Coming to Terms with Immigration, DACA, and Illegal Immigration

There's been so much in the news lately about so-called "Dreamers" and DACA, illegal immigration and so forth (DACA stands for "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" and was aimed at buying them additional time to become citizens and to make the process easier). Some even want to hold the US federal budget hostage over it'; delaying government payments to disabled and retired veterans, people on Social Security disability, low income families or individuals getting their WIC payments, not to mention no unemployment benefits, funding for school meals and other programs.

Of course, no payment for the US Military or funding for active duty or veterans needing surgery or medicine, which may be the worse slight of all. Imagine these men and women fighting and risking their lives, and not getting the near poverty level wages they earn the hard way. All this over individuals who are here illegally, either as the result of their own self-interest and disregard for our laws, or was it because they were too lazy to take the steps necessary to become legal? These individuals, somehow, seem to believe that although they've known for decades about their status, seemed to think that if they did nothing; took no steps whatsoever, not even the baby steps provided for in Obama's DACA program, they would just be waved through with a wink and a nod. I guess they were hoping that Hillary Clinton would be coroneted as planned, and they would be rubber stamped.

Now we're seeing protests, often with their faux-indignation, as if they all happened suddenly; a big ole surprise. I love some of the signs that are manufactured for these organized spontaneous events such as "No Person Is Illegal" or simply "I Support Immigration" among others which all essentially say the same thing. What is so interesting about these signs is they're lies of omission, aimed at getting people to accept them at face value in order to (hopefully) persuade people to change their minds or think (even for a moment), "hey, I agree with that". So, let's think about these signs for a moment.

First off, they are, at least on the surface, correct. Let's take the first one---"No Person is Illegal". Well, that's actually pretty true. No human being, at least in the West, is "illegal". Perhaps the closest thing to being "illegal" was slavery, which officially ended in the West close to 200 years ago (1820/1864 in the US, 126 in France, 1833 in the UK, 1818 by Spain, Holland, and Portugal). So, no person is illegal. However, an individual's actions may be illegal if they don't comply with existing laws. That's why we have a legal system, complete with law enforcement, courts, judges, bailiffs, and a jail or prison system. It's also why we have legislatures at the state and national level---to create laws.

When someone violates one or more of those laws, it's a crime, and crimes come with various forms of punishment such as fines or incarceration. In the case of immigration, it includes deportation. Every country has immigration laws, which are designed to protect and secure their borders for a wide range of reasons. Borders are part of what establishes a country's sovereignty. There are, of course, exceptions, such as escaping political, racial, ethnic, or religious persecution. Occasionally, exemptions are given for economic or health reasons. But regardless, the reasons must be compelling and irrefutable; that is, there must be external proof.

Most people who come to the US illegally exhibit none of these prequalifications. They just simply don't want to wait in line with those who are doing it legally. Of course, most of these individuals aren't coming here illegally in order to become American citizens. In fact, their illegal status precludes their ability to do so. So why are they here? Basically, for a job. Where many of these people come from, there are few good paying jobs, and competition is often stiff due to the large populations (not to mention subsequent corruption needed in getting and keeping a job). As an aside, the countries where many of these people come from lack a large or stable middle class. Why you wonder?

While the reasons are numerous, the primary reason stems from the early upper class and church authorities (mainly Roman Catholic in Latin America and parts of Asia and Europe) desire to keep the lower classes essentially poor and uneducated, and thus easier to control while leaving them in charge (historically, the middle class has come from the more successful lower merchant class, which also became more educated, and elevated their family's circumstances). Those who decide to violate the law, as I previously said, mainly come for a job. However, they again don't go through the process of obtaining a work permit. They, therefore, seek to work "under-the-table", either using a stolen or forged Social Security Number when necessary, or simply taking jobs which pay cash. While this is illegal from the employer's side too, some are more than willing to take advantage of these individual's situation.

They can lie about withholding taxes (and possibly pocketing the money), force them to work long hours without a break, avoid clean, safe, or healthy working conditions, and pay them next to nothing, not to mention treat them as near serfs. What are they going to do? Go to the police or other authorities? Where many of them come from the cops are worse than the crooks; as often as not, they're one in the same! Of course, if caught and convicted, employers can be fined and even arrested, although this rarely happens; many times, especially in some industries like hospitality, construction, and horse-racing, its gets by with wink and smile from the politicians, employers, unions, and the police.

Another part of this conspiracies of lies, are various social (and often religious oriented ) groups who believe they have a right or duty to ignore laws, and provide temporary shelter, clothing, food, and even help with finding them jobs, housing, and showing them how to violate laws, and guidelines in order to get taxpayer funded social services. Of course, this is illegal too and carries its own punishment. So, while no one is "illegal", their actions are, and often those actions affect others who are dragged down in the widening web of lies, from those attempting to do the right thing and are forced to wait even longer, to shady employers and misguided social zealots.

Now, what about the other signs like "I Support Immigration"? On the face of it, signs like these makes perfect sense. America is a nation of immigrants; we are a country built on immigrants. Perhaps no nation on earth has had such diversity other than ancient Rome. One could argue quite convincingly that every nation, ethnic group, race, and religion is represented in America. In 2016, there were 43.7 million first generation immigrants living in the US. If you include their US born children, that number increases to 86.4 million, or 27% of the total US population. Most came from India, followed by China and Hong Kong. Mexico and Cuba round out the top five according to the Migration Population Institute's February 8, 2018 report.

Of course, these are individuals who did it the right way, so there's obviously no bias against immigration, and certainly not any based on religion or skin color. However, like every nation, the US operates on a quota system (PEW Research has an interesting article on the history of US immigration which I've linked below). Now, what about illegal immigration? The two best sources of information are the Department of Homeland Security and FAIR (Federation For American Immigration Reform). Best estimates place the number of illegal immigrants at around 13.5 million (this is in addition to the numbers above, which represents legal immigrants). That number doesn't include the approximate 4.2 million "anchor babies" or children born in the US by illegal immigrants, but does include some 800,000 DACA recipients). The reason why the number isn't more precise is simply because those here illegally don't want to counted! So, what does this cost us? You'd be surprised.

In terms of our tax dollars, illegal immigration costs US taxpayers an estimated $134.9 billion dollars (federal, state, and local money). Also, bear in mind that the average American pays 30% of their income to taxes. Here's another factor to look at, crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, just over 1/4 of all prisoners being house in federal prisons are here illegally, with just under 300,000 incarcerated on state and local jails. That's about $1.6 billion for their upkeep at the federal level and $8.6 billion at the state and local levels. Most are held on violent crime charges by the way.

