The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Constitutional or a Supreme Blunder?

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again demonstrated their fallibility and shortsightedness with their recent 6-3 decision regarding “birthright” citizenship just like their infamous 2010 “Citizens United” blunder, which essentially declared that the U.S. government was “for sale”, which has turned our nation from a democratic constitutional republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy and surveillance state.  

Originally the 14^th Amendment (adopted in 1868) was intended to offer citizenship to all formerly enslaved individuals in order to aid their full  integration into the society. It was never intended to provide legal cover for individuals attempting to sneak in our country in direct violation of both our immigration policies  and defiance of our national sovereignty or allow individuals born elsewhere to evade the steps to become a U.S. citizen while obtaining legal residency via a child born in the U.S., even if the parents are here in violation of our immigration laws.   

There’s no disagreement that a child born on U.S. soil of foreign parents should be entitled to American citizenship. However, should that still apply if the parents are here illegally, in violation of migration laws, and with no other intent than that of securing citizenship for their child in order to remain in the United States themselves? Thus, it appears the Supreme Court got lost among the trees and failed to see the forest much like it did with their 2010 Citizens United blunder.

America, like every other nation, has a strict immigration policy and process for anyone wishing to settle here. It also adheres to international law when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s worth mentioning that economic immigration (ie: finding a job or a better paying job) is NOT accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum.  

The United States also has the legal right as a sovereign nation to establish borders and enforce those borders. No different from any other country, including those from where these migrants originate (which, by the way, are far more stringent and brutal than anything we would impose).

The question now is what, if anything, we can do about it? The most obvious answer would be federal judicial term limits (as well as mandatory retirement at age 65). Restricting the amount of time an individual can remain on the Supreme Court would ensure the justices remained relevant not only of the current laws of this land, but also cognizant of the current political, economic, and social trends, as well as the mood of the country.

One justice latter admitted that a major reasons for the passage of Citizens United was their limited knowledge about money in politics.  I submit they may be equally ignorant when it comes to the cost of illegal immigration and the burden it imposes on the average taxpayer.

 As an aside, in case you were wondering, Congress itself conservatively estimates that the cost of illegal immigration in the United States is $183 billion dollars, up 37% since 2017. To put it another way, that’s roughly $8,776.00 per illegal immigrant annually. That’s how much you and I are paying out in tax dollars. The Supreme Court’s ruling just increased that costs that we must bear.

A second option, aside from mandatory term limits,  would be to transfer the costs of illegal immigration from the taxpayers to the responsible parties. Specifically, that means billing their country of origin the cost of absorbing their citizens. Now, I know some of you cynics out there are probably saying that they’ll never pay it, and you’re probably right.

However, to ensure that they do pick of the cost, we need only to deduct the cost from the foreign aid the U.S. State Department sends them annually. Not only does it keep some of our tax dollars at home, it provides a bit of “encouragement” for them to address the issue of illegal immigration from their end.

As an example, Mexico, which is the country of origin for most illegal immigrates, receives about $200 million dollars in foreign aid (remember again, that’s our tax dollars). Of that, $45.5 million goes directly to humanitarian aid which is supposed to address the immigration issue. By offsetting the cost to U.S. taxpayers, we would save that $8,776.00 we spend on each illegal immigrant, we also give them an added incentive to do more to prevent it on their end.

 As an aside, Nicaragua gets about $30 million each year in U.S. foreign aid. Honduras receives bout $200 million of our tax dollars annually in foreign aid  while El Salvador gets $230 million.  That’s a whole lot of money we---the American Taxpayer---could save by offsetting the costs.

Of course, we could impose a fine of the parents and require them to enter into a mandatory citizenship program which also requires that they learn English, and obtain gainful employment though a "Green Card to Citizenship" program, otherwise face deportation. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, this is unlikely to happen.   

Regardless of whether judicial term limits are imposed or we start passing on the cost illegal immigration back on to the country of origin, one thing is for sure. The American Taxpayer can not continue to bear the costs for governmental incompetence. We are not their “cash cow” to use whenever and however they want.

Issues like illegal immigration should be addressed by voters at the ballot box, along with other long term tax matters. Government (as well as both political parties) are supposed to represent us. Instead, it serves Wall Street. It’s past time that we remind them of that. What do you think?

 

The Cost of the Border Crisis Testimony to the House BudgetCommittee…May 8, 2024

Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on Constitutionalgrounds

Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

“No King” But Plenty of Fools? Civil Disobedience Then and Now

 

Growing up in the 1960’s and 70’s, I remember watching major historical social events such as Hispanic civil rights activist and labor leader Cesar Chavez leading his migrant field worker’s  on a “1000 Mile March” (or "Peregrination") from the farm fields of Southern California up along the coast educating farm laborers about their newly won rights, including the right to organize.

