The Insecurity of Security: The Assault on Privacy and the Surveillance State

The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states. It didn’t take long before this confederation was replaced with a constitutionally driven democratic Republic, which is where it remained, with some slight adjustments via amendments, for 248 years.

Starting sometime after the end of World War II in 1945, when, at its political and economic apex, the country began a slow but determined transition from a republic into what it is now, a neo-fascist corporatocracy under the direction of an extremely wealthy and powerful oligarchy as President Eisenhower warned us in his farewell address (President John Kennedy would later echo the same warning).

Some have likened this to the feudalism of Middle Ages Europe. If you think of global corporations as modern versions of feudalistic fiefdoms it makes sense. Like their feudalistic predecessors,  who quietly influenced rulers, modern corporations exercise a similar control over today’s governments. To be successful requires a strong surveillance apparatus and ability to manipulate the public.

Most surveillance states use a myriad of excuses to acquire their power. But most often it centers on “public safety”. During the early years of the French Revolution in the 1780’s, Robespierre headed the Committee of Public Safety which he used as a steppingstone to the governing National Convention (eventually becoming its President).  

It official purpose was to undercover those hostile to the revolution and its stated goals of  “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”, the creation a constitutional republic, ending absolutism and the class system, or establishing equality under the law along with individual rights.  

However, as Lord Acton famously said, “power corrupts, and absolute powers corrupts absolutely”. Thus, it was this Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre which served as the driving force behind the infamous Reign of Terror which introduced as many as 17,000 to bite of “Monsieur Guillotine”.  

Just weeks after Adolf Hitler assumed power in January 1933, the German Reichstag (or “Parliament”) mysteriously caught fired and burned to the ground. Many suspected the Nazis of being behind the blaze, but there’s never been any hard proof. A mentally impaired Dutch communist, Marius van der Lubbe, wondering around the smoldering ruins. He was arrested, tried and convicted.  He was executed by guillotine on January 24, 1934. Both sides alleged a "false flag" attack. 

Nevertheless, not ones to let a manufactured crisis go to waste, the Nazis used the occasion of the fire to request and obtain approval to implement the “Enabling Act” or as it was officially known, the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich”, on March 23, 1933.

The Enabling Act served as the beginning of quick end to the Weimar Republic and with it, democracy in Germany. Of course, it was passed in the name of national security (after all, the symbol of German democracy, the Reichstag, had just been attacked). Like another similar act passed 68 years later, few knew exactly what was in it. But, among other things, it allowed for emergency laws to be implemented without the review or consent of the Reichstag (Article 48). 

Ultimately, all opposition political parties and newspapers were banned. A nationalized security apparatus and secret courts were established, and it granted the Chancellor dictatorial powers which could be renewed every four years (with the death of President Paul von Hindenburg, the offices of Chancellor and President were merged into one.  The new office was that of “Fuhrer und Reichskanzler” or  simply “ Office of the Fuhrer”).

In 2001, Congress enacted the “Patriot Act”, following the cowardly attacks of 9/11. Interestingly, the Patriot Act bore many similarities to the Enabling Act. For instance, the creation of a national security office (“The Office of Homeland Security”), it authorized warrantless widespread “spying” on U.S. citizens via existing intelligence agencies (including keeping secret files), the creation of the secret courts (aka “FISA” courts).

Importantly, it also permitted (some would say “encourage”) certain corporations to monitor customers/users, and employees (this was especially true for internet based companies) and so forth while granting these corporations legal immunity. So, apparently you could break the law as long as you were doing it for the government.

Of course, none of this is new historically. At its peak, during  the reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian, it was said that a young naked virgin could walk the length of the Appian Way at midnight without fear of being accosted.  Why? Because every ten or so feet stood an armed Roman soldier. As an aside, in 49 BC Julius Caesar used the claims of "public safety" and "order" to have himself declared dictator as did the Roman General, Sulla, earlier in 82 BC. 

It was also because there were curfews imposed and restrictions on possessing weapons and punishment of crimes were severe in the extreme. The ancient Romans understood that people will often sacrifice their freedoms for security just as they understood that businesses required order and stability to function, which benefited the state. To me, this begs the question of whether such actions as the Patriot Act, stripped of their nationalism, was more for the benefit of state and big business than the security of ordinary citizen.

Today, we find the internet remains stifled with de facto censorship hidden behind cute euphemisms like “community standards” (which has often left me asking “who monitors the monitors?” and “why are certain comments censored and not others?”).

Governments and corporations are pushing for increased measures not just to track us, but also to monitor our financial transactions. Ideally, they would like to do away with currency and reduced all transactions to a series an electronic blips. Not only would a company be instantly paid (great for the bottom line), but big business and the government (which are increasingly becoming one in the same) can constantly monitor how much money you have, where it came from, what you spent it on, where you’ve been or what sites you’ve visited.

