stay in the country because DACA was never constitutional, a fact that even Obama admitted to Univision before he engaged in his pen-and-a-phone approach to dictatorial rule making.

Congress is Cruel, Trump is Kind

But the idea that ending DACA is cruelty, and that the cruelty has Trump’s name on it, is just plain stupid. First, Trump did not come up with DACA. Second, he did not ever say he wanted to keep it. His promise was to get rid of the lawbreakers and get them the hell out of the country. Something he’s clearly doing.  But more importantly, he is not throwing them out today, he’s putting them and Congress on notice.  Fix this mess Obama created, and that  you ignored and let fester, or I will let the Courts fix it for you.

Criminality Abounds!

The idea that 100% of dreamers have no criminal record is not only wrong, it’s woefully, painfully, embarrassingly wrong. DACA participants have knowingly engaged in criminal activity and been caught. For example, look here, here, here, here, and here for reports of people in the DACA program who have not only engaged in criminality, but engaged in rampant criminality.

Congress Couldn’t Fix a Flat

The idea that Congress is going to save DACA is similarly stupid. Congress could not agree on health care, and it’s unlikely to agree on taxation. In point of fact, Congress is not likely to agree on much of anything in the six months Trump has given them. In fact, what will likely happen is that they won’t even get serious about it until 5 and a half months have passed, and then they’ll ask for more time. And you can count on comprehensive immigration reform being something that can’t even get out of a committee, let alone get voted on.

You see, while the Democrats and their pet projects, the 800,000 people they assume are in the bag for their votes in 2020 are all sure that Congress should do this, there are a lot of people who are subject to the will of the voters, and the voters are making it painfully clear to all of them that they don’t want immigration reform. They want immigration enforcement. They want illegals out. They want the border protected, and they want the crime that goes with illegal aliens out of this country.

I will personally work against and contribute to the primary campaign against any Republican that votes to keep Dreamers here.

Republicans need to understand they’re voting to cut their own throats. These people are unlikely to vote Republican, and more importantly, they are very likely to try to back door every one of their shirt-tail relatives including the lousy bastards who brought them here in the first place.  It will never end.  We need a permanent solution that ensures our border security.  A big bold, beautiful wall!

So, ending DACA was the right call.

Now stand back and watch the fireworks. Congress will once again display that it is completely non-functional, and it will be up to the voters in 2018 to fix it.

End DACA Now!

Imagine this…

In every state there are laws against theft. Theft is usually described as the taking of the property of another. Similarly there are laws in every state specifying that employees shall be paid a minimum wage for relatively unskilled work. Employees who feel underpaid are free to leave.

Now, let’s suppose that a group of McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, and Pizza Hut workers get together and they decide that since the companies won’t support a $15 minimum wage, that they are simply going to supplement their wages out of the till. So every night at the close of business they take $100 or more to “compensate” for what they consider “stolen labor.” They are caught on videotape in the act. The thefts amount to more than $500, so they’re felonies. The police take all this to the prosecutor in the belief that he’ll take it to a grand jury.

But the prosecutor says “I know we have laws against theft, but I worked at McDonalds in high school, and I’m sympathetic to these kids. I’m not going to prosecute them.”

What do you suppose would happen with that local prosecutor? If he was in any state other than California, Washington, Oregon, New York or Illinois, my guess is he’d be thrown out of office in a recall election. Laws exist to protect everyone. If employees can steal from Ronnie’s place, they can steal from the Orthodontist, the Ace Hardware Store, and the movie theater too. Lawlessness would abound.

The DACA Debacle

So, let’s see if I get this right.

We have laws that say if you want to immigrate here and work here, you have to come here through our immigration process, wait your turn, learn our ways, support our constitution, and keep your nose clean. Break any of the rules, you go back where you came from.

We have senators and congressman from both parties who say “well, I know we enacted those laws, but they’re so mean, let’s just not enforce them.” Note, they don’t say “let’s change them,” they say that we should not enforce them. So our former president, Barack Obama, did just that. He said he would institute this ridiculous “dreamer” program and just not enforce the law of the land.  Not only that, he’d grant them work visas.  Why?  So they would vote Democratic.

But, there is a problem with that.

The problem is found in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution which, among other things provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” In other words, once a law is on the books, the Constitution requires the president to “faithfully execute” that law. Faithful execution means you execute the law as it is written and interpreted, not on the basis of your individual whims.

But but but…what about discretion?

