Amnesty by Executive Fiat

Well, he did it. Obama publically announced on the evening of November 20th that he's going to grant "executive amnesty" to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants and in doing so, thumbing his nose at Congress and flipping off the majority of Americans who've steadfastly rejected any form of amnesty for those who blatantly have ignored our laws. As for the thousands who've stood in line, filled out forms, took exams, learned English, and so forth...well you can guess what he's done to them. Democrat proponents have termed this as a Obama's "Emancipation Proclamation" . This is far from a "Emancipation Proclamation”, which freed slaves (illegally as Lincoln--ironically---didn't have the legal authority) in the States which left the Union as a political and military tactic in order to force Confederate troops to leave the battlefields and return to the farm fields to tend to the crops in order to keep their families from starving. Slaves in States which had not ceded were exempt from their freedom. Instead, this executive order is a declaration of war on the Constitution; the legal process; and the American People. There's more than a bit of irony and pugnacity in that Obama will sign his executive order in Las Vegas' "Caesars Palace". By design or happenstance, it couldn't be a more fitting venue.

The American Public has been adamant in demanding that the President and/or Congress put an end to any talk of amnesty for years now, just as they've been determined to see our southern border sealed to prevent not only the flow of illegal immigrants---thousands each month---from crossing, but also terrorists, criminals, drug related gangs, and as we've already experienced, diseases which this country had conquered decades ago and now puts everyone at risk. We just recently experienced approximated 60,000 children and their "escorts" (wink wink) being abandoned on our border with the full knowledge and at least tacit support of the Mexican Government and its military; they even shot at US civilians along the border as they escorted them into US territory. The Obama Regime, as I've previously reported to you, has already surrender parts of Pinal County in Arizona to drug cartels.

I also want to make this absolutely clear. Illegal immigration doesn't cost Obama, Congress, nor the federal, state, or local governments one thin copper filled dime. Nothing. Obama or Congress for that matter, can feel as magnanimous as they want. It's not their money. However, their "generosity" does, have a cost. Illegal immigrants cost every single taxpaying citizen in this country approximately $120,000 billion dollars of our money. According to a study done by the Heritage Foundation in 2013, the average family household of an illegal immigrants has a net deficit (benefits received from taxpayer financed programs less taxes paid) of -$14,384.00--that's how much of the tab you get to pick up. According to the study, after amnesty, tax payments would increase and benefits received would drop to a net deficit of -$11,455.00 per household. Once illegal immigrants become eligible of medical and welfare based programs, benefits received would rise to $43,000 of your tax dollars while taxes paid back into the system would only average around $16,000, or a -$23,000 of taxpayer money per household and there's around 12 million illegal immigrants. Obama's recent announcement applies to only 5 million of them.

Now, doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? And to think, you can't even write them off on your taxes as dependents! As an aside, according to the 2013 study again, amnesty would make illegal immigrants eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare, resulting in a net deficit of -$22,700 per household. Oh----I almost forgot to mention--remember those 60,000 children dumped on our border? Did you know it's going to cost you---the American Taxpayer---$760 million dollars to educate...and that may not even be in English. Feeling a little miffed yet?

In 2012, just under 41 million people living in this country were foreign born. We are, in fact, a nation of immigrants. Each of us or our ancestors came to this land for different reason--economic, political, religious, socially; some forced to come. Some came voluntarily . Between 2011 and 2013, some 447,000 individuals followed the legal process and immigrated to the US. On average, the steps to become a US Citizens can take anywhere from 6 months to a year; in a few rarer cases, a bit longer. But for those who want to make this country their home, it's worth it. So what does amnesty tell these individuals? Well, for one it tells many of them that following the legal route is a waste of time and effort. It tells them not to both with the health requirements, or learning about the history of culture of this nation, or even bothering with having adequate work or English language skills. And, the hope---even anticipation of amnesty will only encourage more individuals to come here illegally.

Amnesty tells them that obeying the law is not requirement to come to America. It also tells them and others that the American government, regardless of President or Congress or even political party matters; each are just as spineless as the other. For those seeking a democratic nation, where the People are sovereign, this isn't that place anymore. The government (and notice I didn't say "our") cares little if at all about the desires of the public. Its sole interests are protecting the economic interests of their corporate masters and gerrymandering their party (and hopefully themselves) back into office. All hail the Machine! Mussolini would be so proud.