Personally, I don’t think it’s any of their damn business. However, my opinion seems to be increasingly a minority one simply based on age attrition. Millennials and to greater extent, GenZ, don’t have the same sense of privacy as do Boomers or Gen X. Repeated studies have shown that they are more than willing to share personal data, seeing more as a commodity than something to be protected.  

Is that because they are so comfortable with technology, having literally grown up with it? Possibly. Gen X, Babyboomers, and older generations seem to place a greater value on privacy. We’re more likely to protect certain information and who we share it with. We seem to place more importance on our “space”, be it physical or cyber. But then, we’re on the decline while Millennials and Gen Z are ascending politically and economically.

For corporations and the government, ever in search of more data, this is portrayed as a boon. Given this level of access, companies can now “cater” to individualistic buying habits, thus improving their bottom line while the government can more easily calculate exactly what you owe in taxes and then automatically deduct it from your bank account. 

Even your health will be monetized. Imagine coming into the world and the first two things you received are a social security number and a genetic health test in order to determine what markers you’ve inherited and to predict your health cost to employers or society. This health information will be traded between your bank, employer, insurance companies, and even the government to determine an overall health risk score. The lower the score, the lower premiums and taxes you'll pay and the more desirable you are to employers. I'm sure you will be able to buy temporary "high risk riders" for occasional wild and wooly weekend or for vacation. 

Examples would be like,  do you enjoy high risk activities like bungee jumping or motorcycle racing? They’ll rate it on your high risk rider, and you’ll pay higher premiums for it. For those who do it often or professionally, the rider will be permanent. Let's say you require a special diet for a health issue. But try to buy something not on the recommended list and see it declined on your debit card (as well as notated in your health record for not following their guidelines). 

Have inheritable health issues like diabetes, heart disease or high blood pressure? Then could face possible higher tax rates, rejection of insurance, or being prohibited from certain jobs.  In addition to your employment and financial history, your overall “health score” rating will now play a part in your credit worthiness and employability.

In our fast approaching cashless society,  I can even envision the day where credit card companies, retailers, and public utilities will automatically deduct as pre-determined amount from your bank account before you even see it. You’ll get a brief text message alerting you of how much “net money” you have available to live on.

Your friendly taxman or woman will notify you and your bank by text the first of the year advising  of how much was deducted from your account based your income (as reported by your employer) and your personal information on file.  Thinking about deductions? Anything that can’t be electronically verified will be disallowed. There’ll be no more “estimated values”.

Crime rates are often cited as the reason for more cameras on street corners while infrared camera drones are becoming more commonplace. As of 2021, there were 71 million public surveillance cameras in use, an increase of 21% from 2018.  Businesses increasingly use bio-matrix programs to analyze nearly everyone walking in or by the business. It’s not uncommon for private residents to have surveillance cameras to deter would-be criminals.

In the sleepy backwater city of Louisville Kentucky for instance, there are 141 “Flock” cameras being used to read license plate numbers of suspected stolen cars (carjackings are a serious problem and growing) as well other vehicle infractions such as speeding, parking issues, or paying tolls.  Another 139 Flock cameras are expected to be added over the next few months. Louisville Metro Police access the camera’s database an estimated 18,000 per month!

Do you think it will be long before all this information will be tied into some database in the “Cloud” and accessed by government agencies, potential employers, insurance companies, and law enforcement? The Patriot Act has already laid the groundwork. Federal agencies such as the NSA have more than ample resources to carry it out and store it while the Office of Homeland Security would have no trouble managing it.

Wall Street and Washington have a symbiotic relationship already based on the control and consumption of resources, including data. In fact, as we’ve often discussed, there’s abundant research to confirm our former Republic is now a corporatocracy, functioning under the auspices of a tightknit superrich oligarchy (some prefer to call it a kleptocracy or plutocracy, which is just as accurate).

These are issues which may sound as if they belong in the realm of science fiction or won’t arise until sometime in the distant future. The reality of the matter is that these are issues which exists in the here and now thanks to the technology’s exponential advancements and our failure as a society to come to grasp the legal ramifications, let alone the moral implications.

At what point does personal privacy end? How far will we accept so-called “national security "interests into our lives? When does technology stop being a convenience and becomes our master?  Specifically, at what point are corporations or the government entitled to access of our personal information without our consent or is allowed to use it in making decisions about (or for) us?

As I said earlier, they will always have an excuse. Soon they may not need one. From my perspective, this is simply a new form of serfdom. It reminds me of a quote from Russian author, Fydor Dostoevsky, "The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he is in prison". To preserve our humanity, we should always be in control of our personal information regardless of whether we wish to protect it, sell it, or trade it without fear of retribution or coercion.   

