The 14th Amendment and voting for illegals

According to the Washington Post, the Republican party of the state of Washington apparently has more mettle than the Republicans of the US Senate.

They are putting forward a Constitutional Amendment that would end the guarantee currently in the US Constitution that the children of illegal aliens born in the United States automatically become US Citizens.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 at the end of the Civil War as a response to the Dred Scott case tried before the Supreme Court in 1857. Among other issues, in Dred Scott the court ruled that Negros, even those who had been freed, could never become citizens of the United States.

The 14th Amendment changed this by guaranteeing that anyone born within the US would automatically become one of her citizens. In this respect this amendment served an important and necessary purpose. But the writers could have never imagined the issues tearing apart our union today.

Because of its broad language, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to any and all born in this country, even if their parents entered under false or illegal pretenses. In 1868, even under the shadow of slavery, expectant immigrants, as did the overwhelming majority of humanity of those times, lived by a moral code of honor whereby they would go out of their way to live by the laws of the land.

That huge numbers of people would illegally enter the United States and reside here under false pretenses was unimaginable. That they would do so for the explicit purpose of giving birth to their children on US soil, making them citizens, unthinkable.

Today though, we are experiencing both of those actions in overwhelming numbers. Each individual, whether by crossing the borders illegally or having come to the country as a child born of an illegal alien, adds to the burden of society.

Are we against children? Do we have some awful dislike of these innocent ones, never! But we must consider that as long as the incentive is available, it will be one more reason for people to illegally cross our borders. The incentive, all incentives, but be removed or the penalties so harsh as to overwhelm the rewards.

According to the Washington State Republican Party platform:

The original intent of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) which declared, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." and thereby recognized the citizenship of ex-slaves and in no way granted citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens.

This is a reasonable clarification and limitation to the broad language of this amendment. Since the broad language is codified as a constitutional amendment, the only constitutional method of modifying it is by way of another amendment.

The only persons who would oppose this modification would be those pandering to illegals and their supporters. Those like California Democratic hopeful Francine Busby who last Thursday was taped advising a hopeful supporter who wanted to help her campaign but admitted he was in this country illegally, "'...You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.'"

Busby's comment was an inadvertent peek behind the curtain of the Democrat party agenda. That is, to tear down every barrier to illegal border crossings and illegal residency in this country in the hope that they will illegally vote in elections and support Democrat candidates. The act of voting illegally, in a nutshell, is illegal under our laws and Constitution and any one, citizen, politician or otherwise, who supports that illegal activity should be prosecuted.

Illegal voting destroys the democratic process, diminishes the power of the citizen to govern and brings ill repute on our nation. Former President Jimmy Carter has devoted his life after leaving office to ensure the democratic process plays out freely and fairly in fledgling nations around the world. If he fails to speak out on this attempt to circumvent that same democratic process at home, any credibility he may hope for will be utterly destroyed.

Wash. GOP Issues Resolution on Immigration
2006 Washington State Republican Party Platform
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia
Calif. Dem Francine Busby: Illegals Can Vote
The Carter Center

Who's watching the "chicken coop"?

While I was gone Homeland Security announced they had solicited bids from defense contractors for a plan to secure the US borders. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman as well as Boeing and Ericsson are among the elite group of those expected to bid according to an article on Military.com.

The bidding is for fully integrated systems to monitor the borders, not just individual components of a government based border security. While Customs and Border Security will provide the man power for patrolling and enforcing the borders, this move is, at last, an admission by the agency that it's efforts have been impotent.

It's also a tactical admission by government that private industry, as anyone with any awareness will agree, is far more capable of designing and implementing just about any program than government.

We welcome this move and hope it will play out into dramatically improved border security.

In a statement officially stating what most informed Americans already know, House Judiciary Chairman and chief negotiator in the conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the immigration reform bill, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. stated, "What we have to do is first secure the border, and then we have to turn off the magnet that brings more illegal immigrants into our country."

Let's hope he stands by that statement and the House Republican leadership and a majority of the House backs him. The Senate has come down on the side of a controversial and comprehensive bill to address "all" the problems of illegal entry, a move I think is designed to bog down the issue and ultimately fail.

The bill passed in the House is more pragmatic in dealing with the issue. Secure the borders first, then deal with the problem of those already here. How can any intelligent person think otherwise, unless they have an agenda that runs counter to the will of the American people.

But then many of those watching Washington these days are beginning to believe that is the case.