Lastly, for those who want to point to presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush and claim that they too granted amnesty, here's a little reminder for you. Congress proposed the Immigration Reform and Control Act or simply the Simpson-Mazzolli Act of 1986, which President Reagan signed into law as an Act of Congress on November 6, 1986, not as an executive order. This work bill included a provision to grant amnesty to some 3 million illegal immigrants provided they had been here a minimum of five years, no criminal record, a basic understanding of US history and government, and a working knowledge of English. It also made it illegal to knowingly hire individuals who were here illegally. Bush attempted to correct errors in the original bill (such as extending coverage of family members). Neither president acted by executive fiat as President Obama has.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a President unwilling to follow the Constitution ; it's Congress who makes the laws not the President. It also leaves us with a lame duck president who couldn't care less about the will of the American People. He has two years left to leave his mark and he doesn't seem to care how that is done. Any attempt at impeachment could be easily delayed until his remaining term in office has expired. Congress doesn't get off light easily here either. Neither the House or the Senate---irrespective of their political party--- has managed to put together a realistic immigration reform package. Instead, they act like a bunch of spoilt second grade school children. They are nothing this nation should be proud of. The American People have been clear and resolute year after year in demanding immigration reform which offers a pathway to citizenship without either amnesty or allowing those here illegally to "bump ahead" those who are doing it the right way.

We have also been equally resolute in demanding that the border be firmly secured and the border patrol be given back its enforcement powers (and budget); that those arrested for being here illegally be prompted dropped off at the nearest embassy for them to deal with at their own costs; that English only be taught and used in our schools, governments, and in the use of any taxpayer paid forms; that employers who hire illegal workers be severely punished, including fines equal to 25% of the income paid per person, suspension of their business licenses ranging from 30 days to permanent. Equally severe fines should apply to those convicted of aiding those here illegally as well, including churches and non-profit groups with loss of tax-exempt status for repeated offences. And finally, those here illegally should not be entitled to any taxpayer based services. These penalties may seem harsh, but they are the same penalties that are meted out in Latin America to those there illegally or who aid those there illegally. As for Obama, his actions speak volumes in his contempt for the Constitutional process and for all Americans.

Barack Obama enforces US immigration overhaul
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30136245

Costs of educating new class if illegal immigrant minors
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/02/cost-educating-new-class-illegal-immigrant-minors-estimated-at-over-760m/

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration of US Taxpayers.
http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-u-s-taxpayers

The Fiscal Costs of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the US taxpayer
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

US Immigration: How Long Does the US Citizenship Process Take?
http://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-citizenship/how-long-does-the-us-citizenship-process-take/

Reagan and Bush Offer no Precedent for Obama's Amnesty Order
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/the-weak-argument

Invasion America?

Border Run to Nowhere: Children Being Dumped on the US Border

President Obama calls it a "humanitarian crisis". Others are calling it a travesty of monumental proportions or disaster in the making. What am I referring to? I am referring to the hordes of children crossing our southern border, mostly unaccompanied and all of them illegally. According to sources, approximately 60,000 have been picked up by US Authorities; 47,000 in the previous eight months. However, some 90,000 are expected to cross the border by the end of year. So, just who are these kids; where are they coming from; and why are they coming?

Most of those crossing the border, approximately 90%, are from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, although a few are coming from Mexico. 83% of the 60,000 are 14 and under. 77% of them are male. Some are as young as 4 years of age and there's been reports a children no older than nine months old. The crossings represent a 92% increase over last year. What's prompting the mass exodus from Central America, however, is not quite as clear. Why are their parents abandoning them?

Some are alleging that the surge is the result of smugglers posing as "agencies". Radio and TV commercials are airing in Central America, stating that because of Obama's amnesty for children of illegal immigrants not born in the US, any unaccompanied children coming to America will be eligible for amnesty, or at least they won't be deported. These "agencies" are nothing more than fronts for smugglers, are offering to help get the children to America before their "eligibly" runs out...for a substantial fee of course. Apparently there are isn't any truth in advertising in Latin America either.