Now, there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. An executive officer can choose which battle he fights. In certain select cases he may forego prosecution of a criminal offender if the law and public policy favor a different approach. Many state prosecutors use this power to do “diversion agreements.” Prosecutors use this where a person like a school teacher who may have driven impaired. The teacher is well respected, everyone knows children can drive you to drink, and the teacher has sought professional help. If prosecuted, she would lose her job if she was convicted. Prosecutorial discretion in a particular case can be a good thing (although it often winds up being a sweetheart deal for the rich and powerful in many jurisdictions). But not for a class of wrongdoers.

Everyone makes the assertion that coming here illegally is a “civil infraction” as opposed to true criminality. The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference. If you do not belong here, we have a right to make you leave.

The Threat versus Reality

The Governor of New York has made the ridiculous statement that if President Trump does not stay with the DACA program, he’ll sue.  Perhaps he doesn’t read the papers. A whole bunch of red state governors beat him to it; they already have sued to overturn DACA. This is the argument the red state governors make:

  • Congress passed a law
  • Presidents must faithfully execute the law
  • Not sending illegal aliens packing is not faithfully executing the laws; therefore
  • We demand that the president kick the illegals out.

Here is the argument the governor of New York will make:

  • Dreamers came here with their parents.
  • They had to obey their parents.
  • They did not have any choice.
  • They are as American as apple pie and baseball.
  • It would be so mean to send them back
  • Make the president do what I want to or I’m going to cry!

Now, when the left-wing lawyer-zealots get done, there will be a lot of “due process” and “liberty interests” and “detrimental reliance” all woven in there, but the argument will still be that the governor of one state can insist that the federal government not enforce laws validly on the books because “the children” (all of whom are roughly 25) didn’t come here on their own.  Oh, and let’s not forget that the end game is to lock in 800,000 additional Democratic voters.

Who cares why they are here?  That is not relevant.  They only relevant question is “are they here legally?”

They are not here legally. They have no right to be here. They have no right to work here. To obtain those rights, they must return to their country of origin and go about it the right way.  I don’t care if they were six months old when they left, and if their younger brother is a citizen by birth.  Doesn’t matter.  An American in their country of origin would have no right to remain there unlawfully and work unlawfully. Why do we have to accommodate people who are not here lawfully?

True Story

I knew a family that came here from a country south of equator.  We’ll call them the Smiths so as not to give away their ethnicity.  The Smiths had three kids, all born in that far away country.  The oldest, we’ll call him Ab, was a stand up guy.  Did very well in high school, graduated, and went out west to pursue a life in a state that is very fond of illegal aliens.  Ab has never been in trouble with the law.

Ab had a sister, we’ll call her Belle.  Belle distinguished herself, became an entrepreneur, and has made a life for herself, albeit outside the ambit of legal immigration.  Whether she pays taxes or not, I do not know.  I just know she is a good person.

The third Smith child got involved early on with drugs.  He involved himself in petty theft initially, nothing that would go outside of municipal court.  He had a number of driving offenses because he could not get a license (he was not a citizen).  Finally, his interest in drugs eclipsed even his commitment to his family, and after a felony arrest he arranged to have his sister post bail and then skipped on the bail, leaving his sister holding the bag.  I never heard what happened to the third Smith child.  I assume he is still actively engaged in criminality, or rotting in a prison cell somewhere.  It doesn’t matter.  It illustrates my point.  Even if some of the “dreamers” are good people, all of them are not.  And none of them have the right to be here.

Ending DACA is Right

The answer to President Obama’s breach of the constitution is a simple one for the Supreme Court. The courts will simply say “DACA is the textbook example of the president not faithfully executing the laws of the land.”  The red state governors will will.  Everyone will laugh quietly at New York.

And the rest of us normals will say “thank God for Justice Gorsuch.”

 

Calling Out Chief Harrington!

According to Minnesota’s public policy on police officers:

Peace officers shall conduct themselves, whether on or off duty, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Minnesota Constitution, and all applicable laws, ordinances and rules enacted or established pursuant to legal authority

Sounds smart, doesn’t it.

You give your cops the authority to go after everyone that breaks the law.  If it was enacted pursuant to lawful authority, and applies to the situation, then a cop in Minnesota can enforce it.