Bush Turns to Contractors to Control Border
Key Rep. Opposes 'Path to Citizenship'

End of the line?

What do you not understand about the phrase "back of the line?" As in, "illegal aliens will not get a free pass but will be required to go to the back of the line."

Apparently the Washington politicians are playing a shell game with us, again. To them, "back of the line" doesn't mean illegal aliens will have to get behind those foreigners who are waiting in their home countries for the application process to run it course and receive their green cards.

No, illegal aliens will immediately be issued a green card allowing them to remain in this country and continue to work the jobs they are already doing. They will not have to return to their home countries, they will not have to apply for entry in the US, they will not have to wait in that 10-15 year line.

They will go to the front of the application line, in fact they will not need to follow the application screening process. Are they already in the US, OK, fine, "here's your green card, go on back to work."

While those who follow the rules wait for the wheels of government to churn, illegals, who have already broken our laws and committed what under normal circumstances would require their immediate deportation, waltz blithely on by and realize little consequence of their illegal actions.

The line they will go to the back of is the citizenship line. A line most have no desire or intent to follow. They don't want to be US citizens, they only want to feed from the trough, to enjoy the benefits of living here, they don't want the responsibilities of citizenship, God Forbid!

So the next time a a politician or a defender of illegals tells you they will be required to go to the back of the line, ask him, "which line?" See what he says and see if he really knows what he's talking about.

The "End of the Line" Con

Fox is worried?

He should be. Mexico's Vicente Fox has gone on record supporting open borders and amnesty for Mexico's citizens who are in the US illegally.

Open borders would relieve Mexico's government of it obligation to work on developing it's economy and raise the economic status of it's citizens. Why should their government do anything when the good ole US will take all the economic deprived, merge them into their economy and then allow them to send $20 billion a year back into Mexico's economy.

Amnesty will allow those illegal Mexicans to remain in the US, feed on the US economy at will and open the doors for more Mexican citizens to do the same. Mexico would be rid of a large dissatisfied, resentful population.

There would be a reduced need for government services with the 10-12 million Mexicans in the US sending US dollars back to families and contributing to the Mexican economy.

In 2004 $33 billion in aid was sent to the Mexican government, in 2005 it was around $31 billion. The $20 billion sent back by Mexican illegal aliens in the US amounts to an additional $20 billion in aid Mexico's government doesn't even have to request.

So is Fox worried? Sure he is, but he shouldn't worry too much. Congress has shown a distaste for the hard work of sealing the US border with Mexico. President Bush has gone on record supporting a program that will provide a de facto amnesty for Mexico's citizens living illegally in the US.

Unless the US citizens get off their duffs and begin pressuring their representatives in Washington and their local state houses, there will soon be no border and in a few short years the southwest United States will be known as Mexifornia.

Bush's Plan to Seal Border Worries Mexico

Counting the cost of illegal aliens

While some may debate the economic impact of illegal aliens in this country, it seems pretty clear the impact is negative. While the lower cost of employing illegals contributes to the bottom line of those businesses that illegally employ them, and that lower cost is passed on to the consumer, that savings in lost in other areas.

According to an AP story, illegals cost $20 billion a year in education, healthcare and various public services. What is not computed is the cost of policing the borders, arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating and deporting illegals.

Also not included in the cost is the $20 billion each year illegals send to their families in Mexico, and an additional amount sent out of this country to the families of illegals from other nations. This is money that will never be seen in the US economy.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each dollar of income will turnover seven times into the national economy. That means the loss of $20 billion out of the economy will result in $140 billion each year of lost sales, wages and the resultant jobs in the US economy.

That coupled with the $20 billion in hard expense referred above results in a total negative economic impact of $160 billion before adding in the cost of judicial action. The $7 billion in Social Security withholding for illegals that will be unclaimed is referred to as a positive economic impact, but it pales in comparison to the negative costs.

The impact of the lost dollars in the economy can be translated into lost jobs. While the numbers vary widely depending on the sector and productivity, the number of jobs per $1 billion of economy ranges from around 6,800 to over 42,000.

That would mean the loss of $120 billion in lost economic impact is resulting in a loss of 816,000 to 5,040,000 jobs for legal residents and citizens.

One could argue that the positive impact of lower wages earned by illegals coupled with those earnings which do stay here fully counterbalance the negative costs, but that in no way negates the security concerns of a porous border. When anyone with the will and the financial resources to buy their way across an unprotected border can do so, we are at risk.

