Navigation

Tag Archives | Arizona Immigration

The Audacity of Illegals and Federals

By on May 6, 2010 in State Sovereignty 2

For generations, the federal government has pissed on the integrity of the union, supposedly formed by the bonds of choice, reflection, friendship and likeness. It has treated the people of the States as scoopers in the valley of the crap they roll down hill, of which they claim to be king. The society of each state serves as nothing more than just another creditor to their addictive gambling game of power, corruption and debauchery.

Anymore, one cannot even possess an accurate knowledge of just how much degradation permeates the entire system of the federal government and its chain-gang of states. Amazingly, some still believe that freedom can be restored through the political gamesmanship in Washington D.C. For this reason, some of the States have finally awakened to this reality and are beginning to act appropriately and accordingly.

Another blaring contemporary illustration highlights just how true this is.
As many now know, Arizona passed an illegal immigration law which is designed to secure the borders of its State from those who are in that State illegally. The response from the federal government was predictable and typical: “Arizona can’t do that; it is our sole prerogative to ‘secure’ the border. Arizona’s action is unconstitutional. Blah, blah, blah.” Of course, there are always those nationalists and statists who criticize a State for doing anything without the federal government’s permission: “The new law, which is due to take effect in late July or early August in the unlikely event it withstands constitutional challenges, essentially codifies racial profiling, throwing civil liberties to the wind.” (Emphasis added). Together, they make a beautiful partnership of distortion and misinformation.

The federal government and its supporters would rather oxymoronically protect illegal immigrants’ supposed “legal rights” than protect the natural and compact rights of the state citizens, governments and societies. They would rather each state suffer the irreparable harm and costs of allowing (and yes, encouraging!) millions of illegals to come here and suck the life out of these States for now and most assuredly for later.

These people paint a portrait with a set of children’s crayons on cheap toilet paper and frame it with used cardboard paper from a flea market. And somehow we are supposed to hang it on the walls of our most revered sanctuaries and say, “look how pretty our country is with the federal government in control.”

Why would these illegals confidently and self-righteously protest against such a state law: because they have no respect for the law to begin with; they do not know what the purpose and responsibility of the state government is; they could not care less about the cultural, moral and American ideals forming the individual republics of the States and the United States; they do not respect the union of the states’ formation, nor do they care about its foundation; and they know the federal government has no intention of enforcing the already-existing laws to secure U.S. borders. Ultimately, just leave them alone: they are doing fine with the federal government in control of illegal immigration.
Why would the federal government ignore its responsibility in securing the borders and then criticize a state for protecting itself in response to the federal government’s failure to do so: because its agenda is one of amnesty and integration; it is ready and willing to buy illegals’ votes and support by “guaranteeing” them all of the social and governmental benefits that we, the legal workers in America, pay for and provide; and it prefers and seeks after a one-world system of government and despises the sovereignty of individual states and nations. Ultimately, just leave them alone: they are accruing the power and control they desire by exercising unfettered control.

Thankfully, some of the States do not agree. Best-selling author, Jerome Corsi, recently described Arizona’s illegal immigration law as “sparking a state rights revolution”. His acknowledgment of the State rights revolution is correct, but Arizona’s law is not the spark. Rather, it is another burst of oxygen on the fire that has been burning brightly for over a year and has been stoking for many.

The fire will only continue to grow given the despicable manner in which the federal government and its faithful supporters disrespect and even despise the (original) U.S. Constitution, the tenth amendment, the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of freedom founding the union of thirteen independent and sovereign states of America.

I welcome the fire’s growth and encourage its success. In fact, I just happen to have some (very expensive) gasoline I am willing to donate to Arizona and its like.

Copyright 2010 Timothy Baldwin

Continue Reading 2

Immigration: Who Should Be In Charge?

By on April 29, 2010 in Delegated Powers, State Sovereignty 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Continue Reading 2