Now, if this is correct, then it is obvious that a police officer must enforce not only state law, but federal law.   Let’s examine why this is o.  A police officer does not forego making an arrest on drug charges simply because there is a DEA and the DEA has collateral jurisdiction.  He doesn’t say “hold it right there, I can see a baggie of dope in your pocket, and we’re going to have to wait for someone from DEA to come and arrest you.”  This would be stupid.

This would be insane.

A police officer similarly does not forego making an arrest for credit card fraud just because the Secret Service is tasked with enforcing these laws on a federal level.  He doesn’t tell the manager at Wal-Mart who has caught an employee using a fake credit card to wait right there until we can get a Secret Service agent down there.  That would be stupid.

It would be inefficient.  It would be contrary to the way in which the system works.  The feds may want to file charges in federal court later, but the arrest occurs because the law is broken, not because it’s a specific federal law.

Likewise, a police officer does not refuse to arrest a felon with a gun solely because the federal law, not the state law, has been broken.  He doesn’t say “wait right there, I have to call the ATF and get them down here to arrest you.”  Sure, the ATF investigates gun crimes, and the serious ones get prosecuted in federal court.  But laws often overlap on these issues, and as a result, we have a system that allows state actors to enforce federal law because that is both smart and efficient.  In each of these situations the public policy is expressed in terms of statutes, and the police officer enforces the will of the people by making appropriate arrests.  That is the way the system is supposed to work.  Now, apply a liberal dose of politics, add in a police administrator who would rather keep his job than do his job, and you’ve got a recipe for imbecility on a grand scale.

How in God’s name can it be rational for the Metro Transit Police (We’re talking to YOU, John Harrington!) in Minneapolis to discharge an officer for making an arrest for turnstile jumping and, at the same time, inquiring into the immigration status of the individual. The police arrested the man for committing a crime. He stole from the public by turnstile jumping. That makes it that much more expensive for the lawful citizens who are riding.  If he didn’t have bus fare, he wasn’t paying taxes or contributing to the economy.  He was a drain on the economy.  He was a user of services that wasn’t paying for those services.  He is not some “noble immigrant” but a bum that busts a turnstile because he is either too cheap or too criminal to pay his fare.  But the idiots who run Metro Transit don’t get it. They are worried about “rebuilding the trust of the community.” They do this by firing a police officer acting under lawful authority inquiring into a federal crime. According to their website:

Metro Transit has its own licensed police force committed to the safety of its customers and employees. Metro Transit Police has the fourth largest jurisdiction in Minnesota. It covers everywhere regional transit buses and trains operate – currently eight counties and 85 cities.

Wow, eight counties and 85 cities and the fourth larest jurisdiction in Minnesota, and you don’t let your cops ask about legal status. Maybe it hasn’t occurred to Minnesota that it’s a border state?  “Say there, guy with the towel on your head, I see you’ve got a truckload of fertilizer and a 20 gallon drum of diesel, but I wouldn’t want to racially profile you or ask about your immigration status.  Have a nice day.”

This is the kind of law enforcement that is getting Americans killed!

Now, ICE deported the arrested invididual shortly after his arrest. That meant he was not supposed to be here. Does the fact that the cop was right have any bearing on this? Not according to the idiots of the MTA!

Chief Harrington, I am calling you out. You do not deserve the badge you wear if you think you get to decide what laws cops enforce. You are a disgrace to law enforcement, and a disgrace to this nation. You should be fired immediately!

We’ve Lost The West Coast

Ladies and Gentlemen it is time to face facts. Certain cities, like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other bastions of liberalism may be lost to the illegal immigrant crowd. It is unlikely in the near term that federal courts will act with the required rapidity to allow ICE to effectively deport criminals. We should simply wish them ill, stop sending them federal money of any kind, and tell them no when they beg for help. Actions have consequences.  Let’s let their politicians explain to their voters why there are no jobs and people are being gunned down by MS-13.

But it doesn’t have to happen in the rest of the country!

If your state legislature is not thinking like the Texas state legislature, which recently criminalized sanctuary city policies, then its time for it to start. We need as quickly as possible for every state where there is a veto-proof Republican majority in the legislative branch to impose the same kind of penalties and restrictions on elected officers and cities as are currently in the Texas law.  They can simply change a few words in the Texas law.  They don’t even have to be creative!

There are good reasons to do this. A person who is here illegally has already broken the law. When one commits a felony, they are subject to deportation. Avoiding deportation or returning after deportation (as many of these clowns have) is a felony.

Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 4 is called misprision of felony. Misprison is a criminal act that is based upon the failure to report a crime. The statute says:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Now, reading this, it’s clear this has four elements to it. The wrongdoer has to (1) know about a felony; (2) that felony has to be cognizable by a court in the US, (3) they have to conceal the criminal activity; (4) They have to fail to report as soon as possible the criminal activity.

Now, 18 U.S. Code § 1073 makes flight to avoid prosecution (which is what would happen to a deported felon on recapture) a federal felony. It is also a statute which authorizes federal law enforcement to cross state lines looking for bad guys.

Now, let’s think about a criminal illegal alien, that ICE wants to deport, and that ICE places a federal detainer on. The official in charge, whether that’s the sheriff or the police chief, now knows that a federal law has been broken, and that they have a duty to turn the criminal illegal alien over to the federal government, otherwise the felon will flee. If they conceal the criminal illegal alien’s exit from jail on bond or otherwise from federal authorities, that assists the illegal alien in fleeing from ICE, and based on the detainer establishing knowledge, that subjects them to federal prosecution for misprision of felony.

So, in each of these states where the bleeding hearts set up these unlawful sanctuaries, they are actively committing a federal crime. A state has the right, on that basis, to deny them state office, and to create criminal penalties for not cooperating with federal authorities.  It will be challenged in the courts, but the courts in most of these states are filled with judges who are tired of seeing the revolving door at the jailhouse.

How do we start this movement?  There is an easy way to speed up the process of having our states stop this madness in the larger cities.

  1. Write to your state legislator and state senator and demand that they immediately sponsor the same legislation that Texas just passed;
  2. Write to the governor and ask the governor to sign this legislation;
  3. Write a letter to the editor asking others to do the same thing.
  4. Go visit your legislator and senator and tell them that they either get on board with this law, or you’re never backing them for office again. We have a right to expect our laws will be enforced.
  5. Call your representative’s office every day and demand to know if they have sponsored such a bill. If they have not, demand to know why.
  6. If you have a liberal bleeding heart legislator, record the telephone conversation if legal in your state (See information here). Post it to Facebook, Twitter, and every other social media outlet if it shows her to be more concerned with people who cannot lawfully vote than with people who do vote.
  7. Embarrass, cajole, vex, harass, intimidate, annoy and badger your elected representative until he hears your name in his nightmares. The First Amendment gives you the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Nothing requires you to do so quietly or meekly.
  8. Attend every publicized meeting with your senator or legislator and demand to know in this forum if they have sponsored such legislation and if they are going to. Ask them, if they say no, why they want to protect people who can’t vote for them instead of people who have voted for them. Get other people thinking.
  9. Gather names, get signatures, organize. Flood these meetings with your folks and be a little bit rowdy. Make your points. Chant “No Sanctuary for Criminals” and “They Don’t Vote, We Do!”
  10. Get interviewed on television and make these same points. Don’t yell and scream, just ask people “why would a politician favor someone who can’t vote for them because (a) they’re a felon and (b) they’re illegally here, over people who did vote for them.
  11. It costs very little to set up either an LLC or a D/B/A with your Secretary of State or Corporation Commission. Set up a “polling company” and get your charter issued. Once issued, conduct “polls” of people who share your views.  Nothing requires you to conduct them honestly; no other polling company does.  They simply repeat what they want the public to believe.  Steal a page from their playbook!  Get some letterhead printed and print news releases on this fancy stationery and send them to the media with a press release:
    1. “Acme Polling has today released poll numbers suggesting that State Legislator Pollyanna Bleedingheart has dropped dramatically in the polls. Her support now sits at 35%”
    2. Each week drop a few points off and resubmit it to the news media. The media are lazy and often will simply run with your story; they won’t try to figure out if you’re a legitimate polling operation.
  12. If you create a big enough media fecal storm your legislator will fly the white flag and come around to your way of thinking because otherwise she’ll lose support of her donors.

Is all of this slightly less than honorable? Sure it is. But since when was survival about honor? We are either a country with independent states that can take action to stop sanctuary cities, or we’re a nation of victims. I prefer never to be a victim again!

On Islam

 

I really don’t care who you worship. If you’re a Christian, like me, I am happy for you, but if you’re Muslim, I don’t hate you. I feel sorry for you, I want to help you see a better way, but I don’t hate you. If you choose not to listen to me, that’s fine. I do not seek to control you or conform you to my beliefs. Hell is full of people who were wrong on this subject; and I don’t get to judge.