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

The Rise of Neo-Feudalism

The Road to Neo-Feudalism

How the Covid-19 Pandemic Reveals American Corporate Feudalism

 Committee of Public Safety

Enabling Act of 1933

How the Patriot Act Compare’s to Hitler’s Enabling Act

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

Louisville to install more than 100 additional Flock camerasto enhance public safety

The Private Life of Generation Z

 

 

The Silent Crisis: The Growing Problem of Illegal Immigration, Abandoned Children, and Applicants for Foreign Worker Visas

Illegal immigration from Latin America into the United States has gone bad to worse since the end of 2020. The influx has been the result of  worsening economic conditions brought on by a rise in prices, stagnated wages, and an ever increasing unstable political situation cause by corruption and sanctions. Rising crime (particularly murder) triggered by the drug cartels and growing unemployment (in part due to the spread of Covid) made the situation even worse.

Additionally  best estimates put the number of illegal immigrants now living in the United States currently at over 11 million.  It's also worth noting that there currently 48 million foreign born residents living the U.S., an increase of 2.9 million under Biden.  That's 14.6% of the total population or one in seven residents.

The "Remain in Mexico" agreement (officially known as the "Migrant Protection Protocols" or "MPP") between Washington and Mexican authorities has recently ended, which has given would be immigrants, many of whom are trying to enter under the auspices of being an asylum seeker, a green light to flood across the border.  

The agreement was implemented under the Trump Administration and administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The program was terminated on June 30, 2022 due to a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court following a lawsuit filed by the Biden Administration (Biden vs. Texas).

Under the "Remain in Mexico" program immigration officials and border agents in the U.S. were given some breathing room by requiring potential immigrants to remain on the Mexican side of border while their applications were being processed (due to the volume, the average processing time was about five years) with immigration judges often reporting a backlog of as many as 5,000 cases on their dockets.

Meanwhile, the number of "asylum seekers"  have gone from 400,461 in 2020 to 1,734,686 in fiscal year 2021 to 2,378,944 for the 2022 fiscal year, with most coming from so-called "Northern Triangle" nations of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

It should be noted that the United States recognizes only individuals being persecuted for racial, ethnic, political, or religious status by their government eligible for asylum. Individuals seeking entry for economic reasons are not recognized as legitimate candidates for asylum.  In addition, individuals seeking asylum are required by international law to apply for asylum in the next closest stable country, which in the majority of cases, is not the United States.  

As an aside, we often seen immigrants and proponents of open immigration carrying signs which read something like "No One is Illegal" seem to forget that while people aren't "illegal", their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system. People who don't follow the law often pay a price, be it fines, jail times, or, as in the case of most illegal immigrants, deportation. 

America, like every other sovereign nation on the planet, has the right to secure and protect its borders. There are laws and procedures for anyone wanting to enter the country. They are there to be followed, and are designed to help the would be immigrant as much as the intended host country. 

Secondly, trying to jump ahead of those waiting in line to immigrate is wrong. First, it's a violation of the law.  Why should your first act to become a resident of a new country be breaking its laws? It also punishes those who've taken the time to do the right thing and delays the already lengthy process even further. Would you want someone to do that to you?  Lastly, it depletes limited resources, which hurts new residents and applicants alike. 

The link below is to a short article published by the Council of Foreign Relations dated December 1, 2022. It goes into additional detail about the worsening illegal immigration crisis, especially the growing number of children dumped on the border and the rising number of applicants for Foreign Worker Visas. If you want to know more about the current status of our illegal immigration crisis, I urge you to read the CFR report below:

 

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

USCIS:Asylum

Remainin Mexico Policy

ForeignBorn Population Hits nearly 48 Million in September 2022

 

Migrant border crossings in fiscal year 2022 topped 2.76million , breaking previous record

Arrests along U.S.---Mexico border tops 2 million a year forthe first time

UNHCR: What is Asylum?

USCIS: Refugees and Asylum

Amnesty International: Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants

 

 

"No Go Zones" in America? A Look at the Reality and the Possibility

Following my recent article on "sanctuary cities", I came across an article on "no go zones" here in the United States. Well, that certainly got my attention since these so-called "no go zones" were all Muslim in nature. Some were apparently just a small community centered around a mosque while others were said to be much more sinister in their purpose. Typically these were described as Muslim "terrorist training camps". If true, then that's certainly something I wanted to know more about.

According to the articles (I say "articles" since, in my research, I came across other articles which made similar claims), there are somewhere around nine states which harbor these encampments. These include the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington, along with Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the Mid-West states of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan were included. Other states, such as New York, Alaska, Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina also appear. A few articles mention Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.