There are some claiming that religious and organizations such the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigration and Refuge Service, and US Chamber of Commerce, all known for their pro-amnesty stances, have been encouraging the surge of illegals, and pushing a "kids welcome" message. Whether true of not, there is no question that many religious and business associations have been promoting amnesty by making numerous false claims about the future of US immigration policy and offering to transport, shelter, and help them to find jobs. The religious groups simply don't believe our immigration laws apply to them, and routinely ignore them, citing "religious sanctuary". Of course, the smugglers are offering the same services, though the jobs are generally in sweat shops working, farm fields, and living in inhumane conditions. Lastly, even the governments where these illegal immigrants are coming have been promoting their own "run for border" projects. Pamphlets have available at certain government offices explaining the ins and outs of crossing the border and what to do if caught.

Apologists for amnesty claim the "real" reason for the dramatic upturn, especially for the children, is due to an increase in activity and violence by the drug cartels, a lack of economic opportunities, corrupt governments, along with additional military and police abuse of the poor. While there are certainly a lack of opportunities, largely the result of the failure to develop a middle class due to centuries old collusion between large land owners, church authorities, and big business, that really hasn't changed much. The collusion has been willfully enforced and indeed, engrained into society in order to keep the masses poor, largely ignorant, and beholden to the rich elite. The drug cartels, as powerful as they are, have mostly left the people alone. Many of the peasants work for the drug cartels in one fashion or another to help support their families. As for the government, the military, and the police, corruption is basically a way of life. Once again, nothing new here.

So what's the leader of a declining world superpower to do? Well, how about bribery for starters? Vice President Biden, in one his rare sighting, headed to Central America for a economic trade conference. Added to the agenda, was a discussion about ending these false "amnesty for kids" claims and to get their governments onboard. To help "persuade" them, the Obama Administration will be handling out $100 million dollars to these countries to take back their children. As for the older kids, it shouldn't be much of a problem getting them back to the families, however, the younger children will present a much tougher task.

In addition, the Obama Administration will be setting aside $161.5 million dollars this year for the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) for "the region's most pressing security and governance challenges". The plan also includes an increase in US aid. Honduras gets $18.5 million, while Guatemala will be receiving $40 million and El Salvador will be getting $25 million; all for internal social programs like youth crime prevention and gang prevention (as if we don't have underfunded programs here dealing with the same issues). It's good to be king. Better to be an extortionist of a king. Better for both if it's not their money.

Meanwhile, US authorities are scrambling to find ways to deal with the masses of these willful orphans; many of whom have nothing but the clothes of their back. The majority are currently being held in various government facilities along the border area, with some now being transferred to other locations deeper in the US for processing. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently taken over the matter from the Office of Refugee Settlement. Thus far, this has costs taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars more the previously budgeted $2.28 billion dollars. The US already has in the neighborhood of 12 million illegal residents now living in the here.

The Obama Administration has issued $2 million dollars in grants to cover the costs for up to 100 attorneys and paralegals to represent these children in immigration courts set up in 29 cities including San Antonio, Miami, Tucson, and New York City. However, movement of these children out of the border areas will likely be touted in Central America as "proof" that the children are being processed to stay in the US rather, in fact, being processed for their return.

According to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report of 2013 to Congress, there are 610,000 homeless individuals living in the United States. Of these, approximately 213,344 are completely without any form of shelter; one forth of these are children. That's 1 in 45 that is or will be homeless. The largest food charity agency in America, Feeding America, states that 49 million individuals in this country doesn't get adequate nutrition. Of these, 15.9 million children are living in situations where food is sometimes unavailable. The influx of these children, most unable to speak or understand English and having little knowledge of possible relatives (if any at all), puts them a even greater risk.

Illegal immigration is already costing US taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars while staining our national safety net for legitimate citizens to the breaking point. If the federal government had acted over a decade ago when the American People overwhelmingly and consistently demanded the southern border be secured; that additional funds be allotted to protect the border (including stationing US reserve troops); prohibit taxpayer services to those here illegally; major fines for those hiring illegal immigrants, including suspending their business licenses or closing them down for repeat offences; and finally, for a serious and comprehensive immigration plan, this would not be happening. Meanwhile, while Biden bribes the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to take back their children: Obama spits and sputters; and Congress continues it pitiful performance, can we at least get the consulates throughout Latin America to do their own radio and television spots urging these desperate parents to hold on to their children? After all, that would be the humanitarian thing to do wouldn't it?