Let's also not forget that unlike legal immigration, where immigrants undergo a health screening, illegals do not. Therefore, we have many entering this country who are infected with diseases and illnesses which we haven't seen in decades, such as various infectious diseases (like tuberculosis, measles, typhoid fever), plus HIV/AIDS, STDs, severe drug and alcohol addiction, and mental illnesses. Simply put, illegal immigrants put ordinary Americans, especially seniors and our aging Babyboomers, children, and those with compromised immune systems at high risk (I've included a really interesting article from Psychology Today on the topic below).

So, are Americans opposed to immigration? Clearly not; at least not based on government or independent statistics and research at least. I think it's obvious that most of us support immigration too, as long as it's legal. Race, religion, or ethnic group are rarely a factor for most Americans. However, we do have an issue with those who willfully decide to ignore our laws; we have a real concern with supporting those who pay little or no money back into our social safety net; and we have a serious problem with those who commit crimes.

This country was intended to be a "melting pot" where all cultures blend together in order to create something new---"E Pluribus Unum" or "Out of Many, One" as it says on our National Seal. However, it is language which binds us together; it's the thread which binds the nation, and that thread is English. Without it, we become a hodgepodge of disunited peoples. In no country will you find the native population purposefully surrendering its identity to a new culture, religion, or language. In no country will you find a country willingly default on its sovereignty. America is no different.



Timeline of the abolition of slavery and serfdom



MPI: Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States


PEW: How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history



Psychology Today: Do Illegal Immigrants Pose a Health Risk to Us All?



DHS: Immigration Data & Statistics


Federation of American Immigration Reform

Is There No Respect Left? The Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem

I remember growing up in Florida during the 1960's, attending a public school which was as about as diverse as it could be. I had classmates who were dirt poor and very well to do; they were blacks, whites, Greek, Italian, Irish, Native American, male and female, and so on. While most of my teachers were white, there were black teachers (I had one in the sixth grade). There were Protestants, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and who knows what else. But despite the diversity, or perhaps because of it, and regardless of all the turmoil happening not just in America, but throughout Vietnam (we all seemed to know someone touched by that war), the Middle East, the Cold War, we seemed to get along quite well. One of the things which seemed to unite us was that despite all of our differences, we were Americans. We were taught American history and an American Worldview (yes, I have no doubt that it was sugarcoated and likely distorted to reinforce the notion of "American Exceptionalism" , but it also gave us a framework of national pride and a foundation for further study).

One of the most important things that we were taught to help instill that sense of national pride and national unity was standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge had only recently been modified by the time we were being taught it. You see, the Pledge of Allegiance had been modified in 1954, on Flag Day, at the behest of President Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower with the inclusion of the two words, "under God". The reason given by President Eisenhower was, as usual, direct and simple. The former World War II General wanted the words inserted in order to acknowledge America's uniqueness among the nations of the world by our belief in freedom, individuality, and belief in a divine power which has blessed our nation in countless ways as opposed to our Cold War enemies who were officially atheist and looked to their leaders as their all omnipotent national saviors.

The Pledge itself was originally written in 1887 by Colonel George Balch. It was later revised in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist and Christian Socialist from New York. Bellamy was a champion of worker's rights and equal (or at least equitable) distribution of economic resources, ending racism, promoting women's equal rights (which included voting), ending child labor and expanding equal education to all genders and races. Ironically, Bellamy favored strong immigration laws to ensure that only those whose social values and work ethics matched ours. Further, but minor changes, were made in 1944 and continued to be made through 1954 ("under God" were first applied to the pledge by the Daughters of the American Revolution and then by the Sons of the American Revolution in 1948, and then by the Knights of Columbus in 1952). The Pledge of Allegiance was, of course, recited in English since that was accepted as our sole national language.

However, and perhaps, sadly, the pledge, which has as served as national bond of the American People, is no longer required; students have the option of not standing, or reciting it. Teachers even have the option to ignore the pledge all together. Some have complained that it's in English, and they don't speak or want to even learn English. Some claim that it "imposed" loyalty where none is intended or deserved. They claim that their loyalty is to another country, or ethnic group, or religion which prohibits duty and responsibility to any nation, even if that nation follows their same faith. In fact, many of the this latter group has tried to go further by "demanding" that the flag as well as copies of the past presidents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be removed from the classroom. A few have gone as far as to demand that the flag in the school yard be removed too (as few have demanded that the US flag be taken down everywhere---government buildings, private residences, sporting events, and so forth). Atheists want the words "under God" removed.

Recently, there has been a spreading movement in some sporting venues---professional and amateur---who refuse to stand for the National Anthem. Instead of standing and placing their hand over their heart as tradition calls for, they've decided to sit, or kneel. A few foolish ones have decided to stand, but bow their heads and produce the "black power" fist complete with a gloved hand. There seems to be a myriad of reasons, ranging from claims of police racism and violence against blacks (or as they claim, in solidarity with "Black Lives Matter"), US involvement in the Middle East (specifically, against terrorists groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, as well as unintentional deaths of Muslim civilians caught in the combat zones---many used as human shields by terrorists groups), demands for "slave reparations" from a war which ended over 150 years ago and affected them in no way. Some of these protests have been started by recent converts to Islam (and there is none more zealous than a convert) while others are outward magnifications of suppressed racism, though the corporate media won't call it since it creates the wrong image for the minority group involved.

The "fist in the air" image has long been seared in the memory of the of over 50 crowd thanks to two black Olympians, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, during the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won the gold medal while Carlos won the bronze in the 200 meter race. Both athletes raised their black gloved fists during the playing of the National Anthem (both also were shoeless but wore black socks to symbolize black poverty). While both athletes went on to some limited success after the Olympics, they were sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and the US sporting associations. Later, they received some recognition from a smattering of colleges and universities. Both won the 2008 Arthur Ashe Courage Award. A similar protest during the infamous 1972 Olympic Games in Munich by Wayne Collett and Vince Matthews. However, the results were slightly different as both athletes were banned by the IOC; all four athletes were publically scorned by the media for being "disrespectful" to the nation which paid for their training, housing, and sent them to the Olympics all expenses paid.

As for the amateurs, they are primarily high school student athletes. I personally believe that these kids are simply imitating what they're seeing on TV without the slightest understanding of what's going on. As for the coaches and school administration, I fail to understand why they have failed to take action or be replaced. I would imagine that the parents are highly upset and would hope they have the backbone to set their kids down and explain the cold hard realities of what they are seeing on TV and the failures of the corporate media to remain silent or worse, to encourage and/or promote such behavior. For that matter, I'm a bit surprised that the various school boards haven't acted as well. Another failure of academic and professional leadership as well as parental responsibility? Thus far, it would appear so.