The articles reminded me of the same type of fear generated by claims of neo-Nazi/White Supremacists having similar types of closed off communities in places like Idaho or Montana back in the 70's and early 80's, as well as Black Supremacists living in de-facto sealed off urban neighborhoods in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere during the late 60's and early 70's; places where even the cops allegedly feared to tread. Of course, from the late 1960's through the 1990's there were numerous religious or cult communities which were closed to outsiders scattered all the country, though mostly in the Western states.

The idea of wanting to live in a community of like minded individuals isn't new to this country. Almost from the beginning, Quakers, Puritans, and even Catholics segregated off together. Later, as the population grew, we saw Jews, Poles, Germans, Irish, Lithuanians, Italians, and others settle in their own ethnic/religious communities. Some groups, like Blacks and Chinese, followed suit, although this was partly the desire to be together (safety in numbers) and partly due to bigotry.

In fact, it's actually only been relatively recent that these type of communities have begun to break up, although newer groups such as Hispanics, Africans, Bosnians, and, yes, Muslims, have tended to cluster together (Hispanics from poorer and less educated countries like Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador) tend to stay close to Spanish speaking Roman Catholic parishes while Muslims may remain close to a particular mosque which has connections to their hometown, sect, family, etc. That's also why small ethnic businesses are usually established nearby; everyone likes familiarity. We are, after all, a tribal species.

So, is there any truth to these articles, particularly that they are engaged in terrorist training? That's hard to say. Certainly, the FBI, ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) along with Homeland Security would want to know (I would imagine the IRS would also have more than a passing interest too). Naturally, we all remember how well the Feds handled Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco (sarcasm intended).

In the past, terrorist acts in this country have tended to be either comprised of a small group (usually two or three individuals, with the exception of the cowardly 9/11 attack), or more often than not, the lone individual. In fact, the majority of these individuals described themselves as "self radicalized"; usually starting with a psychological "kinship" with the terrorist group's cause, and then become increasingly more radicalized through articles, books, and especially the internet; particularly via websites produced by these groups. These websites are usually very well designed with terrific graphics, and typically done in wide range of languages to give them that "personal" touch.

As a rule, the websites are divided into three segments: propaganda, ideology, and the "how to" section. The first two are pretty self explanatory. They are designed to attract those who may have a curiosity (perhaps under the auspices of trying to find out the "other side" of the story). They also present a skewed worldview as you might expect, complete with images of throngs of cheering well-wishers as their conquering heroes march into a newly "liberated" neighborhood or town complete with smiling men and happy children (a surefire tug at the ole heartstrings). They include "correct" religious instruction, especially for those interested in a do-it-yourself religious conversion, along with the proper religious diet and even physical training programs for that jihadi on the go!

The last part is where the newly recruited ideologue comes in. These individuals are typically encouraged to come and join the fight against--insert cause "here"-- where you'll be rewarded with whatever lights your fuse. However, if you are unable to make the trip, no problem! These websites come complete with videos instructing the dumbest of would-be terrorists with information on how they too can be become a mass murderer in just a few easy-to-learn lessons! They can learn everything from simple harassment techniques, improving their shooting skills, to the ever popular improvised bomb making. Perhaps the best thing about these sites are the ease at which they can be setup and accessed at little to no risk to the actual terrorists.

Nevertheless, while these type of sites do exist, they are pretty closely monitored by the NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, and Interpol (and thankfully so). Naturally, there are certain mosques where Imams (religious leaders similar to a minister) of questionable moral character may secretly operate their own illegal terrorist training cells. These rarely ever contain anymore than just a small handful of utterly devout students. The goal is to create as many disconnected and independent cells as possible. That way, if one is compromised, it doesn't affect the others (as expected, these eventually show up on the radar too). As an aside, this technique was used to great success by the various resistance groups in Nazi occupied Europe; India during British colonial rule; Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

However, it's important to point out here that the majority of terrorist attacks in the U.S. haven't come from Muslim or any other religious groups. They tend to be the loner with their own unique cause, be it being snubbed by students at school or a girl, feeling like an outcast, pissed off at an employer or fellow employees, and so forth. Despite media propaganda, not all mass shooters are "Right Wingers" either. The man who attacked the Congressional Baseball Charity game singled out Republicans. The latest two mass murders were done by individuals who were members of Antifa, the so-called "Anti-Fascist" group which acts more like Hitler's Brownshirts or the Communist "Red Faction" than not. Nevertheless, in terms of voter registration, the majority are Democrats. More importantly, they are also usually young, male, disenchanted with life, and more often than not, mentally ill.

Europe, on the other hand, does have "no go zones" in truest sense where Sharia law is enforced, whether you're a Muslim or not. In fact, there is an active and ongoing attempt to spread its influence beyond the localized Muslim communities. There is little doubt that religious radicalization is alive and well, along with the possibly active terrorist training (we know rape gangs not just exist, but that there is actual training on how to organize rape gangs). Without a question, the attacks which have taken place in Europe have had a strong religious extremist undertone whether the governments there have the courage to admit it or not.