US to open new immigrant family detention center
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/263986271.html


White House to spend millions to curb undocumented children crossing border
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/politics/us-central-american-immigration/


Illegal Immigrants Treated Better Than Homeless In US
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/17/Illegal-Immigrants-Treated-Better-Than-Homeless-in-US


Humphries: Exclusive interview with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpiao
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/humphries-exclusive-inteview-arizona-sheriff-joe-a/

Driver's Licenses for Illegal Immigrants

So far, some eight states have approved allowing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants (Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Illinois, and of course, California). Kentucky is trying to become number nine. Democratic legislators have introduced House Bill 396 which would allow illegal immigrants the opportunity to apply for a driver's permit (either given in their native language or with a translator they provide), and if they successfully pass the written portion (also given in either their native language or with the help of a personally provided translator) and then go on to pass the driving portion (with someone in the car with the driver to, again, "translate"); a privilege now afforded only to legal residents of the US and Commonwealth of Kentucky. Gone would be another legal barrier to follow existing, but often ignored or unenforced state and federal laws; thus blurring the distinction between legal and illegal residency.

Currently, most illegal immigrants are flocking to Washington, Utah, and New Mexico, which have become meccas for fraudulent document brokers, human smugglers, and other criminal elements. While Maryland is considered allowing illegal aliens the opportunity to obtain a driver's license, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has expressed deep concern over granting legitimacy to individuals who are in violation of US laws, has indicted that she will begin taking steps to revoke the 2003 state laws. Meanwhile, states which has enacted tougher laws in general against illegal immigrants, have seen substantial drops in applications, along with an exodus of individuals thought to be in the state illegally. With this, there has also been drops in applications for taxpayer based programs. The result being considerable savings to taxpayers. Meanwhile, other states, such North Carolina, which originally considered allowing driver's licenses being issued, have now reversed direction, and will require proof of residency in the future. Their license currently includes a pink stripe to indicates the holder's may not use the license as a valid form of identification.

In most states, including Kentucky, all drivers are required to obtain and keep current auto insurance. In Illinois, a state which mandates auto insurance for instance, there are approximately 250,000 illegal immigrants currently on the road. There is an estimated 80,000 accidents caused by uninsured illegal immigrants, resulting in $660 million dollars in damage according to the Highway Safety Coalition as reported in a article in Yahoo! News dated January 27, 2013. According to a Los Angeles Times article dated January 16, 2013 by Ben Poston, illegal immigrants are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident according to a report by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. California has the highest number of illegal immigrants. This, of course, begs the question: how will states enforce their mandatory insurance laws given the nature of driver's illegal, and often transitory status as well as language barriers since many illegal immigrants refuse to learn English? The result will likely lead to higher insurance rates for drivers in general as costs are merely passed along to cover the damaged caused by uninsured drivers.

Then there is the nature of the drivers license itself. Most states (and even the federal government) accepts driver's licenses as legal identification cards. This in itself allows the holder to easier access to renting apartments, obtaining jobs by providing proof of identity on I-9 forms, applying for grants and taxpayer based services, opening banking and savings accounts, cashing checks, buying guns or airplane tickets, renting cars, entering secure buildings such as court houses, obtaining prescriptions, and much more. In short, the line becomes blurred between legal and illegal status. So, who are some of those pushing for the "all-but-legal" status of illegal immigrants?

Well, to be sure, most are liberals and mostly Democrat. However, many are also religious groups. In Connecticut for instance, the leading group is Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut ("CONECT"), which is allegedly comprised of some 200 activists and based in New Haven. In Kentucky, it's Kentucky Jobs with Justice located in Louisville and the Kentucky Council of Churches, which is in Lexington and, of course, the Kentucky ACLU.

Kentucky residents opposed to House Bill 396, are encouraged to call the toll free number 1-800-372-7181 to voice their disapproval. They are also strongly encouraged to click onto the House Bill link below to go to the home pages of the bill's sponsors to register their disapproval. However, Kentucky residents are urged to do so quickly before the bill moves on.

Can Illegal Immigrants Get Auto Insurance?
http://www.autoinsurance.org/can-illegal-immigrants-get-auto-insurance/

Should Illegal Immigrants be able to obtain a Driver's License in the US?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-illegal-immigrants-be-able-to-obtain-drivers-licenses-in-the-u-s

Pink Strip of NC driver's license for illegal immigrants
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/21/pink-stripe-on-nc-driver-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-has-some-concerned/?intcmp=obinsite

2013 Kentucky House Bill 396
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13RS/HB396.htm

Illegal Immigration Rekindled

Obama's assault on the Conservative Right continues unabated. Already in disarray following the election, Obama's "do nothing" approach to the economy, resulting in increased taxes on the already cash strapped middle class, was followed by a full out attack on the 2nd Amendment under the guise of controlling "gun violence". The next prong was pushing for amnesty of the estimated 11 - 12 million illegal aliens in the States (some estimates put the number as high as 40 million).