Well, there you go. What do you think? As for me, I guess I'm a bit old fashioned. I believe in certain national traditions such as standing up and saying the Pledge of Allegiance---in English. You, as a student, regardless of your gender, race, origin, or religion, have being afforded a very rare privilege of have a "free" education, and even the opportunity to learn job skills for those who don't want to go to college. Now, when I say "free", I don't exactly mean as in nothing paid. That seat you plant your butt in was paid for with the blood; with the loss of limbs; and with the loss of life by the US military so you can have an opportunity to succeed. It was paid for by every first responder out there; every cop, fireman, EMS personnel, as well as by every union member, every professional, and by everyone who gets up and goes to work. Its paid for through money they worked hard for in the form of taxes. The least you can do is show respect for those people by pledging allegiance to this country which made your education possible (and by the way, those teachers aren't there to be your personal butt wipers and babysitters. They are there to teach you what you need to know in order to be a successful productive adult). If you have a problem with the language, too bad. English is what we speak. It's what we will always speak. Learn it, use it, or leave. It's just that simple.

Say you're here just for the "free" education and you have no interest in becoming a US citizen or any loyalty to America. No problem. Note the previous sentence and follow the same directions. Atheist? Don't like "under God"? Not a problem either. Don't say those two little words. Say your religion prohibits a pledge or oath of allegiance? Then why are you here? How do you plan of getting past various forms which require a oath or pledge like a driver's license, an employment application or voting form, from you based on your personal honor? Lie? Refuse? Hide from it? Sorry, but that's not going to work for long. Even those American apologists will want some sign of loyalty.

As for those rich spoiled jocks, I have no patience for their faux-indignation of America and their multi-million dollar annual contracts. Many---though not all---had pampered lives, and as jocks were treated like royalty in high school and college with lots of "perks" when it came their academics among other things. If they have a beef, then get directly involved; spend some of that money. However, I strongly suggest they remember that as foolish as their actions are, they are regarded by some as role models. When they refuse to stand for the National Anthem, they are sending a message to their young fans that disrespect to their nation, the military, teachers, first responders, and to professionals like nurses and doctors is acceptable (which, again, is ironic given the millions these athletes are paid while thumbing their noses at the system which has made that possible).

Naturally, some will want to wag their fingers and claim First Amendment rights. I won't argue that they do have the protection of free speech and free expression...as individuals. However, once they put on that uniform, they no longer represent themselves. They represent the team, it's owners, their fellow teammates, and the sports league (or school as the case may be). But more importantly, they represent the fans sitting in those seats who've paid out hundreds of dollars and the millions watching on TV or listening on the radio. So, when they blow off the National Anthem, they are blowing off their teammates, the owners, the league, as well as their fans and the nation itself. It's no different from those who put on a police uniform or a military uniform. While you're in that uniform, your deeds and words reflect on the larger whole. But I can sort of understand the other side too. These jocks are often arrogant and pampered; they are used to getting whatever they want when they want it. So, instead of seeing themselves as part of the whole, they see themselves as the center of their little cosmos; they are the "franchise" itself. Wrong. They are merely one player among many. They may be talented athletes, but no more so than anyone else who has earned a place on the team; each in their own niche. It's all the players, coaches, owners, supporting staff (and even shareholders in some cases) and the fans who are the franchise, not a single individual or even a couple of individuals. As an aside, the media should stop covering these individuals and giving the free publicity they're after.

As for those with the "black power" salute, they should pull their heads out of their butts. There is no "black power" or "white power" or "Hispanic power" or whatever. There is only "people power". We are Americans and we're in this together. We either succeed together or we fail together. There are those who want to divide us into as many pieces as possible. The more we are at each other's throats, the less they have to worry about. They can sit back and pull our strings. While they get richer and control more and more, we get poorer and weaker. As long as we are fighting each other, they have nothing to worry about. What scares them the most is that we refuse to play their game, and focus our energy and efforts on removing this Oligarchy and their proxy political partisans and restoring our Constitutional/democratic republic.

Political Correctness Running Amuck

The one thing I think I've noticed most about this holiday season are the number of articles I've read or that have been sent to me detailing how this or that celebration has been cancelled or that some school has been closed because of a school program or academic exercise. For instance, I recently read about a group of ninth grade students who were studying geography. As part of their assignment, the teacher required the students to know the country, the capital, some basic facts about the country and a phrase. Sounds harmless enough right? Well, apparently not. When they got to Saudi Arabia, the students were required to cite the Shahada, which is considered the core principal of Islam (the phrase states that there is no god but Allah and his prophet is Mohammed). Not surprisingly, once the parents became aware of this, all hell broke loose to the point where the school closed early for the Christmas Holiday (or are we calling it the Winter Solstice or winter season festival holiday now?).

In several other instances, Christmas activities in public areas were either curtailed or cancelled because groups of Moslems complained to local government officials that their religious sensibilities had been "offended" by these open displays of religious devotion---specifically Christian devotion (I can only imagine their reaction to seeing public or even private displays celebrating Chanukah). There was even complaints filled by a Moslem group over Buddhist monks doing their sand painting at a local mall; again citing that their feelings had been hurt). Naturally, this got me to think---when did it become fashionable for people to wear their feelings on their sleeves? When did it become mandatory that that we cater to every veiled threat or every quivering lip?

I recently read that Europe is in serious trouble with their "refugee" situation, and I'm not even talking about the terrorists going on a murder spree in Paris or the dozens of mosques which have been shut down in France due to their connections with terrorist organizations or even the large weapons and explosive caches they've found! Nope. I'm talking about the Mayor of Munich receiving a signed petition from recent arrivals demanding a stop to Oktoberfest. Why? The usual suspects I suppose---pork products, beer, cute frauleins in dirndls, men and women (and boys and girls) enjoying some om-pa-pa music, playing games and having a good ole time...together. In public. Oh the shame of it all! In Scotland and Ireland, various city officials and/or church leaders have received "requests" to cease ringing church bells since it disturbs Moslems going about their daily business and students studying the Koran.

In London and other English towns and cities (like Manchester and York), the Moslem faithful routinely pour out into the street for their prayers despite repeated requests by police and city officials to move their prayers elsewhere since they are blocking traffic and interfering with business (New York and few other US cities are already starting to face that issue). Even when alternative locations were provided, the requests were ignored. My understanding is that other cities on the continent such as Paris, Marseilles, Hamburg, Berlin, Dusseldorf are having similar problems. In some locations, Sharia law is enforced, even on non-Moslems. Often, the police will avoid these areas for fear of attack or triggering a protest. In Scandinavia, crime has skyrocketed, especially in the case of aggravated assault and rape (in some locations, rape has doubled or tripled and in every case, it has been attributed by authorities to the new arrivals). German school girls have been asked not to wear short skirts as not to offend Moslem families. Even lounging at the beach or pools is considered "offensive" as is women wearing short or walking alone. This makes me wonder, if something like that could ever happen here.