Then there was no looting or defacement of the Lincoln and Washington monuments. No one peed in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool while listening to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s stirring “I have a Dream” speech (aka “March for Jobs and Freedom" speech, 1963).  

There were the famous protests for civil rights led by likes of Rev. King,  A. Phillip Randolph, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, such as the Montgomery Bus Protest (1965/66), the Birmingham campaign (1963), the Selma march (1965), or the Chicago Peace March (1967) or the March against the Vietnam War (1967). Then there was the “Poor Peoples Campaign in 1968 which was aimed at alleviating the economic poor and improving housing for all races, but where was the violence? There wasn't any.

 Chavez, King, Abernathy, and all the others never intentionally blocked traffic. They never looted or defaced property. They didn’t try and keep people from going to their jobs to earn money in order to put food on their table or keep a roof over their head. They didn’t try to keep ambulances from helping individuals in crisis.

No one blocked the fire department from trying to save someone’s home and their possessions, not to mention their lives? They didn’t loot, commit arson, deface public and private property, throw trash cans everywhere or set bonfires in the middle of road? None of that happened? They didn’t intentionally assault anyone? They didn’t even spit on anybody or scream in their ear? Once again, the answer is no. Leaders repeatedly reminded their followers to avoid violence at all costs. They were also encouraged to respect people’s personal space.

Vehicles weren’t attacked with rocks, bricks, chairs, or pummeled with boards and hammers.  Protest signs weapons. They simply conveyed a message.  What about protesters randomly attacking police officers or federal agents? That rarely happened, and when it came to assaults and law enforcement, protestors were just as often on the receiving end.

Didn’t  “social justice warriors” like King, Chavez, Wilkins, and Abernathy modelled their protests after the anarchist, Mahatma Gandhi? Afterall, aren’t you supposed to substitute yourself in place of the message?  Isn't ending dialogue the goal right?

Well, no. While they did model their protests on Gandhi, he was all about non-violence, passive resistance, and trying to create dialogue. Gandhi wasn't an anarchist although some try to portray him as such today. So, today’s protests and protestors (aka “social justice warriors”) are nothing like their Civil Rights movement counterparts. So, if not the Civil Rights Movement, what about other protests? Incidentally, while Caser Chavez was a major proponent of migrant rights and founder of the United Farm Workers, he opposed illegal immigration, believing it harmed those here legally and gave the impression that all Hispanics were criminals. 

There were the anti-war protests, often led by individuals like Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin, and Abbe Hoffman.  in Lafayette Park, the National Mall, and the campuses at universities like Berkeley, Kent State, Chicago, and throughout the U.S., as well as the 1971 Mayday Protest. There was the protests by Native Americans, led by individuals like Dennis Means, Russell Means, and Clyde Bellecourt. They led a series of non-violent protests (known as the “Trail of Broken Treaties), including occupying the offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but that too was non-violent.

Following a notoriously violent police raid in 1969 on a gay nightclub in New York’s Greenwich Village, gays, fronted by leaders like Phyllis Lyons and Frank Kameny, began openly (yet peacefully) protesting for a change in laws to decriminalize homosexuality. The “Women’s Liberation Movement” , whose leadership included Bella Abzug, Democratic presidential candidate, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem, also started in the 1970’s over a number of issues ranging from equal pay and treatment at work, abortion, separate credit and financial rights, etc. None of these protests involved spitting on people, arson, or looting (although a few innocent bras were burned).

In Chicago, in 1968, there was the infamous “police riot”, ordered by Chicago political boss Mayor Richard Daley during the Democratic Party National Convention, on anti-war demonstrators.  The result was 11 deaths and nearly 800 injuries, which include 152 officers. The officers used nearly everything at their disposal. They were wildly swinging their batons and deploying voluminous amounts of tear gas, causing confusion and panic among the protestors and innocent bystanders. Many of the injuries were head and neck related or the result of being trampled.  

The following year, in 1970, on the relatively quiet campus of Kent State University in Ohio, just over 300 or so students had gathered to protest the expansion of the war in Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The Ohio National Guard was called in to maintain “control” over loud but otherwise well behaved students. For reasons still unclear, 28 members of the National Guard opened fire on the peaceful crowd.

By the time the shooting stopped some 13 seconds later, 67 rounds had been fired and four students lay dead. Two were 19 and two were 20. Nine students were badly injured. Although there was a hearing, not one of the 28 members of the National Guard or their officers, were found guilty. As a result, over four million students across the country staged a mass walk out and there was no looting. No arson. A friend of mine, who was a student journalist at Kent State at the time, told me that despite the anguish and anger, there was no talk of revenge on the National Guard members or the judge.