As for the "no go zones" in the U.S., they really don't exist, at least not like they do in Europe. Yes, some are restricted to some religious or some other denominator, but as I've said, that's hardly new nor does it constitute an actual "no go zone" since law enforcement and first responders have access. Historically, the biggest concern has not been keeping out but in preventing people from leaving (the "Moonies" and Jim Jones' "People's Temple" come to mind), which is why it's important for police access. Perhaps the most often overlooked "no go zones" are Native American reservations, which are defacto separate and semi-independent nations within the U.S. though they are freely visited.

Do they stockpile weapons, ammo, or conduct paramilitary training? Perhaps, but so far nothing has surfaced by the Feds, but that doesn't mean that something isn't happening. After all, both the White and Black supremacists groups back in the day conducted paramilitary training. On the other hand, perhaps their training involves is no more than of a matter of providing internal security (reservations have their own police for instance). Unfortunately, until they either act or the Feds find something that's pretty compelling, it's virtually impossible to know for sure. Not very comforting is it?

Personally, I don't really have an issue with a group of like minded individuals deciding to set up their own little community and living a peaceful existence off the grid. During the late 60's and early 70's, there was a proliferation of so-called "Hippie communes" which attempted to do the same thing. Their goal was to self-sufficiency; grow their own food (sell or trade any excess), make their own clothes, and so forth. The vast majority of these failed after a few months or years, but a couple did succeed and lasted for a couple of decades.

Of course, they lacked the defining religious element. If that element is benign, then there should be no problem. If it's not, then it could become a breeding ground for disaster. The treatment of White and Black supremacists communities in the past have tended to be more than a little heavy handed as well. Given how the Federal Government has acted in the past, there is always the possibility that one misstep could trigger another Waco or worse.

The Bill of Rights is perhaps one of Mankind's greatest accomplishments, along with the Constitution. They are also uniquely American. We were born out of a desire to be free from government's interference. That included the right to associate with whom we want, to protect ourselves, and to believe in what we wanted. However, time has tempered those ideals. For instance, felons aren't free to associate with other felons. Perhaps that's a good idea. Perhaps not. We are free, in theory at least, to live with whomever we want, which would include those of like race or faith. But how about practice? Can a neighborhood association specifically say only Chinese or Hispanics are allowed? Nope. What about only Jews or Baptists in a particular neighborhood? Hardly.

Can we buy machine guns, flamethrowers, or landmines to protect ourselves? Not a chance. In fact, while the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments, especially from the perspective of our Founding Fathers, it is also perhaps the most heavily restricted amendment with everything from what you can own, how old you have to be, and where you are allowed to carry it.

In terms of religion, we're free to believe as we choose. We're even allowed to follow certain social and dietary laws without paying a "pew tax" like in some countries. However, what if that religion allowed pedophilia? What about covering covering your face for official identification? What if it allowed so-called "honor killings" (religiously sanctioned murder to "protect" a family's "honor")? How would you feel about the right---and duty---to beat your wife or of restricting her rights under the Bill of Rights? Does their religious laws supplant our secular natural laws (laws bequeath to us simply for being human beings)? What about their religious belief that everyone must conform to their religious laws and traditions regardless of your personal beliefs?

This is what potentially makes these communities different. It's an entirely different culture which follows entirely different laws (in fact, they hold that our secular laws have absolutely no value whatsoever). They believe they have the right to exclude others who do not follow their laws and traditions. They believe in the right and obligation to impose their beliefs on others by any means at their disposal.

Yet, those very things---freedom of association, religion, and even the Second Amendment---are fundamental to America. How are we going to handle this as the Muslim population in America grows and the risk of radicalization increases as we admit those from areas where religious extremism is common along with an anti-West or anti-American sentiment?

Hopefully, it will never become an issue. Hopefully a peaceful coexistence will prevail as it has between others of different races, ethnic groups, and religions. Of course, this worked because we operated under the old "melting pot" concept where immigrants were strongly encouraged to integrate. Today, it's "multiculturalism" where assimilation isn't encouraged or even considered necessary! Obviously this hasn't worked well at all in Europe. Can the American temperament prevail where the European has thus far failed? So far these communities have been peaceful. Let's hope it stays that way.



Muslim Terrorist Training Camp Found In Alabama

Muslim of the Americas: Enclaves in the U.S.

Center for Immigration Studies: No Go Zones and Assimilation

No Go Zones: Alt Right fantasy or a new face of Europe?