Likewise, I don’t care who you sleep with, as long as they are human and over the age of consent. If you’re a guy who sleeps with guys, fine. If you’re a gal who sleeps with gals, that’s fine too. If you’re just confused and want to try it both ways, hey, more power to you.

I don’t care if you’re a man that dresses like a woman so long as you don’t abuse women. I don’t care if you’re a woman who dresses like a man, as long as you don’t abuse women. I don’t have a right to determine whether you sin or not. That’s above my pay grade. Way above my pay grade in fact.

I want to live my life by the rules I know and respect, and I want you to do the same with your rules, so long as your rules don’t conflict with mine.

But I do care about human life. So if you’re a woman who gets pregnant and you don’t want to be pregnant, the time to have thought about that was before the act that led to that condition. Once you have a human life inside you, you do not have the right to unilaterally decide to terminate it. God decides who lives and who dies; not man. I believe that laws against abortion should be interpreted as constitutional because life clearly begins at conception. I work hard to elect candidates that share my view. But if you have an abortion, that’s on you. That’s between you and God. I do not judge you. I don’t judge you if you support abortion rights, even though I think you’re misguided to do so.

Under the United States Constitution I am guaranteed certain rights. Among them is the right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. I have a right to practice my religion and the government has no right to dictate what religion I must follow. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion for the unenlightened. Freedom is freedom.

Across the ocean a violent movement is taking hold in Europe that wants to replace freedom of religion with “the one religion” – that being Islam. Islam is not a relgion of peace as you’ve been told, and if you spent 20 minutes with a Koran (yes, I know they prefer Quran, but my blog, my spelling), you’d know that.   It is a religion of domination, oppression of women, and destruction of individual freedoms for anyone who doesn’t answer to the slave-master Mohammed.

Nearly every other religion has some form of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Yet Islam has a tenet that says it is okay to make slaves of other humans, that it is okay to sexually abuse other humans, that it is okay for children as young as 6 to be used for sex by evil men with evil purpose. Islam says it is okay to cut off the female sex organs to deny women pleasure from sex. Basically everything about Islam is designed to economically, physically, sexually, and politically enslave women. Why else would you put a woman in a black outfit with nothing but her eyes visible in places where the noontime temperature gets to be 132 degrees?

All other religions call you to God by persuasion, by demonstration of what is good and holy. Even Buddhists and Hindus believe in the golden rule, and do not believe in forcing their religious views on others. Yet, Islam believes it has a right to convert you at the point of a sword, and after having done so, to make you a slave. You will have no right to privacy. No right to engage in sexual relations as you see fit, no freedom to think outside the dictates of the political sphere that is Islam, because Islam, and only Islam, can rule. That is their belief. So, in reality, when they call it a religion of peace, what they’re really saying is, there will be peace when we subjugate the world. Islam is the current version of the political system best demonstrated by the Borg from Star Trek.   They assert that “you will be assimilated” Only assimilated in Islam means subjugated.

Across Europe there is a battle raging now for the heart and soul of western civilization. Well-meaning but idiotic leaders like Merkel truly believe that if they show enough love and compassion that the Islamists will come over to their way of thinking. This is like expecting the bull not to charge because you’re a vegan. It puts an innate faith in humanity above a logical fear of zealous jihad waged against the west.

So long as immigrants want to come here and live under our laws and under our constitution, and can do so while promising to assimilate and adopt our values, they should be welcome. But the problem with Islamists is that they have a doctrine called Taqiya which says it is okay to lie to non-believers. So they get a pass from their version of God for lying to us and saying they are the religion of peace, while their real plan is subjugation. Given that, how can we expect them to be good citizens and loyal Americans?

Many muslims have assimilated here. Many are good people, if misguided. Many do not strictly obey the Koran. But they are considered outcasts by their Islamist brethren. We must be ever vigilant. We do not want to fight the war that Germany, Sweden, Norway, and England are fighting now. The way to stop it is to stop them from coming here. That’s why I support the ban on immigration from Middle-eastern countries.

Illegal v. Undocumented

 

On pretty much any day in this country you see the difference between Democrats and Republicans played out in different ways. Some of them are spectacular (rioting, looting, etc.). Some of them are rhetorical. When an illegal immigrant raped a 9th grader, Zeke Cohen, a Democrat in Baltimore, refused to refer to him as an “illegal immigrant” and instead consistently used the term “immigrant.” This is sort of like saying to all the people who came here legally, waiting their turn, that they’re idiots.

