The Presidential Pen

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

It appears that President Obama was indeed serious about his using executive power to enact policies he has decided are what he wants to do, without all of the messy details of Congress and the United States Constitution.

What is troubling above and beyond that reality is what he has chosen as his first action on that promise.

You may read it, in its entirety from the Federal Register here.

In quick and cursory summation, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department now say that people considered to have provided "limited material support" to terrorists or terrorist groups are no longer automatically barred from the United States.

Here is the pertinent excerpt, with the emphasis that of the Madison Conservative:

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb),

There are many within the body politic, primarily on the republican right, who are hyperventilating on how the President, by taking this unilateral action, is somehow aiding and abetting the easy access to this nation by terrorists.

That could be understood as a valid interpretation, but it would be wrong.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to consider the lessons of history.

To wit:

Almost 70 years ago, General George S. Paton employed former members of the Nazi party to aid in the management of Germany as it attempted to rebuild in the aftermath of the Second World War. His reasoning was that they understood their own country and its particular needs, and membership in the Nazi party was a requirement of the citizenry. He saw no difference between being a forced member of the Nazi party and an American being a registered Republican or Democrat. His reasoning cost him his command, and surely he had not fully thought out his remarks on the subject.

All that being duly noted, the issue here is an individuals personal history, and what the may or may not have done in their native land that could be properly interpreted as being the actions of one who is ‘Anti-American’, and part of an organization labeled by our government as a terrorist organization.

There is a fine line distinction here that must be addressed, but sadly the President, in his solipsistic arrogance, has chosen to ignore for whatever his intentions may be.

Each immigrant should be judged on their own merit within the framework of established norms and basic common sense

President Obama has actually made that option more difficult for all future immigrants by unilaterally taking this executive action.

The Congress will no doubt reflexively attempt to expand the lack of common sense in the immigration process and thus create more individuals here who linger in a grey legal state.

If this was to be his first action on using ‘his pen and his phone’, the nation would have been much better served if he had spoken of this issue at greater length and in depth during his State of the Union speech, making his case in such a way that the Congress would have passed appropriate language changing the law within the framework of the Constitution.

His heavy handed approach serves no ones best interest but his own political short sighted needs.

America and her citizenry deserve better and must demand it.

The Immigration Debate - part 3 - The Constitutional Perspective

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Given the lapse between blog posts, it is perhaps instructive to repeat the comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund with respect to what is being proffered as the Obama administrations’ perspective on the immigration debate:

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

With equal parts frustration, exasperation and incredulity, it is difficult to decide where to begin with such an idiotic and ignorant statement, but the Madison Conservative will attempt to do just that.

“A pathway to earned citizenship” – There already exists a pathway to citizenship – it is the immigration law of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement official in the government – perhaps he should familiarize himself with the laws already on the books to deal with immigration.

“Unauthorized immigrants”. As previously noted, the language of the debate is critical. ‘Immigrant’ is a legal status – it is impossible to be an ‘unauthorized’ anything and retain legal status.

“The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented”. We should treat them with respect surely, but by using euphemisms such as 'undocumented’ attempts to convey that they are simply returning a gift without a proper receipt. There is a legal process to attain status under the law in this nation. Breaking that law should not be shrouded in colorful and sympathetic language. People who have broken the law should be referred to by their true legal status – ‘defendants’, and treated as such. By all means, if the administration wishes to change the law for future peoples, that is surely their right – under the law. In the same way a law cannot be enforced retroactively, so then a privilege cannot be conferred retroactively.

“By creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows”. It must be noted here that it was a choice of these individuals to break the law, thus forcing them into ‘the shadows’. Few criminals flaunt their location to the authorities. If they choose to accept responsibility for their choices, there exists a ‘mechanism’ for them to earn citizenship – the immigration laws of the United States. It is troubling that the Attorney General seems oblivious to this reality.