The Catholic World Report: Raheem Kassem's No Go Zones is unsettling, necessary reading

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

Replacing Your Driver License With A National ID Card: The Day of Big Brother Has Arrived

"Ihre Ausweise bitte"! These were once words that could make the bravest man or women tremble in fear, for they were the words used by Nazi Germany's feared Gestapo, or secret security police. Often, ordinary Germans and others under German occupation, would be randomly stopped and ordered to produce their identification papers. These papers were required from anyone at any time, but mainly when traveling. It appears that many of us may soon be hearing the English equivalent soon, and for those without their proper "identification papers", prohibited from traveling by plane, bus, or train anywhere where we would cross state lines.

It appears that there are several states which are non-compliant with recent changes brought about by Homeland Security (which I usually call "Reich Security", which as you'll read shortly, may be a better description). Beginning on January 22, 2018, individuals from nine states will be prohibited from traveling across state lines with their photo driver's license as their only form of ID. Residents from Oregon, Maine, Montana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, and Pennsylvania will be required to produce a second form of photo ID to pass new security measures being implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is overseen by Homeland Security.

According to TSA officials, this second form of identification can be a military (or VA) photo ID, passport, or permanent resident card with a photo. The reason, we are told, is the result of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which requires that all federal agencies must comply by only accepting photo identification which meet specific minimal requirements established by the ACT. Those requirements include have a color photo of the individual; the incorporation of "anti-counterfeit" technology onto the card which would prevent any alterations to the card, and a background check on everyone issued one of these "enhanced" driver's licenses. I guess we should be grateful we're not required to pee in a cup or submit a DNA cheek swab! In short, you're freedom to travel is being restricted; not so differently than the way totalitarian governments have been doing it.

Many of us "oldsters" remember a America where freedom could be defined by our ability to travel anywhere we wanted to anytime we wanted. It was touted in just about every bus, car, train, or airline commercial or in countless magazines. It was one of those selling points the US used to publicize to the world, especially those behind the Iron Curtain. Well, apparently not anymore. According to the change, those in the nine "non-compliant" states will not be immediately affect (the remaining 24 states plus Washington DC are currently compliant), although TSA recommends residents obtain a passport in case they intend to travel before their state legislatures pass appropriate legislation. However, their respective states must be brought into compliance by 2020 (maybe we'll get "lucky" and we can simply have chips implanted which can be updated on a regular basis as needed). So, just what is the REAL Act of 2005 anyway?

The 2005 REAL ID Act was passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack, as well as other domestic terror attacks in order to provide a more enhanced and secure form of personal ID than a simple state identification card or a driver license. These new ID cards must include the individual's photo, full legal name, current physical address, gender (which is going to be interesting in California), date of birth, license number, bar code, and signature. It will also include, height, weight, disability and veteran status. They must also be tamperproof. New applicants will also have to provide proof of citizenship, legal authorization (ie: a "green" card), or a birth certificate, along with a second form of ID which includes a photo , full legal name, and date of birth. Finally, the REAL Act requires that all states must share its database of licensed drivers with all other states, as well as federal agencies (hence the reason these new ID cards are being called "National ID" cards).

I can't help but think of the Enabling Act of 1933. For those of you unfamiliar with the Enabling Act, this was piece of legislation was enacted shortly after the election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 following the burning of the Reichstag (the Reichstag is the German version of Parliament or Capitol Hill). The newly elected Nazi government declared that the fire, which nearly totally destroyed the Reichstag, was the result of Communist backed terrorism (by sheer dumb luck, a mentally unstable young man by the name of Marinus van der Lubbe was found wandering through the rubble, identified himself as both a Communist and a Jew, "confessed" to the deed). As a result, the Enabling Act was hastily passed to clamp down on all those deemed as possible terrorists or sympathizers, as well as those deemed "enemies of the state".

Thus began the building of "detainee" camps for "re-education" and "rehabilitation" which, of course, ultimately became concentration camps. Initially this included common criminals, prostitutes, junkies and drug dealers, drunks, gays, as well as opponents of Nazism such certain members of the clergy, political activists such as those who were anti-Nazis or pro-democracy, and union leaders. In short order, it expanded to include Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and so forth. It would end with Slavs, Jews, and Gypsies. Instead of rehabilitation, there was extermination.

Obviously I'm not saying anything like that could or would happen here (at least since our imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941). However, it was out of the Enabling Act that arose the Gestapo and that dreaded phrase, " Ihre Ausweise bitte"---"Your identification papers please" . It also gave certain Reich agencies the right to detain, arrest, and hold individuals without charges for an undetermined time at their discretion. Even next of kin need not be notified. Sound familiar? It reminds me a lot of the Patriot Act out of which came the REAL ID Act.

For those of you who think I may be "over reacting", I can understand that. However, I assure you that I'm not. I'm simply pointing out similarities, and explaining what this REAL ID Act will mean for not just the traveling public, but for all of us since it will be a de facto national identification card. I was only half joking when I said earlier that I was surprised that it didn't require that we provide a sample of our DNA! In truth, I fully expect it will come with a tracking devise implanted or encoded in it, and why not? Our smart phones do. Our cars do, along with other electronic items. Why wouldn't this too not come with tracking technology? Of course some believe, and perhaps rightly so, that this type of technology combined with a National ID card will not only cut down on the possible terror attacks, but also make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to arrive and stay in the US.