Well, we do have students sent home because an article of clothing they're wearing may be "offensive" like a Confederate flag or historical character, a cartoon character, pro-US military, or an American flag (there have been numerous instances of individuals being told to remove their American flags. You know, something vile like that. Yet other items, such as a raised clinched fist, Pan-African colors (or similar jewelry), or individuals who promoted racial violence are seemingly ok. Even Pancho Villa, Malcolm X, or Che Guevara t-shirts are cool but not t-shirts Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, or the fictional Dukes of Hazzard's car, the "General Lee"; not to mention jewelry or clothing with certain religious symbols or sayings (like Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist. BTW, can you imagine anyone actually having an issue with Gandhi? Seriously).

While we're at it, how about banned books? It's not like we have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech or expression right? I bet you didn't know that Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer" and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" are on the prohibited list at most public schools did you? How about "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown, "The Call of the Wild" by Jack London, or "Gone With the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell. So is "Fahrenheit 451" by Scifi legend Ray Bradbury or the classic "For Whom the Bells Toll" by Ernest Hemingway. "The "Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald are on the "naughty list" too. And we can't forget "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville, "The Red Badge of Courage" by Stephan Crane, Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", as well Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher. To be sure, there are more (and I would be remiss to not encourage you to read every last one of them, and if you don't have time, they at least watch those which were made into movies). Even the Bible is considered a no-no, but reading the Koran isn't.

Listen, like it or not, while America is a secular society, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principals as well as on the Enlightenment. It's part of who we are. If nothing else, these books help us to think critically and encourages us to examine our world. Why then would they be removed from school libraries? Could there be some small kernel of truth in these books that we don't want our children exposed to; something perhaps that would make them reexamine the world; would give them cause to ask "why" or even challenge the status quo? We've seen how there are efforts to rewrite our history' to tell it through the lens of our own bias. When I was in school, we were taught how "explorers" like Columbus and Cortez came to this New World and found only savages (and wealth) while searching for a short cut to Asia and India. We were taught how America was "settled" Pilgrims and how we tried to "civilize" these strange people we named "Indians" through enslavement, broken treaties, massacres, destruction of their food, clothing, and water sources, and so forth (or how we had a "divine obligation" to convert them", whether they wanted it or not) after they saved our behinds from starvation and freezing. But what we managed to do, however, was destroy their culture, tribes, and seized land through any means possible. The reality was that it was us who were the uncivilized ones. We're taught that the Civil War was all about the issue of slavery and that our Founding Fathers were nothing more than rich racist white guys.

The truth was that the Civil War was about far more than slavery, which really didn't become a factor until after Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation", which freed slaves only in states which had seceded, but not in slave holding or leaning border states and territories. The reason was to force Confederate troops to return home to save the crops from rotting in the fields and their families from starving. Any humanitarian reasons were secondary.

In fact, Lincoln had previously stated that he would not interfere with the issue of slavery. His intent was strictly on preserving the union. Yet, today, we're told something completely different, and in the process, we're attempting to rewrite history by removing Confederate symbols, monuments and even the names of schools and mascots. In New Orleans, the city council voted to remove all Confederate monuments. In various cemeteries, they prohibit placing the Southern Cross on the graves of Confederate soldiers. In Memphis Tennessee, the city council bowed to pressure to dig up the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest along with his family! There's more, like the site where the massacre of Native Americans took place at Wounded Knee is for sale, perhaps even for commercial development. Sacred sites belonging to Native Americans are routinely dug up or mined (especially in the Black Hills of North Dakota). Where's the outrage?

Language too has been altered by political correctness. We're not supposed to use certain terms out fear someone might not like it. Despite all the terrorist attacks and acts of violence, Obama and members of his regime still refuse to say "Islamic" or "Moslem" when discussing them, even when the terrorists say it or it's in the name of their organization! We're not supposed to say "illegal" immigration. Nope, that implies they did something wrong like break the law. Instead, we're told to call them "undocumented" immigrants as if they left their green card or naturalization certificate in their other pants! We're suppose to refer to minorities with some hyphenated term as if there is some unique distinction or dual loyalties. Asian-Americans as if they are from Asia and have become Americans. Well, that's ok I suppose, if you were born in Asia and have become American, although if so, then your loyalty should first and foremost be to this country. African-American. Same thing (of course, for many of the black Americans, their distant ancestors may have gone from Africa to any part of the English, Spanish, Portuguese, or Dutch empires before ever ending up on these shores). Besides, Africa is a continent and isn't just home of black individuals. It's been the home of Arabs from the Middle East and Central Asia since the early 7th century; encompassing the top third of Africa. Even in South Africa, the English, Dutch, and Germans have lived there since the 1500's. Yet still, despite all this, those of European origin in this country are never referred to as "European-Americans". Personally, if you're born or naturalized here, you're an American plain and simple.

As alluded to above, clothing styles and dress are permitted for some but not for all. Why is that? Moslem women are encouraged to where traditional clothing instead of adapting. It's common to Spanish, Somalian, Chinese, Arabic, and host of other languages everyday when it used to be that immigrants wanted to look, act, and speak as Americans as quickly as they could. Instead of a melting pot, practically every community is now a mini world bazaar! Maybe that's good, however, I think English should be mandatory and all documents paid for by taxpayers should be printed only in English to encourage people to learn and speak the language to they will be able to converse with everyone else. Let's look at the entertainment media for instance. TV and radio channels exist for specific racial and ethnic groups, but not for all groups. Frankly, and quite honestly, I don't care. In fact, I think that's great, but why isn't that allowed for all? If there's a potential market, it should be explored. Commercials and TV shows mandate diversity unless that program is comprised of or aimed at a minority audience. You can have movies where black actors perform in whiteface (such as in the movie "White Chicks" or actor Nick Cannon), which is never considered racist by the media, but heaven forbid if a Asian or white performer did blackface. It's ok to have minorities comedians do white jokes or jokes about other racial groups, no matter how vulgar, but never ever can white comics do jokes about a minority (however, self-depreciating humor is permitted by white comedians).