“This is a matter of civil and human rights.” Actually, it is not, in any fashion or form. If one was to accept this idiotic statement, the next question must be answered. Why have any borders? If it is a matter of ‘civil and human rights’, then we should allow any person who wishes to live here to be allowed in. There is thus then no need for immigration policy, border agents and border security – any and all aspects of sovereignty for a nation no longer exists. Surely the billions of people around the world who are not enjoying the fruits of democracy should be allowed immediate entrance to then what was once the United States of America, a nation which would cease to exist , given the abolition of borders, all in the name of ‘civil and human rights’. This is a classic lie foisted by the political left. To prove this point, the Madison Conservative would ask the Attorney General if he would accept this proposition. Allow all the current illegal aliens some manner of legal status, save for forbidding them to vote for the next thirty years.

Exactly. No one of the political left would accept that concept. The question is why not? If this is about human and civil rights, fine, just omit the option for them to vote. The hypocrisy and cynicism of the Administration is thus revealed to the American people, who must enjoin the immigration debate with that understanding.

“It is about who we are as a nation.” The accepted political mantra from the left is always “we are a nation of laws”, a phrase invoked at every opportunity to castigate and chastise their opposition. Fine, we are indeed a nation of laws. Perhaps the Attorney General of the United States should start enforcing them on people who flaunt them.

“And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.” Yes, Mr. Attorney General, equal opportunity for the citizens of the greatest nation the world has ever known, but not for those who attempt to circumvent the due legal process, processes enacted to "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

That was part of the oath you swore to when you accepted the position of Attorney General. The American people would only ask that you honor your oath, instead of playing cynical political games and exhibiting political cowardice for simple political expediency.

The American people deserve better.

The Immigration Debate - part 2 - The Constitutional Perspective

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There is a well known and completely ignorant understanding of a biblical quote in the public vernacular that claims ‘money is the root of all evil’. A righteous claim, perhaps, but not at all properly quoted, let alone in proper context. The line in the Bible is as follows: ‘FOR THE LOVE OF money is the root of all evil”. A completely different message conveyed when spoken correctly.

The abuse of language and context is currently what is poisoning the necessary debate on immigration reform. It is troubling when the Attorney General of the United States, sworn to uphold, protect and defend the United States Constitution, is quoted as follows during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

Before delving into just how ignorant is this statement, the language of the issue needs to be clarified.

An ‘alien’ is defined as a non citizen of the United States. There are resident aliens, non-resident aliens – there are several delineations, but all ‘alien’ does is to properly convey that the individual is NOT a citizen.

There can be no such thing as an ‘illegal’ immigrant. Immigration is, by definition,  a legal process, and immigrant the legal status. The nonsense of lamenting the term ’illegal immigrant’ as somehow racist or worse ’insensitive to the individual’ is pointless and does nothing but add liberal guilt to the equation. There cannot be any ‘illegality’ associated with the process. What there should be is assigning the legal term of ‘defendant’ to one who breaks the law. An alien in this country without proper legal status is a criminal. It is that simple.

There are many of the political and media class who attempt to invoke the fourteenth amendment to bolster their argument about citizenship.

They are either ignorant, lying, or stupid, for it is obvious they have never read it, or understand its intent.

To clarify the point in an uambigous and direct manner, here is the complete amendment. 

Section 1. All persons 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."

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The 14^th was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States.

That was the intent – to afford citizenship to former slaves. It was not intended to allow what are called ‘anchor babies’ – a child born in this country bestows instant citizenship upon its parents and immediate family.

The reading of the amendment is unambiguous – it was part of Reconstruction. Note the sections relative to ‘rebellion’ and ‘insurrection’. This amendment was intended to address the issues raised by the secession of the south. That explains the Section 4 relative to the ‘validity of the national debt’ not encompassing the debt incurred by the South after secession.

Taken in context, the amendment is clear as to its rationale for being

(Part 2 of this post will address the political folly of the ignorant as demonstrated by Attorney General Holders’ comments noted above).