There is already serious talk from the business and technology communities about microchip implanting. In fact, some companies have already begun the process. As usual, it started as being purely voluntary. Those who stepped up first got something trivial like a coffee cup or day off (as an aside, studies have shown that Millennials have shown a willingness to surrender some private information for these little trinkets). Then, slowly, it became "strongly" suggested and finally a job requirement (similar to the way they did direct deposit I suppose). The data being stored is primarily work related--- name, date of hire, entry access, etc. In time, it will include your complete financial and credit history, as well as your military or criminal records, medical and private information. Maybe even your DNA history will be added; what you're allergic to or what genes you carry that make you susceptible to certain cancers or heart conditions (which obviously could affect your employability since it could impact your cost to the company in days lost and insurance costs). Like it or not. Accept it or not. The day of Big Brother has arrived.




Driver Licenses From Nine States Won't Be Valid IDs for Domestic Flights in 2018



The REAL ID Act: Are You Ready for a National ID?



TSA to stop accepting some states' drivers licenses in 2018

Obama offers Immunity to Children of Illegal Immigrants

Has Obama sold the American Dream down the river as the majority of American believe, or is he actually trying to fulfill the American Dream for some? The answer to that question just became a little murkier this week when Obama ordered his pals, Eric Holder at the Justice Department and Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security to stop enforcing deportation efforts against some 800,000 children of illegal immigrants. Many of these children are now in either high school of college.

I suppose one can't fault Obama. After all, the overwhelming majority of these children were brought here a small children; many under 5 years of age. Should they be held accountable for criminal actions of their parents? Of course not. They are just as innocent of any wrong doing as a child would be if their parents were arrested for, let's say, drug possession or armed robbery. What got everyone's goat though wasn't necessarily what Obama did; it was how he did it.

Rather than run this through Congress for discussion like he should have done, Obama simply issued another one of his Executive Orders, and "voila"...instant results. With all the bickering and lack of leadership in Congress (not to mention a 84%+ disapproval rating), Obama saves taxpayers both time and money. So who needs a dysfunctional Congress?

But did Obama do this out of some altruistic reason, or was there a political motive involved? Well, currently Obama has a 61% approval rating among Hispanics, and Hispanics are the second largest minority behind whites, but they're also fasting growing minority in America. Hispanics are more likely than not to register Democrat than Republican (65% to 22%) despite their tendency toward conservatism due primarily to the failure of the GOP to actively reach out to Hispanics, as a result, Hispanics are poised to replace blacks as the Democrat core. He has previously ordered the Justice Department and ICE to back off the investigation and enforcement of deportation, except among those with known violent criminal backgrounds. In short, adding another 800,000 Hispanics in their prime voting and childbearing years to the rolls certainly helps the Obama cause in the short run and the Democrat cause in the long run.

The GOP needs to get off its silk covered duff and do something within the Hispanic, Asian, and black communities if it wants to remain relevant. Conservative whites, long the core of the Republican Party, are on the decline. And the GOP needs to get off it sanctimonious high horse (or high elephant as the case may be) when it comes to social issues and join the rest of the American Public in the middle.


Obama suspends deportation of thousands of illegals
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/15/obama-administration-to-offer-immunity-to-younger-immigrants/

Illegal Immigration: What's the Latest?

As regular readers of AO know, I take a particular interest in illegal immigration. I see it as a national security as well as an economic threat to this country. In additional to the estimated 12 million illegal residents now in this country they are an untold number of individuals from nations hostile to the US. ICE agents have repeatedly found money and paraphernalia from countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and the like. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that 663 individuals from countries with know terrorist ties were arrested in 2010. It’s only a matter of time before one or more of these groups make good on their threats of killing Americans. Of course Congress, Homeland Security, and the President will condemn the act and there will be the usual investigations and condemnations, but by then it will be too late. There will be dead Americans.

The American People have, for over well over a decade, demanded loudly and repeatedly for government to solve the border crisis; not ‘band-aid” it over and not ignored it. Former president Bush promised a wall. We never got it. It was only partially funded and all but dropped. Border Patrol agents are understaffed, under funded, and often under orders not to engage. Gangs control whole sections of US territory along the border. Our own government even put up warning signs for US citizens to stay out. According to Texas Congressman John Culberson, an illegal alien crossing the border had an 84% chance of not being prosecuted.