Remember how much trouble Comic Jeff Dunham got in over "Achmed the Dead Terrorist" while nothing at all was said about "Bubba J", the NASCAR loving redneck? Gays and transgendered comics can make fun of each other or straight people but never can straight people return the favor. Why is that? I have no problem laughing at white or straight jokes, but I see no problem laughing at jokes aimed at different groups either. Humor is intended to bring down walls and to see the absurdity that we all experience in life. It makes me wonder if performers from the past like Jack Benny, George and Gracie Allen, Abbott and Costello, Billy "Bojangles" Robinson, The Marx Brothers, Lucille Ball, Shirley Temple, or Laurel and Hardy among numerous others could even make it today. Heck, even saying "Merry Christmas" or Happy Easter" can even get you in trouble!

Of course, we've enacted laws to balance the economic table if you will, from eliminating poll tax and giving women the right to vote, to fair housing and financial loan legislation. We've mandated hiring quotas to ensure adequate representation in employment (though that particular law, Affirmative Action, is in need of serious reform) and despite equal work/equal pay laws, there's still disparity and much needs to be done.

So what does it say when one group conduct activities what would otherwise be considered racist or even a hate crime against another group such as threats of violence, harassment, or preventing them from entering polling place or business through physical intimidation, especially when the Attorney of the United States refuses act? Is reverse discrimination ever justified? Attempts at improving education among minorities through busing has been a mixed blessing. Yes, there has been some academic improvement among minorities, however, performance among non-minority students have declined along with the overall academic performance of public schools in general, and students spend hours being shuttled from location to location. There is still the troubling issue of superior performing minority students, mostly living in predominantly black communities, being bullied or assaulted for doing well in school, which is generally referred to as "acting white" as if failing is more admirable goal. This type of mentality, which often goes hand in hand with classroom disturbance, threatening or assaulting teachers, bus drivers or school personnel, has to be stopped immediately. Teachers and bus drivers are not babysitters, nor are they prison guards or targets. If a student prefers ignorance over knowledge or violence in lieu of civility, and all attempts otherwise have failed, then obviously alternative means must be employed.

So, returning to the original question posed in this article as to whether political correctness and bowing to pressure could ever happen here or be tolerated here, the answer appears to be yes. In fact, it may be an important factor in America's social and economic decline. When college student demand "safe places" because they are emotionally or psychologically unequipped to deal with the real world, then we have a serious problem. The bad guys don't do "quiet time" and they don't care if you count or three or not.

We can protest and proclaim "black lives matter" and disrupt or destroy businesses but nobody cares when everyone shouts "all lives matter" as if violence or injustice happens to just one group. It doesn't. Sorry to burst your balloon. Every life regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic origin or sexual preference, is of value.

What must be done is to find and eliminate the causes, and that starts will respect--which is earned, not given. It also meaning valuing others as much as yourself. It's accepting the face that the government or the world doesn't owe you squat. You are solely responsible for your actions including your failures as well as your successes. We need to lighten up too and stop taking ourselves so seriously (there was a incident at the University of Louisville where the president and some staff members donned sombreros, ponchos, fake mustaches and posed for picture at a Halloween themed staff party...and he and the university are still apologizing for it. Really). We, as Americans, have more serious issues to contend with, starting with restoring our democratic republic and that's going to take all of us working together.




Banned Books That Shaped America
http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/censorship/bannedbooksthatshapedamerica


'Acting White' Remains a Barrier for Black Education
https://reason.com/archives/2014/10/08/acting-white-remains-a-barrier-for-black#.go4oeau:uqSh


One Year Later, Sill Not Sold
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/07/one-year-later-still-not-sold-wounded-knee-owner-try-drone-flyover-157217

Immigration and Outcomes

Everyone knows that the US has an illegal immigration problem. We've had one since at least the Ronald Reagan Presidency. Estimates range from 12 million all the way up to 20 million individuals living in this country illegally. However, no one in Washington seems to care, We used to get empty promises of a border fence; of more border patrol and ICE presence; of more severe penalties for businesses, churches and the like who willfully broke the law. Now, politicians in Washington don't even have the decency to look into the camera and openly lie to us. They simply don't care what you and I think or want. The simple matter is that their corporate masters want cheaper labor. That means that they need more workers willing to accepting low paying jobs with little or no benefits. The more potential workers, the lower wages (and benefits) go. It's basic economics 101: supply and demand.

Many labor unions support illegal immigration too, not because they necessarily care about the welfare of these individuals but because they hope these largely low or no skill workers will accept the menial low paying jobs which is mostly all the private sector unions have left to offer since many of the good paying jobs have been outsourced overseas where companies can pay employees less...much less. Nevertheless, these low skilled and often poorly educated employees with still have to pay union dues out of their meager salaries, which will bolster the faltering union treasuries. Again, basic economics.

Many low wage service jobs like those found in the fast food industry, have been demanding dramatic pay increase; from current wages just over minimum wage to new $15 dollar an hour wages. That's all well and good. I hope they get them. I really do, however, what most people tend to forget is that these jobs were created to be primarily part-time and never as jobs to solely support households, but with the exporting of the majority of manufacturing jobs overseas, these have become the "go to" jobs for the low skilled and/or low educated individual, especially for single parents.

Corporations have, of course, attempted to justify the exporting of jobs overseas as a means to compete in global markets. Corporations have long maintained that they're unable to compete against other businesses that pay employees a few dollars or even cents on the hour, and usually with no benefits (including vacations). Often employees are required to work in unsafe or unhealthy work conditions over long hours, few if any breaks, and with machinery that's unsafe. Thus it's not uncommon for employees to be injured at work due to the equipment failure and/or exhaustion. However, since many countries lack anything similar to an OSHEA and with few (if any) employee rights, they have little recourse. A few companies have even exported jobs to countries actually employ prison or child labor (which is not uncommon in the garment or shoe industries for instance).

Nevertheless, US corporations are able to ship foreign products goods back into the United States while paying little if any tariffs since they maintain a presence here in the States. As a result, not only are American companies able to reduce employee costs, as well as avoiding expenditures on proper equipment requirements or meeting proper health or safety guidelines, they can also avoid any importation penalties. As a result, many US corporations are reaping a financial windfall. Is it any wonder CEOs making on average up to 400% percent more than their average employee? The result is, as alluded to above, those seeking employment, especially those without a college or technical education, are forced to accept whatever job they can find. In addition, there are the tax breaks and taxpayer based incentives commonly known as "corporate welfare". Frankly, who can blame them for attempting to force employers to pay out more in wages? After all, it's not like you can export service jobs right? Well, perhaps.