The Immigration Debate - Part I - A Personal Commentary

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

{ed. note: There are two sides to any given argument, and the validity of the issue more often than not lies in a third realm. The immigration bills being formulated in Congress and being debated amongst the body politic seem to be engaged on secondary issues and are seemingly avoiding the first step on the path to understanding and resolving this issue. To provide that needed clarity, the Madison Conservative will discuss this issue over the course of two blogs. The first requires some personal history to help properly frame the subsequent constitutional argument in favor of stricter and more intelligent reform.}

I am the grandson of immigrants, both paternally and maternally. I am the product of Italian and Polish heritages. Our house celebrated the feast of the seven fishes on Christmas Eve and broke and shared oplatek on Christmas Day.

My grandparents did not demand that their new home have anything printed in either Polish or Italian. They felt themselves Americans, and you spoke English in America if you were to enjoy the fruits of your labors in pursuit of the American dream. My maternal grandparents had the opportunity to become involved in their church, and grabbed hold with both hands in that endeavour. They were involved in their community and took pride in their hard won accomplishments. They did not have hyphenated identities; they were from Poland yes, but they were in fact ‘Americans’. The only complaint I ever heard from my grandmother about anything relative to a negative against the Polish people was how the local traffic reports identified the Kosciusko (correct pronunciation, according to my grandmother -  ‘Kos-koosh-ko’ ) Bridge which spans Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. They pronounce it ‘Kah-ski-ah-sko’ and it bothered her, but only a bit.

Both sets of grandparents were bi-lingual, and my maternal grandfather served his adopted nation in uniform during World War II.

I could go on and on about my grandparents, as would any proud grandson, but I made the above notations for several reasons, in the context of this discussion. First, my love, admiration and pride in my grandparents are unparalleled und unquestioned. Any comments made with regard to them are absent any hint of condescension or embarrassment and the intent is not to negate their accomplishments or their character.

That caveat made, the bigger point is that my grandparents, especially on the maternal side, are the classic stories of immigrants to this nation.

They came in pursuit of the American dream, where they knew that one respected the law, worked hard and became an asset to their newly adopted homeland. They asked for no special treatment and expected only to be treated fairly.

I believe that they, and all those who came before them and with them would be appalled at the state of immigration in this nation today.

My maternal grandmother often questioned, when venturing into the city, why there was so much official signage and such printed in Spanish. She asked not with contempt or anger, but with genuine confusion. There were never signs in Polish, save maybe for the local butcher or other shopkeeper in the neighborhood. Looking back on it now, I am in awe that my grandmother took no particular pride in being bi-lingual. It was merely what one did in America if they wished to become an American.

My grandmother was to turn a phrase, smart as a whip, yet I do not think she was smarter than every other single immigrant in the past thirty years. Yet, we are told that the influxes of Spanish speaking immigrants need to have official documentation and signage written in Spanish, lest we be considered somehow ‘unfair’ or discriminatory. Any reasonable attempt to establish English as the official language of government is instantly decried as being racist and bigoted. How? Is not making the assertion that these new immigrants are incapable of learning English and in need of help the true racism? Again, my grandparents were smart as any, yet I find it incredible to assert that they, and their contemporaries, were any more intelligent than our current immigrants.

My maternal grandparents had six children and in the midst of the great depression – the real one – managed to provide for them without needing any manner of federal financial assistance. Again, the claim is made by the political left that any attempt to impose stricter guidelines on public assistance for this generations immigrants is harsh and cruel.

My immigrant grandparents believed in the law, and the respect for this nation and its founding. There needs to be a cohesive argument put forth by advocates for immigrant amnesty, in any form, to explain how an individual who broke the law to be here in the first place should in any way be rewarded, given that their first act in their new nation was to flout the law.

The constitutional aspects of this issue will be discussed in the next blog, but in their absence, I will presume to speak for my grandparents.

To wit:

Please explain why today’s immigrants have political interests promoting legal amnesty for breaking the law, need not be required to speak the language of this nation and why are they receiving the hard earned tax money from those who work hard, provide for their families and help to build their communities?

These are not racist, xenophobic inquiries. They are simply the questions asked by those who came here to be a part of building the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

To them, I say salute’ and sto lat!