The first phase of the "money for nothing" amnesty program was proposed by the so-called "Gang of Eight", a bipartisan committee comprised of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), all from states with heavy Hispanic populations. Their plan called for the immediate amnesty of illegal aliens now living in the US (and who knows how many more who will try to slip in before it takes affect) by registering with the federal government. They will have to pay a unspecified fine (what if they can't? Will it be waived?), pay back taxes (based on what? Employers will deny they every worked for them to avoid fines and/or public humiliation, and besides, it was mostly cash under the table). They will then have to undergo a criminal background check. Those that come back positive will allegedly not be able to go forward but there's most likely a good behavior or "don't-make-me-count-to-three" loophole to be built in. Meanwhile, they would remain eligible to draw from the public trough.

All this earns them a probationary status (can it be renewed? If so, for how long?). Meanwhile, they are to "go to back of the line" while awaiting reviewing of the applications; pass additional background checks such as employment history; pay any additional taxes just like any other immigrant (or citizen would), and finally, become proficient in English and civics. If they make it this far, they get the coveted "green card". Now, realistically, how many of you think 11 -12 million people are going to voluntarily do this? The final piece of their recommendation was strengthen the border regions to reduce further illegal crossing (that was supposed to happen decades ago as some of you may recall. Congress and the Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II ignored us instead). Common sense should tell you that there will be a mass influx prior to the implementation of this plan just like when happened when Reagan provided amnesty to the estimated 3 or so million illegal aliens in America in 1986. You will also likely see a further increase for "humanitarian" reasons, such as separation of families (what constitutes "family"? Cousins? Great uncles and aunts? Step or adopted families?).

Meanwhile, Obama has started a personal offensive to demand immediate legalization. Part of this has been the deliberate speaking Hispanic crowds, especially children and young adults; nothing plays better to the camera than children. Obama has already overstepped this executive authority by issuing a directive last year allowing children of illegal immigrants, who are working and/or currently enrolled (though not necessarily actively attending) school to remain in the US. This was in response to his previously failed "Dream Act". By issuing the directive, Obama bypassed Congress which has a Constitutional responsibility to set federal policy on immigration issues. Congress groused but did nothing as usual.

So, what's the end game here? Anyone who thinks Obama is pushing for amnesty of a huge segment of individuals purely out of compassion is either naive or shouldn't be allowed to have sharp instruments. The cold fact of the matter of matter is this is about economics. There are some 11 or 40 million illegal aliens now living and working in America (and let's not forget those here through "anchor babies"). Most of their income is off the books; cash under the table. By legalizing their presence, they provide billions of badly needed income tax to the government. Secondly, the increased population creates greater open competition for jobs. That drives wages down as more people compete for scarce jobs. Unions, notably the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, have been duped into thinking it will improve their financial straits.

Since most of these individuals will be applying for low skill and often unionized jobs, unions are banking on an increase in member dues. However, many employers have moved away from hiring union members through "Right to Work" and "Employment at Will" laws. The only growth in recent decades to union membership has been in the public sector, which is now facing dramatic cut backs due to underfunded budgets, decreased tax bases, and unfunded pensions. Unions are hard pressed to provide job security to the members they already have. The end result for many of these workers may be paying out union dues from their already near poverty level wages for non-existed job security. Meanwhile, unions need to seriously re-evaluated their short and long term relevance.

Lastly, but no less importantly, many of these newly emancipated immigrants will see Obama as their "Lincoln". The result will be a mass influx in the rolls of the Democratic Party just a former slaves rushed to register as Republicans. The result could be a nearly insurmountable number of new Democratic voters (Democrats currently has a slight advantage of about 2% over Republicans; however, most Democrats tend to lean conservative on fiscal issues and more left on social issues. The largest political group, Independents, with 38% of registered voters, tend to lean conservative on most issues with some exceptions on social issues). In addition, this could throw states with large Hispanic populations but Republican controlled governments (either governorships and/or state legislatures) to the Democrats. By adding even 7 or 8 million new voters to their rolls, this could be a knockout punch for the GOP.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has shown itself to be woefully inept when it comes to reaching out to Hispanics (a largely conservative population) to the point where they are even losing their traditional Cuban-American base. Women and other minorities, mostly blacks and Asians, have also shied away from the GOP in near record numbers. Even with Obama's largely anti-Israel stance, American Jews still embrace the Democratic Party along with the majority of young college age voters. In 10 years or less, Republicans could become as scarce as white elephants (had to throw that in).