While the impact to our economy and our society is of great concern, of equal concern is the security of our nation. It is incumbent on our national, state and local officials to take every measure to secure our borders and provide for the security of legal residents and citizens of the US.

This will require seeking out and identifying all illegal aliens in this country. We cannot know if their intentions are purely personal and economic or if they have more sinister motives if we turn a blind eye and refuse to even see them.

Economic Impact of Immigrants Unclear

A national vote on immigration?

I'll be gone quite a bit for the next several weeks. Updating these posts will be catch-as-can. Until the next time, keep in mind this column by Tony Phyrillas of WebCommentary.

Though I can say I agree with everything, much of what he has to say is thought provoking. I am very concerned about the concept of putting the issue of border security and dealing with illegal aliens to a national vote.

If anything, most Americans have proven themselves shallow and ignorant of the issues. To vote on something this important based on emotion instead of informed decision would be folly.

You can be sure, if this issue was put to a general vote, the lobbying of the public would begin in earnest, with compassion struggling against the law against fear mongering.

On the other hand, a vote by the citizenry on this issue may be better than leaving it to the politicians. They've proven themselves to be caught up in the cesspool of pandering.

But then, if the voters have shown they can't remove the inept, corrupt and party-promoting politicians, can we trust them on this?

Immigrants built America; Illegal immigrants could help destroy it

Know the issues...

A study just released by House Judiciary Committee states that many nations take a more unforgiving view toward illegal aliens than the US. Not that the actions of other nations should drive the US policy toward those who breach our borders illegally.

What if all nations were lenient, excepting the US? What would we do then? Open the borders, disband security and allow any and all to enter the country and draw from our resources?

Chair Sensenbrenner's March 27th statement does a fair job of explaining his position on H.R. 4437 and the issue of making illegal entry a felony. One may not agree with his position, which is softer than the media have led us to believe, but the insider information that those harsh provisions are the result of a Democrat agenda to make the bill too hard to swallow is very telling.

All of those with an interest in this issue, citizens, legal residents, illegal aliens and supporters on both sides of the issue should study both the comparison of Section 274/Section 202 and the section-by-section explanation of H.R 4437. No one should depend on the rhetoric of the opposition or those they agree with, nor should they trust the characterization of the bill or the surrounding issues as presented by the media.

Take the time to read it, study it and understand it.

The Honolulu Star Bulletin, in an opinion piece, quotes then comments, "'Today we march, tomorrow we vote,' but politicians might not be worried. Of course, illegal aliens cannot vote, and only 47 percent of eligible Latino voters cast ballots in the last election..."

Yes, illegal aliens, nor even legal, non-citizen resident immigrants can legally vote in US elections. But the assumption that since they cannot "legally" vote no party or organization will attempt to persuade them to vote "illegally" is an exercise in pure Pollyanna thinking.

If anything, our recent elections have informed us of the drastic measures the left will take to try and win elections. Registering the underage or criminal who cannot legally vote. Stuffing the ballot box with votes from deceased voters or those who have moved out of precinct has been found to be prevalent among those Democrat votes.

At a recent pro-illegal alien rally in Arizona, it was widely published that a voter registration booth would be working, and there's little doubt they were careful as to the registrants legality. You can be sure that was only one of many registration drives taking place as these events.

They broke the law of the land when they crossed the borders illegally, so we are now supposed to believe they will follow the laws when it comes to issues that will effect whether or not they will remain here? I can't buy that, and neither should you.

Study: Many nations harder on illegal immigrants than U.S.
Sensenbrenner Statement on Border Security
COMPARISON OF SECTION 274 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AS IT CURRENTLY APPEARS AND AS IT WOULD BE AMENDED UNDER SECTION 202 OF H.R. 4437
A section-by-section explanation of H.R. 4437 by Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and Hon. Peter King
Immigrant bill should balance enforcement, compassion

More to come....

Even as the hoopla over Monday's protest begins to die down, plans are being made for a follow-up demonstration. Obviously the organizers are committed to fully open borders, zero security for lawful residents and citizens of the US, and an open arms policy toward anyone who enters the country.

But there is a backlash brewing. While most of those who took notice are diverting their attention back to families, jobs and their personal interests, a large number are beginning to organize to counter the coming insurgency.

Just as those who want no controls on US borders or immigration will not back down, neither will those of us who want a strong and secure America.

Immigrants Plan Next Big March
Immigration Backlash Seen
Aftermath of the Mayday Immigration Walk-Out