Zeke, appearing on Tucker Carlson (and getting beaten up pretty badly) suggested that a Honduran “fleeing persecution” came to the US and was arrested and shipped out by ICE, and that this was like the Nazi-era holocaust tactics. If that doesn’t make you mad, you’re not paying attention.

Congress, which presumably includes both Democrats and Republicans, passed immigration laws in 20s, 50s, 80s and in each iteration of those laws it has been unlawful for someone from another country to cross over into this country and remain. It’s not a “traffic ticket” kind of offense, it’s a crime.

Lawyers, God help us, like to split hairs. So, the general advice is that while illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime, “unlawful presence” is a civil law violation that is punished with fines and removal. This category applies mainly to people who overstay visas. That’s a different discussion. Here we’re talking about border-sneaks.   Nevertheless, the distinction is practically meaningless: a person who crosses the Texas-Mexico border and remains here is guilty of illegal entry and has committed a crime. When ICE catches him, no matter if he is a bricklayer or a Ph.D., he should be deported.

Now, while children who were brought here by their parents, or who were born here after their parents committed illegal entry are in fact blameless, they too (in the case of the former) have committed illegal entry and must be deported. Those born here could remain, but not if they are of tender years or wish to remain with their family. In that case they can leave and return as adults as full citizens. But what they cannot do is operate a back door into the US immigration system. Congress needs to fix the Anchor Baby problem by law.  It’s a simple fix.  “No child born in the US to parents who are non-citizens shall be considered a US citizen.”

But irrespective of whether we call them “undocumented” or illegal aliens, unless they where transported off the holodeck on the Enterprise and suddenly materialized here, they crossed the border illegally. They must be deported. Every last single one.

Democrats scream that this is too harsh, too mean-spirited. Indeed, I know many hard-working aliens. Many are building houses in my new neighborhood. Many are doing jobs that, if they were not doing them, would be available for local American carpenters. That contractors can get by with paying slave wages to people whose families sleep in vans and cook over sterno at night is a separate crime in my book. These people are being taken advantage of, and by people with every economic incentive to keep doing it.

So, if Congress wants to fix this problem, here’s how they do it.

First, make it a misdemeanor to hire any undocumented worker. The penalty on the first offense should be stiff $1,500, but not so draconian as to be unreasonable. The second offense should be a felony. ICE should be able to either close the business and impose additional fines. No matter if the company is a Fortune 100 or a mom-and-pop, the company CEO and COO should receive jail time.

On the third conviction the company should be shuttered, all personal and real property associated with the enterprise should be seized, the corporate officers should be sent to federal prison.

If you don’t think this would not dry up the job market for cheap Mexican/Guatemalan/Honduran/Salvadoran labor, you’re not alert enough to drive.

The key, however, is to enforce these laws rigidly yet fairly. Goldman Sachs undocumented cleaning lady should cause the same consequences for it that the undocumented lawn mower working for the landscape company (with an annual income of $30,000) suffers. If you enact this reform and

8 USC § 1324a already provides that hiring undocumented workers is unlawful. Unfortunately, it does not create a criminal penalty, but rather, an administrative one. An employer that hires undocumented workers can be fined up to $10,000 if it has previously been ordered to cease hiring illegals. But the only criminal penalty in the statute is for a “pattern and practice” of hiring illegals, and seems to rarely result in significant criminal penalties.

The reason that the problem must be attacked on the demand side (as well as the supply side) is that without the demand – without knowing that a job waits for them here – the tide of illegal migration would slow to a trickle and likely stop. If everyone in Company A, making widgets, knew that they could likely close down their competition in Company B, also making widgets, if Company B hired unlawful workers, then Company A would be exceptional scrupulous because they would know that the same thing could happen to them. In effect, you would not need to police the border so hard if you just shut off the flow of jobs for migrants.

So here’s the real question: if a lawyer in the Midwest can figure this out, why hasn’t someone in Congress figured it out. The reason: big companies LOVE the idea of cheap labor because it permits them to make cheap products and still charge big prices. They would lobby hard against it. But if we want real change in Washington, the voters, not the money men, need to be making the changes.