Americans are a welcoming people. But they are also a people who love and respect the rule of law and fair play. When someone's first act is a violation of our laws; when they jump ahead of people following the rules; when they take from our system without contributing back into the system, it leaves a very bad and lingering taste on their mouths. One that will not go away any time soon regardless of what some piece of legislation or demagogue says. The best solution is permit a probationary status for illegal immigrants while their applications are processed behind those who are doing it legally so that they can start paying into the system they've been taking from. They need to accept that Americans speak English. Learning it and civics should be mandatory for anyone applying for a green card. Until then, don't accept excuses like "I don't speak or understand English".

Meanwhile, employers should be heavily fined, even shut down, for not complying to immigration laws. They are simply taking advantage of the lack of federal enforcement and backbone to avoid paying a living wage and providing a decent working environment; in short, subjecting a population to economic slavery. Finally, the border must be sealed. Now. Future violations must be severe and swift. Otherwise, our social net will continue to fail until no one can be provided for. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on governments who encourage their citizens to break US laws by sponsoring existing and new groups whose aim is social and economic reform. Only then will they get their act together or face political oblivion amid social, economic, and political chaos. A little realistic reform now might go a long way.


A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Gang of Eight Accelerates Immigration Reform Pace
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gang-accelerates-immigration-reform-pace/story?id=18354593

Rattling Around in an Ivory Tower: Supreme Court's 2012 Decisions

Over the course of one week, we witnessed what may have been the most significant events in recent US history. On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court ruled against the American People by declaring the Arizona's enforcement of existing federal law was "unconstitutional" by a 5 to 3 decision.

As most of you should know, Arizona's SB1070 codified existing federal laws (laws already on the books). These laws, largely unenforced by the federal government, were given "teeth" by the Arizona Legislature. The Federal Government's position was that a state, any state, could not interfere with immigration , and that Arizona had overstepped its legal boundaries. That was the federal government's domain. Somehow, the Supreme Court wasn't paying attention.

First off, existing federal laws allows a state the right to strengthen a federal law. It may not, in any way, take away from or undermine a federal law. So, how does taking various laws already on the books, pulling them together, and not just enforcing those laws, but actually to or enhancing those laws, in any way violate the US Constitution?

In its decision, the high court ruled against Arizona and the American People on three of the four issues it was asked to consider. Ironically, the one issue it left intact was the ability of the police to ask for documentation proving immigration status. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court, and cited it's decision on this point was unanimous. Individuals may not be stopped solely on the suspension of their immigration status however. Police must demonstrate "probable cause", which is a catch all phrase when police officers really don't have anything to go except suspicion of some crime (like driving under the influence). Currently, five other states --- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, and South Carolina ---have adopted some portion of Arizona's SB 1070 law.

Immediately after the Court's decision was announced, the Obama Administration took the highly unusual step of announcing a suspension of federal funds and agreements related to the enforcement of immigration laws. Additionally, a directive was issued, ordering federal authorities to ignore any requests for assistance from Arizonian police departments on illegal immigration matters. Additionally, the Office of Homeland Security has been order to cease detaining non-criminal related illegal immigrants and focus on those with criminal records (yes, I realized that's an oxymoron). Previously, Obama bypassed Congress and issued an executive order allow children of illegal immigrants currently in school or serving in the US military, an exemption whereby they may remain in America and apply for citizenship. The move, which clearly political, was designed to boost Obama's standing among Hispanics, are expected to the key targeted minority group in his reelection bid.

Obamacare Passes

The other decision was of course, Obamacare. In what can only be considered a huge surprise by everyone, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to allow the controversial law to stand. Perhaps the biggest shocker of all was Justice Roberts' endorsement of the bill, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, however, may have set the stage for the bill's eventual repeal.