The report went on to say that of the 447,731 illegals apprehended by US Customs last year (2010), 73, 263 (or 16.4%) were actually prosecuted. Along the Tucson area, where the majority of arrests occurred, the percentage was even worse, with only 14.5%. If you were going to commit a crime and had an 84% chance of success, with little in the way of punishment, what would you do? Congressman Culberson added that enforcement was so lax, that many of those arrested were held only a few hours and “had a chance to home for dinner”.

Of course, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claims that our southern border has never been more secured! Perhaps she’s thinking about the days of Poncho Villa or the Mexican-American War! Seriously, however, Secretary Napolitano is actually distorting the number the way politicians and bureaucrats often do. In claiming the southern border secure, Napolitano is only looking at instances of arrest and prosecution, which accounts for about 15% of the total rather than all those arrested. Furthermore, Napolitano admitted the DHS “deferred” action on 900 cases in 2010.

Did you that more people along a Mexico-Texas border town were killed in 2010 than in the war in Afghanistan? Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which just across the Rio Grande from El Paso Texas had more deaths, all related to its losing drug war with local drug cartels, than the entire country of Afghanistan. There 3,111 individuals murdered compared to 2421 civilian deaths in the war against the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is moving ahead with its lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070, which, as you’ll recall, did little more the codify under state statute the various laws which now exist at the federal law and added more “teeth”. The Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, alleges in his complaint, that regulating US borders is a federal matter.

The AG is right…sort of. Arizona isn’t attempting to establish foreign policy. They are simply incorporating existing federal law at the state level. Furthermore, while states may not weaken a federal law, they may strengthen a federal law, which is what Arizona has done. Arizona’s Governor, Janet Walker publicly stated that the State carefully studied the issue from every point possible, and even requested legal opinion from the US Attorney General’s office. Who will prevail? Hard to say. Certainly legal opinion rests with Arizona (and several other states that are looking at imposing similar laws). However, the Obama Administration is pushing hard to keep these illegal immigrants in American (the current running joke is that Obama is wanting to discourage the use of the name “illegal immigrants” and start calling them what they are, “undocumented Democrats”).

President Obama, speaking with Hispanic reporter, recently said that illegals had nothing to worry about if they were doing “all the right things”, which included a job, staying out of trouble, and I assume, keeping a low profile. Wouldn’t “doing all the right” mean obeying US law? Anyway, I digress. Obama was simply making it clear that his administration intended to drag its feet, delay, and otherwise impede any efforts to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into this country, what at what cost?

Well, with the federal government’s version of proctology exam upon us, that is, Tax Day---April 15. Let’s look for a moment at what Obama’s efforts to protect illegal immigrants actually cost you and me. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the tax burden for welfare, estimated welfare care, and education exceeds $100 billion per year. That breaks down to $1000.00 per taxpayer per year (and no, you can’t claim them as a dependent). Of those who do pay into the system, for every $5.00 in services they take, they pay in an estimate $1.00. I’m no accountant, but I do know a thing or two about economics, and I can tell you those numbers don’t work for long (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/fairfederation#p/u/4/H8lLU7XjcWc).

Meanwhile, while states are working to stop illegal immigrants, other states have given the green light to illegal residents. Both Washington State and New Mexico remain easy places for illegal to get a driver’s license. In both states, recent bills were passed to allow illegal immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. One can only assume that the driver’s test was not in English either. In Maryland, the State Legislature voted to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens. The bill, which passed 27-20, allows illegal aliens to attempt Maryland colleges at a reduced rate, saving them (or is it Maryland taxpayers?) $10,000 per year in tuition. US residents from neighboring states, however, were not afforded the same privilege.

According to a recent article, Lana Reed, a former social service case worker, testified before the Kansas legislature’s House Judiciary Committee, that case workers were required by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services policies to ignore fraudulent documentation by immigrants, and thus, in effect, facilitate fraud against Kansas taxpayers. Finally, Utah passed three laws that, among other things, granted amnesty to “guest workers” as well as concluded an agreement between Utah and Mexico to provide businesses to migrant workers ( (HB 116 and HB 466). Funny, isn’t that a foreign policy issue? Wonder when US Attorney General Holder intends on filing a lawsuit against Utah for butting into a federal matter? (see: http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23944&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#4).

Lastly, do you remember the outcry from the Left (especially the media) over the deportation of 4 year old? The child, a girl named “Emily”, whose parents are illegal aliens, refused to accept custody from DHS agents after her grandfather, who was accompanying her on a flight to New York, was detained on an immigration charge.
Spokesman Lloyd Easterling said "CBP strives to reunite children who are citizens with their parents. If the parents decide not to take custody of their children, the CBP works with other agencies to guard the security and the well-being of these children. That includes handing them over to other families”.

Easterling added that, “In this case, Emily's parents were offered the opportunity to pick her up, but they decided to have her return to Guatemala with her grandfather”. I wonder why the media didn’t report this part of the story. Just asking.