The 21st Century Dred Scott Decision

It has never taken much to make monkeys out of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. These preening liberals frequently assert judicial power they do not have in ways that makes the Supreme Court ask “Why do we have a Ninth Circuit, anyway?” But the order on the Travel Ban Executive Order (TBEO) reaches new heights of insanity in terms of judicial arrogance and is a naked confiscation of executive power in the guise of a judicial order.  Click on the order and read it, but be warned: you’ll need a drink afterward.

In its initial paragraphs the Court says:

Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

Slip op 3. The question here is how could the government make a showing of its likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal when the case should not even be in court on grounds of standing? How could the government make the case for its success when the Court will neither acknowledge the President’s lawful authority under statute (8 USC § 1182) to ban entire classes of aliens at any time on his authority alone? In effect, the judges here are acting like the three monkeys and are refusing to see, hear or understand the government’s argument. And, it gets worse.

In its analysis of standing, the critical inquiry in this case, the Court said:

The district court preliminarily concluded that significant and ongoing harm was being inflicted on substantial numbers of people, to the detriment of the States, by means of an Executive Order that the States were likely to be able to prove was unlawful.

Slip op at 6. The article III standing requirement, found in the Constitution is triggered if even one person’s legitimate rights are impaired. How the Court goes about resolving the standing issue, though, is perplexing. First, it articulate the standards correctly:

The Government argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the States have no standing to sue. We have an independent obligation to ascertain our jurisdiction, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and we consider the Government’s argument de novo, see, e.g., Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016).

***

The “gist of the question of standing” is whether the plaintiff has a sufficiently “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy” to ensure that the parties will be truly adverse and their legal presentations sharpened. Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517, (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)).

Slip op 8-9. In other words someone, somewhere must suffer a real and concrete injury. This doesn’t mean something may happen, it means something has happened or is certain to happen in the future. It does not permit a court to speculate rampantly about what may or may not happen. It also demands that the injury happen to the person asserting standing.  So how does the state justify the challenge to the order?

The States argue that the Executive Order causes a concrete and particularized injury to their public universities, which the parties do not dispute are branches of the States under state law. See, e.g., Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Wash. 1986) (en banc); Univ. of Minn. v. Raygor, 620 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn. 2001).

Slip op at 9. In other words, the states are asserting the rights of their corporate educational entities, and a bunch of unnamed potential employees, none of whom have rights of citizenship or permanent residence.  The idea that the state can assert the potential future injury of students from not getting instruction from yet-to-be hired professors to teach unnamed courses is as attenuated as it gets.  It does not provide standing.   The state’s first assertion of this injury, however, takes the form of two “visiting scholars.”

According to declarations filed by the States, for example, two visiting scholars who had planned to spend time at Washington State University were not permitted to enter the United States

Slip op at 10. Oh, geez, lets all sit down and have a good cry.

Here’s what we know about the “visiting scholars” – they’re from a country affected by the travel ban, they seek employment as a visiting professor. They are aliens, unentitled to the rights of citizenship. While they may obtain certain due process rights the moment they step foot on US soil, they have no rights to anything while sitting in Slay-The-Infidel-land. Thus, these two scholars, as non-citizens, securely outside the United States, and with no rights under treaty or other international compacts, do not have due process rights in the United States.

They cannot access the courts here to have their rights adjudicated because the United States District Court does not have jurisdiction over them in Herdacamelstan. No worries though, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is about to throw open the doors of US Courts to everyone, even including Osama Bin Laden if he were still alive, to allow them to seek entry to the US, so long as they have some attenuated affiliation with a college or university. The Ninth Circuit said:

Under the “third party standing” doctrine, these injuries to the state universities give the States standing to assert the rights of the students, scholars, and faculty affected by the Executive Order. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114- 16 (1976) (explaining that third-party standing is allowed when the third party’s interests are “inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue”; when the litigant is “fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party; or when the third party is less able to assert her own rights).

Slip op at 10-11. Okay, let’s think about this. First, third party standing requires the state’s interest to be “as effective a proponent of the right” as the third party, when the third party is “lesser able” to assert its rights. So, in order to assert the third party’s rights under third party standing, the third party would first have to have some kind of due process rights. Which they do not have. Because they are not here. Because the President under 8 USC § 1182 can lawfully exclude them. Because the statute provides no means for judicial review of the president’s plenary authority here. So if they do not have rights, how can a third party assert what someone doesn’t have. If I don’t have $5 in my bank account, my wife can’t spend it at the store. It’s the same principle. Again, while citing the law correctly, the Ninth Circuit bends over backwards to misapply it. They claim this is similar to the famous Griswold case:

Likewise, doctors have been permitted to assert the rights of their patients. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Slip op at 11. Here’s the problem. The patients in Griswold were US citizens in Connecticut (where you’re a US citizen, you just don’t have any Second Amendment rights). They could easily have asserted their own rights. They just needed to file suit to do it. How’s Abdul Hac bin Ramenoodle (does it strike you as odd that the names always sound like someone battling a hairball?) over in Syria going to assert his rights in this case if he is denied entry. He can’t. The same way German soldiers could not assert their due process rights in US court when they were captured in Germany. Those rights did not exist – except in the Ninth Circuit (which, truth be told, may be interpreting a different Constitution).