In writing the majority opinion, Roberts redefined the bill as a tax; a tax based on a penalty. The bill requires every individual (I don't know if that includes illegal immigrants) to purchase insurance or face a financial penalty, aka a tax. Apparently, as written, the bill was based on the Commerce Clause. On that basis, the prevailing opinion of the High Court was that it didn't not meet the necessary Constitutional requirements. However, as penalty or tax, it could be considered Constitutional under Congress' near unlimited taxing authority.

Furthermore, the recasting the healthcare bill has also puts Obama into an untenable political position. Obama has been adamant that his healthcare bill was not, in any shape , form, or fashion, a tax. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Court's ruling seems to make it appear that Obama either didn't understand his own bill or that he was lying when he claimed it wasn't a tax. There are a few things the American People won't stand. One is an outright lie and the other is a tax, especially one that is sneakily being applied.

Opponents have vowed, as they always do, to repeal the bill (which, under the Court's interpretation of the bill as a tax, Congress can do given its taxing authority), provided, of course, Obama is defeated in November and they, the conservatives, are reelected. Personally, I would their reelection contingent on the bill being repealed now...not later. Think of it as an election incentive.

Meanwhile, attention will turn to how the bill be implemented and who pays for what. At present, however, the bill requires everyone to apply and be accepted without restrictions, financial or otherwise, for any current or preexisting conditions. Currently, there is a wavier on certain preexisting conditions or a waiting period under most policies. The bill, in effect, penalizes those who are healthy by requiring their premiums to increase to absorb those who are not. This subsidized insurance creates a new taxpayer based entitlement, as if taxpayers can seriously afford it. What, in reality we will see will be an increased gap between the rich and everyone else and the continued shrinkage of the Middle Class (America is now, essentially, a two tier social structure with a small but very rich ruling oligarchy and a large pool of poor and working poor).

In addition, the bill puts restrictions on the availability of coverage. It limits who can and will be covered, as determined by age, gender, and race. It also prevents the individual from going "outside" of the system and agree to pay more for certain procedures (ever read the book or see the movie "Soyent Green by any chance?). Now you and I both know that the super rich will be exempt. They always are. They will find ways to get what they need when they need it, even (and especially) if it means leaving the country for treatments. Congress and their families are, naturally, excluded from the bill they believe is so good for us.

Another issue to consider is that how the bill was written and interpreted by the Supreme Court opens the possibility of a new class of bills which include within them undisclosed penalties or taxes. For instance, failure to keep your weight within certain guidelines could carry a financial penalty. Since doctors will now, in effect, be government subcontractors, they may be required to report "unhealthy" behavior to government "health police", who, in turn, has access a tax.
Since stores increasingly monitor our purchases in an effort to anticipate and manipulate our buying patterns, they may be required to turn that data over to the government for review to see if what we're buying is "acceptable". Farfetched? Certainly the technology is easily doable, and the opening could be through pharmacies, which are already federally regulated, and let's not forget that stores accept federal food stamps.

Just a reminder , with the Fourth of July approaching, that the American Revolution was started over taxes. Just saying.


Court Rejects Corporate Spending Limits

Lastly, in what was overlooked by just about everyone, the Supreme Court reaffirmed an earlier 2010 decision to allow corporations to spend what they want on elections, while the voters ---you and I --- remain capped, and all this under the heading of "money equals free speech" as Kentucky's Senator Mitch McConnell (R) has stated. In short, an artificial entity like a corporation has more 1st Amendment rights than individuals because it has more money.

In a five to four decision, the justices struck down a 1912 Montana law which limited how much money corporations were allowed to contribute to a political campaign. The court previously said that corporations and labor unions could give as much as they wanted to, provided the money was independent of the campaign's fundraising efforts.
In what can be only described as a "bubble headed" comment, Justices Anthony Kennedy stated that he didn't believe the unlimited spending gave rise to, or the appearance of corruption" to political campaigns. Yeah, right. Frankly, following this "money equals rights" logic, I am a little surprised someone hasn't considered introducing legislation allowing corporations to vote, and since they have more money, they get more votes! But, then again, why bother? After all, who needs to vote when you already own the game and its players?





Supreme Court Upholds Core of SB1070
http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-june-26-2012?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Legislative%20Update%20&utm_content=FAIR+Legislative+Update+6-26-2012#1


Supreme Court Healthcare Decision
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html?flv=1


Court rejects corporate spending limits.