What many haven't counted on is that low wage employers do have a few recourses available. They can cut back on the number of employees they hire and require existing employees to pick up the slack, including mandatory work on the holidays, longer hours and fewer benefits (especially healthcare). Another recourse is automation. Some fast food restaurants for instance have begun experimenting with automated ordering devises that eliminates order takers (purchases are made with debit or credit cards, so there's no cash transactions). So, instead of four or five employees working the counter, maybe only one or two will be needed. In addition, owners can and most likely will raise the costs of their products a few cents. Thus while they may pay their employees more, they will be paying fewer of them while the public will have to pay more for the same items.

As a result of all this, there will be an increase in competition for the decreasing availability of jobs, and with more demand than supply, wages and/or benefits will decrease. What happens to those unable to find jobs? Many will fall through the cracks into a economic netherworld. Some will eke out a living somewhere between the murky recesses of part time jobs, the black or gray marketplace of cash only transactions or barter, a loose public safety net or maybe low level crime, while for others, especially the young, they can be sure there will always be a war or conflict somewhere for the control of resources or markets to help eliminate any "excess" population.

So what can be done? Fortunately there are options available if we have enough political will. One solution would be to impose tariffs on any imports, be it foreign or domestic. We could also eliminate any types of "corporate welfare" or taxpayer based assistance available to companies with manufacturing centers overseas who use those to ship back completed products to the US. We could also reform our labor laws to permit employees in foreign nations hired overseas by US based companies to be eligible to join US labor unions. Thus, for instances, employees of Ford in, let's say, Mexico or China, would be allowed to join the UAW. This would put them on the same footing as their domestic counterparts and create a more balanced playing field when it comes time for negotiating labor contracts (wages would, of course, be adjusted based the local economy). In addition, US companies who relocate US facilities overseas would be barred for obtaining government contracts, including their subsidiaries.

There is also the matter of illegal immigration. It's obviously going to be difficult at best to remove 12 million illegal immigrants. Building a wall, while a good (and expensive) symbolic statement will, in fact, dissuade very few individuals from crossing illegally into America. Most will simply bypass the wall and enter through other means, including tunnels or boats or find other entry points. Yes, we need to increase the ICE and border patrols agents along with giving them full authority to stop the flow using whatever means at their disposal up to and including direct confrontation. However, the only real solution will be by eliminating demand and that means strict and severe enforcement of penalties for anyone---individual, business, or religious institution---who aid or hire illegal immigrants without exception. Penalties should not be limited to just significant financial fines but also include suspending business licenses or loss of tax exempt status as well as possible imprisonment of key officers or officials for repeated offenses. Only by eliminating demand will we encourage illegal immigrants to return home. Lastly, we need to refuse the use of taxpayer based services to illegals and make English not just the "official" language of America but the only language used on government forms or other legal documents, as well as taught in US classrooms.

We also need to address our current educational standards. For instance, does every job actually require a college education? Personally, I don't think so. In fact, I would say that only a small percentage of jobs should require an applicant having a four or six year degree. In most cases, a solid high school education would be enough while for other jobs, a one or two year technical or trade school degree is more than adequate, and let's face it, not everyone is college material.

Germany, one of the world's top manufactures and known for their outstanding educational system, has a two tier system based on students academic performance, aptitude, and interests. The first track takes applicants toward "real world" jobs such as manufacturing (which also utilizes a two prong approach of academics and apprenticeship programs), the trades, or business (such as accounting, bookkeeping or sales), while the second track encourages qualified students on to higher education where they may pursue careers in law, medicine, engineering, and so forth. I should also point out that there is absolutely no stigma associated with individuals pursing the first approach since the system recognizes that each student is different, with different skills, talents, and abilities. In addition, no student is "locked in" and may pursue whichever track they're most interested in.

Of course, this type of system requires students who are dedicated and disciplined. Something which are lacking in American schools, but is still within the realm of possibility. US schools did, at one time, produce high quality students, especially in the years before the 1970's when a number of ill conceived "reforms" where introduced. If you have any doubts, feel free to check out any school book used in the 1940's, 1950's or even the 1960's for example (and remember, they didn't have computers or calculators) and see for yourself. Also, the US school system made good use of technical and trade schools which provided students with business ready skills to take them from graduation straight into the workforce without any significance additional training (and certainly with no remedial reading, grammar or math courses).

We must understand and accept that the economy is now global. Not only do companies compete on a global scale, but for a significant number of individuals, they too compete with others for jobs on a global scale. Furthermore, the United States is no longer a democratic republic. It's now a oligarchy, controlled in large part by global corporations who view nations as mere marketplaces to be exploited for their bottom line. Some see employees as necessary liabilities instead of the assets they really are. Capitalism, by its very nature, must consume and expand to survive. That's simply the nature of the beast. It has an insatiable appetite. However, if it continues to reduce wages and benefits in its pursuit of market share, it will reach the point where it's unable to sell its products because there will be too few people able to afford them. Therefore, a balance will have to be reached, and soon, which allows economies and wages to grow and expand while satisfying shareholders and consumers alike. At present, only a tiny percentage controls the overwhelming majority of the wealth, both in the United States and abroad. That leaves an underclass which will grow more restless and more desperate. And that is an dangerous combination.


The Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage
http://wheniwork.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/


Increasing the Minimum Wage: Pros & Cons
http://www.salary.com/increasing-the-minimum-wage-pros-cons/


These CEOs Make A Lot More Money Than Their Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-13/these-ceos-make-the-most-money-compared-with-their-workers


How much more do CEOs make compared to their employees?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ceo-pay-preview-20150805-story.html

Is Illegal Immigration the Issue for 2016?

It's no big secret that there has been several high profile murders committed by illegal immigrants recently (though you wouldn't necessarily know it by the absence of reporting by the corporate media, although up to 30% of murders are committed by illegal aliens in some states. It's not like murdering innocent people stacks up to more important news like the Confederate flag or anything) Nevertheless, it has been GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump who has been able to hold the subject which most candidates would like to avoid in the public spotlight. Obviously, this really shouldn't be all that difficult given that the majority (or strong plurality) of Americans have been demanding that Washington secure our southern border for the last 20 years; a demand which, despite the occasional lip service, has been ignored by both parties. Now it seems that all the presidential candidates, whether they want to or not, have to make illegal immigration part of their campaigns. Of course, I still expect the corporate media to soft soap the issue and under reported it as much as possible.