But the Ninth was not through. “Think about the children.” Yes, the college students who might be deprived of the scholarly lectures of these folks from Syria. God knows that there is no Washington State academician, or really an academic anywhere in the US, who might be hired to teach these students. No, only someone from the Daniel Pearl School of Tolerance in Syria can be expected to impart the proper amount of wisdom and sagacity needed in Washington State. That’s how the Ninth Circuit concludes that:

The students’ educational success is “inextricably bound up” in the universities’ capacity to teach them.

Slip op at 12. So, at the outset the entire exercise in jurisdiction falls apart for lack of standing. The people seeking visas or admission to the country have no rights to seek entry, and the president has the unilateral authority to prevent entire classes of people from entering. In fact, here’s the statute that speaks on that subject, and that provides no basis for judicial review:

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 USC § 1182(f)

But, in spite of this, the Ninth Circuit concludes:

And we have no difficulty concluding that the States’ injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the relief they ask for: a declaration that the Executive Order violates the Constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement.

Slip op at 12. There are so many different mistakes, miscited cases, errors in logic, and flat out misrepresentations in this opinion that you have to wonder if the Ninth Circuit remembers what happened on September 11, 2001. The fact is that while we aspire to be better than every other nation on earth, that does not mean that we need to let in every damned person who wants in.

Civil liberties are important. But American citizens also deserve due process like foreign miscreants do, only they deserve it more. They deserve the right to exclude from their homeland those who have no interest in assimilating and whose intent in coming here is to cause harm. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling will go down next to Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision as one of the worst opinions written in American law. And the judges will continue to enjoy lifetime appointments. And that is the worst travesty of all.

The Scorpion and the Frog

There is an actress on the show Big Bang Theory named Mayim Bialik. She’s Jewish and she’s also liberal. It must be like being the Incredible Hulk. You have 3,000 years of oppression on one side, and 3,000 years of stupidity on the other. They must be in constant conflict. And Mayim is no imbecile, either. She is an actual scientist and likely the smartest of those on The Big Bang Theory. All of this makes her tweeting in the recent days somewhat crazy.

If you were to look at the history of the middle east generally, and the relationship that radical muslims have with Jews generally, you would certainly conclude that muslims were no friends of the jewish race. As someone recently observed, when was the last time you saw anyone but a muslim holding a severed head? So Mayim’s statement that she would register as a muslim if Donald Trump’s immigration policies go into effect, is – to be plainspoken – lunatic.

The left in this country has since 9-11-01 made the case that not all muslims are terrorists. Okay, we can accept that there are peaceful muslims, just the way there are reasonable Democrats. Not many, but a few. The problem with basing policy on the few that are not batshit-crazy adherents of the Koran (they prefer Quran, so I use the Anglicized spelling) is that it’s like premising your walk through a minefield on the idea that there must be a few duds in there. Sure, there are nice folks who happen to be muslim and who don’t own machetes or semi-automatic rifles and have no desire to hold up severed heads. But our immigration system cannot identify those while simultaneously keeping people like Omar Mateen out of the country. Most of this is because there is nothing in the host countries that gives us information on these clowns.

Perhaps it is uncaring or unfeeling to say it is better to have refugees suffer in their own part of the world than having them come here. But my guess is the family of the San Bernadino, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando shooting victims would vote strongly in favor of leaving them over there.

We have no obligation to allow anyone in to our country. None. Whatever we do is a gift. That gift must be respected by a desire to assimilate, not a desire to turn our country into the same kind of shithole they left. They can freely exercise their religion without importing sharia law or sharia courts, or honor killings. If they want to come here, only those with a desire to live in tolerance should be admitted.

You may disagree. That’s fine. If you’re willing to house these folks in your home, then by all means go ahead. But remember, as you do, the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.