"The Donald", as you may know, has proposed completing a wall or other barrier to prevent individuals from sneaking across in violation of US and international laws respecting secure and safe borders. At the same time, he has suggested what most Americans have been saying for years; namely that if you want to come to America, great. This country can been a place of unique opportunities, however, don't make your first act criminal. Go through established channels and do it the right way. That way you don't have to be looking over your shoulder all the time. You don't have to be worried about be deported and losing your job, your home, and whatever else you've acquired. Most of all, if you do it the right way, you don't have to worry about be separated from your family (and all this garbage about how "unfair" it is to "breakup" families isn't the fault of heartless laws or officials. It's squarely the fault and responsibility of those who willingly chose to break the laws. It's like complaining that the court system breaks up families because someone robbed a store, got caught, and sent to jail).

The Obama Regime has done its lowdown best to undermine existing laws regarding illegal immigration up to the point of suing the

State of Arizona a few years ago for attempting to codify and enforce existing federal laws; something they are well within the right as a sovereign state to do. Meanwhile, Obama instructed his (now former) Attorney General, Eric Holder, not to pursue illegals who don't have a violent criminal past. Many universities have misguidedly started offering illegals in-state tuition, regardless of where they are currently living plus access to no or low costs campus dorms, financial assistance and grants, assistance with books, meals, and so forth; perks many of legal residents aren't even able to obtain!

Other states have begun allowing illegal residents to obtain a driver's license (offering the tests in their native language instead of English), while a number of cities are refusing to enforce existing laws regarding the presence of illegals. Individuals and organizations (including a few religious institutions) have openly defied federal and state laws by assisting these individuals with housing, employment, and instructing them on how to bypass the legal system when it comes to obtaining social services---all paid for by taxpayers. Illegal immigrants may now enroll their children in public schools while receiving free textbooks, meals, shots and basic medical care, and language assistance translators (without the requirement that they learn English, which can be refused by their parents). Recently, a new campaign has been started to play down the need to learn English; citing it as a tool to breakup families and an attack on their culture. Boloney. The overwhelming majority of people came to this county with different traditions, religions, and speaking a different language. The difference is that they wanted to be Americans, and so they took the time to learn the language and adopt the traditions of this nation, and in doing so, added their traditions to the "melting pot" that made this nation prosper. Yes, many spoke their native languages at home or in church, and yet they yearned to show off their new skills in speaking "American". The only different is that many---perhaps the majority---don't want to become citizens. They want to created miniature imitation of their homeland here. They don't invest in the American Dream, but instead send their money back home, often for honorable reasons---to support their families because of the economic failures their homelands have become (in some cases it's so bad, that their own governments encourage their citizens to leave because they have failed their People as a nation).

The truly sad thing is that they are caught in a Catch-22. They come here to escape the poverty of their country, largely due to corruption and institutionalization of poverty bought on by a tradition created by the rich and powerful and re-enforced by the Catholic Church, the overwhelming majority religion in most cases, and thus a middle class capable of making social and economic change never truly developed. Yet, once here, then become ensnared in a similar system that exploits many of them. Many barely making a livable wage, while working in unsafe, dangerous, and unhealthy conditions, and living in garages, sheds, or under overpasses; all because they chose to come here illegally rather than do it the right way. Because they are here essentially as criminals and taught to fear the police, they believe there's not much they can do about it or turn to, and since they don't speak the language, who would understand anyway?

For the few who are able to evade the system for the time being, there is the constant fear of being caught and losing everything. Meanwhile, US Taxpayers end up footing the bill (as usual) to the tune of approximately $113 billion dollars every year; enough to house and feed nearly everyone of US citizens currently in need, not to mention provide medical care. So what do we do?
Trump's idea of building a wall is popular, though I'm not sure how practical. Putting US troops or National Guard on the border would certainly boost our presence, but what authority would they have? The US Border Patrol has already had minor clashes with the Mexican military escorting bands of illegals into the US and have been told to stand down and not engage (numerous local ranchers have been shot at and occasionally strafed by Mexican Police helicopters as cover fire for illegals crossing over). Whenever a border guard or ICE agent attempts to do their job, they're reprimanded (and more than a few have been killed, sometimes by the very weapons sold to the drug cartels by Attorney General Holder's botched and illegal "Fast and Furious" gun deal).

I think we do need to increase our presence along the border and US territorial waters. Military and Law Enforcement should intercept and aggressively deter any attempt to enter the US illegally. Any attempt at armed resistance should be met with armed force. No more putting our military and law enforcement officers in harm's way without adequate recourse. We must severely penalize all businesses, individuals, and non-profits (including churches) for their role in hiding, aiding, or employing illegals. Illegal immigration will continue to be a growing problem until we stop the demand. When the cost becomes too high, the demand will stop and employers will turn to Americans once again. Non-profits and churches are not above the law. They should be as strictly fined and lose their tax exempt status for multiple violations.

We must reevaluate the concept of "birthright citizenship" which is grossly being abused through so-called "anchor babies". This law was written for a different time and for different circumstances. Both parents should be either US citizen or have applied for citizenship at least one year prior to qualify. If accepted or denied, the result all equally. A common language is the thread which holds the fabric of a nation together. It's what binds us together. Therefore, English must become the official language of this nation. All government documents should be printed in English only (which would also save taxpayers money). By the way, no more of this "press one for English". If you want to hear a message in anything but English, you press the number! I refuse to ever press any button for English and I never miss an opportunity to leave a complaint with a supervisor or manager if that's a require option. Every illegal caught needs to be fingerprinted and a DNA sample taken. If caught a second time and matched, they are sent to Federal prison with increasing durations subsequent violations while their country of origin is billed for the costs of their upkeep or returned at their expense. If it costs us, it needs to cost them.

Meanwhile, instead of returning these individuals to the border where they can simply cross right over, I propose transporting them to the nearest consulate of their native origin. There's no sense for taxpayers paying to have them flown back home or having to

repeat the process a few hours later. Let the host consulate deal with the consequences and foot the bill. Lastly, I would make it known to every country involved that while all individuals are welcome, they must do so legally. Violation of US sovereignty will be dealt with harshly.

To many of these countries not only openly encourage and in some cases, aid these individuals, they claim that while they may enforce their national borders---often severely---the US has no such legal right to secure its borders in the same fashion. Finally, these same nations must do more to change their societies and economic systems in order to encourage their citizens to stay and become more prosperous instead of trying to push their problems on to someone else. That's not leadership. It's cowardice. Something that Americans experience firsthand from Washington.


The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)
http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

Illegal Alien Crime Accounts for over 30% in Many States
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/08/illegal-alien-crime-accounts-for-over-30-of-murders-in-some-states/

Fissures

I've been writing about this for years. In the beginning, most of the pundits and self-proclaimed "political experts" blew me off; I was seen as one of those "alarmists" or "extremists"; all gloom and doom. However, most of those criticizing me at the time were on the ideological Right (and no doubt were hyper-sensitive because "Dubya" was in office and looking like the world's biggest jackass). Well, times have changed and it turns out that I may have been right all along (and thank you Obama for assuming the jackass mantle).

To briefly recap, several years ago I wrote about how America appeared to be breaking apart. There's an old saying that every revolution contains within it the seeds of its own destruction; something about a revolution can and will be exploited to the point where it becomes almost absurd. For example, we took the phrase "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" from our Declaration of Independence. and reinterpreted the role of government basically staying out of lives and allowing the opportunity to self-pursuit to requiring the government to provide it for us, and to do so as it defines it while removing any reference to a "Creator". We took the concept of each individual having the right to defend themselves; their family; their property and turned them into something approaching the criminal, while we took the criminal and turn them into some that was somehow disadvantaged by society and in doing so, made them victim.

We took the concept of "cruel and unusual", which the Founding Father's conceived of as meaning torture, and redefined it as meaning no death penalty for those guilty of committing violent crimes, which, again, many of our Founding Father's supported. We created a democratic republic which emphasized the sovereignty of the individual, divided into three roles, the legislative, judicial, and executive, with the role of Congress to be the central branch since it was closest to the People (the office of President was actually conceived of being mainly ceremonial), and now we have an oligarchy---rule not by of and for the People, but by and through a small elite class of the super wealthy. We are morphing into a fascist or corporate state with an Imperious federal government supported by a police state mentality. And the list continues.

We took the notion that America was a country where one could, with some hard work, maybe an idea, and perseverance, perhaps achieve something beyond their previously imposed limitations; if not for themselves then maybe for their children. Individuals came to America; learned English, often before leaving the Old World or on the boat over; they seemed to practice their English on anyone and everyone. They wanted to blend in. They left behind many of their customs; petty bigotries; and found ways to blend in. Some even changed their names or even religions. They wanted beyond all else to become American---not hyphenated Americans; not partial Americans, but ordinary Americans, and they tried to install this into their children. Not so now. Now, we've come to celebrate the hyphenated-American. Now we're expected to "press 1 for English". Now we're expected to accept foreign customs and traditions. It's even become common place to see individuals walking around in the native costumes as if they're flaunting their separateness. America is home to every nationality, ethnic group, and religion in the world. But what made us different is that we added this uniqueness to the "American Stew". Not so anymore. Those coming here now revel in their differences; they're encouraged to remain separate.

What happens to a country when this sense of disunity is allowed to grow; to fester? For a time, nothing. However, within these cultures which remain outside the norm of society, the grains of old hatreds remain, be it against different clans, tribal groups, religions, or ethnic populations. And as with all hatred left unchecked, it grows until it can't be contained and those inflected sooner or later lash out. We're already seeing it in the form of centuries old prejudices with the same centuries old form of retributions. Lost is the respect for laws and traditions of their new homeland and in its place is transplanted animosity toward others. Soon, one group or the other, not feeling a bond to its new home, will as first ask---perhaps even humbly---for exceptions based on traditions or laws belonging to another world, and in many cases, another time with incompatible values. Eventually, they will not just insist on these exceptions, but will demand that its laws should be equal with or even supplant existing laws of the host country or threaten not only non-compliance, but bloody and prolonged violence.

So too will others who fail to adapt to the native language of their host nation. They will plead tolerance and patience for the old or for the young to learn, and it's often granted out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but adoption never comes. Instead, it becomes more entrenched, and then they argue that it would be too cumbersome; too costly; or in some way "discriminates" again them by requiring them to learn the language of the nation where they now live, and instead, the native population is forced to adapt. And again, the bond is left broken. As I often said, "a common language is the thread that bind the tapestry of a nation together". A common language provides a sense of community; a bond among the citizens of a nation. It fosters commerce. It helps to establish a sense of common heritage. Without it, we begin to develop separately; one nation merely becomes transplanted onto a different soil, that's all.

At the same time, many of these groups find themselves impoverished. Partly because they weren't prepared either emotionally, educationally, or financially for their transition to a new country (this is, in part, because they've come illegally with the intent of blending into many of these non-integrated communities and, therefore, not having to make any of the necessary adjustments). However, for the others, they are given the opportunity, at taxpayer expense, and the educational and financial resources--such as low or no interest loans, wavier of certain taxes, automatic government assistance with government contracts, etc---and yet, they prepare only for their own ethnic groups. They insist on either themselves or their children to be taught in their native language only. They demand to be taught their country's history or heritage; not that of America's. Unintegrated , they remain often poor, dependent on others, and often find themselves taken advantage of, even within their own group.

Within this, we have the earlier racial or ethnic groups who are now replaced by these incoming groups. They see themselves set aside from taxpayer based aid, previously taken for granted as a self-assigned "entitlement". For those unprepared, they find themselves hopelessly lost. A sense of abandonment set in as the government redirects its limited attention and resources. Within this sense of abandonment comes a new sensation---anger, but not at themselves for depending of the public handouts and thinking it could and would go on forever, but anger at those who replaced them, and at the same time, a lashing out at those who formerly ladled out the gravy from the public trough.

At first, this is expressed in the form of trying to impart "guilt" for some imagined or ancient slight; without or with proof that it ever affected them. They will continue to insist on their privileged priority while claiming the others had in fact acting out a "privilege" because it was not, nor likely has ever been, in the position of having to depend on handouts. Interestingly, for those who had taken advantage of the opportunities previously afforded them and became successful financially (usually through education), they feel little sympathy for those of the group who they now view as "lazy" or "social leeches" and leave the group, though some remain to try to foster internal change while others only manage to serve as leeches themselves rather than as leaders or positive role models.

Nevertheless, ultimately the result is the same. Fissures develop. Soon the fissures become divisions; often, if not always, irreparable divisions. While these can for a brief time be held together through an increasing successions of rights, authority, and autonomy, the end rarely ever varies historically. The country either breaks apart peacefully; perhaps to enter into some form of loose federation (like the former USSR or UK, or it fragmentation is violent, long, and bloody like the Hapsburg Empire or Yugoslavia). Given the tendency toward religious, racial, and ethnic enclaves, and the nature of the cultures involved, I strongly suspect ours will be more like the latter. Can this be avoided? Certainly, and historically, it has. However, to avoid this fragmentation requires both a sense and understanding of the dynamics of history, but also the political will to insist that past loyalties are just that---past. America is about starting anew. It's about adding one's culture to the American melting pot, and it also means speaking a common language. Without it, America's "Exceptionalism" is no more and no better than those whose "Exceptionalism" has turned to dust.

Invasion America?