None of this is intended to imply that the 1960’s and ‘70’s lacked violence from the Left. They did, and lots of it, such as the Watts Riots in LA which spread across the nation or the riots following the murder of MLK in 1968. However, the majority of violence, as it pertains to protests, didn’t come from the protestors themselves. It came for the “Establishment” and those on the Far Right. So, what happened? What changed?

By the mid-1970’s, protesting was becoming organized and financed. There were individuals called "coordinators" who were considered “experts” at organizing a protest (Saul Alinsky is considered to be the "father" of modern protests). They would train or bring in certain individuals to be “squad leaders” to lead the direction of the protests, who continuously reported to the coordinators.

They would also work with coordinators and others to create local specific slogans for signs and banners which were produced out of state and shipped in to avoid being traced by law enforcement with other signs, more generic, were homemade. 

Seminars would be formed to help participants learn how to deal with police tactics, passive resistance, how to non-aggressively provoke the other side and law enforcement, and deescalate any anxiety participants might have. They would also practice ways to non-aggressively resist, rehearse their message, and gain the media’s attention in a way to make it appear that they have the moral high ground.

Links would be established with like-minded groups, organizations and legal aid societies, including a bail fund.  Key individuals would be given an 800 phone number which will connect them to a lawyer  on standby who will help with the bail and obtain their quick release from jail.

By the early 2000’s, tactics changed again. Protests became almost indistinguishable from riots. Violence, once shunned by earlier organizers (including Alinsky), became virtually “de rigueur”. The actions of the individuals took the forefront, often obscuring the message of the protest. 

Actions could include trying to block vehicles with your body (especially if the media was present), ignoring the other person’s personal space while over emphasizing yours, shouting (or screaming) the opposition down, spitting on someone to provoke a reaction,  exaggerated acting to an action, using certain words, phrases, or sounds to rally and surround a perceived “threat”, as well as protesting without a permit or illegally blocking traffic (even King obtained a permit).

Physical violence, with the aim to intimidate and demoralize the other side, has also found its way into modern “protests” in a way that would have appalled Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, or Shirley Chisolm. As an aside, some use protests today as a cover for looting, theft, arson, disfiguring or destroying public and private property (which is solely intended to create an added strain on local first responders).  If these wannabe “social justice warriors” truly want to change the system, they need broad public support across social, racial, and economic lines. What they are doing is not how you get it. Mayhem, rather than the message, seems more and more to be the objective. That only weakens the message and prevents the change you want. 

Many of today’s faux revolutionaries think they’re recreating the “social revolution” of their grandparents from the 1960’s and 70’s, when, in fact, they’re acting like spoiled or coddled children not getting their way in a toy store. They spend to much time in the world of make believe instead of reality. In the words of their ideological model, Vladimir Lenin, they are little more than “useful idiots”.  How can you be  an “anarchist” while living in mom and dad’s basement and off their parent's credit cards? The closest many will get to Marx is watching Harpo, Groucho, and Chico on late night TV. 

Personally, I’m not sure I’d even give them that. I prefer to think of them as cannon fodder and eventual statistics. Their ‘60’s and 70’s predecessors were mostly successful with their goals when based on non-violence. The actions of the current generation  will likely result in failure because of choice to use violence. Regardless, if they continue with their present strategy, the end result will be that they accomplish nothing with the exception of alienating people to their cause and enhancing the power of the surveillance state and the empire.  

 

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. 

 An Organizers Guide To Protests and Political Change

How to Organize a Protest

APWU: Our Labor History: Cesar Chavez Leads “1000 Miles March”for Farm-Worker Rights in California

Cesar Chavez

Cesar’s Thousand Mile March: A 59 Day Trek

Martin Luther King Jr.: 8 peaceful protests that bolsteredcivil rights

Malcolm and the Civil Rights Movement

Speaking and Protesting In America: Protesting in the 1960’sand 1970’s

Leaders in the Struggle for Civil Rights

 

Anti-War Protests of the 1960-70’s

1968 Democratic National Convention Protests

The Whole World Was Watching…

Kent State Shootings

Watts Riots

 

 

The Decline of America May Not Be What We Think

I've been writing about illegal immigration for decades and there still doesn't seem any end to it, but that's on purpose as I'll show you. States along the border with Mexico are being inundated with individuals wanting to come to the U.S., not to gain citizenship, but to obtain---for free--- the benefits available to citizens because they worked and paid into the system through their taxes.

The federal government maintains that it controls the border problem, however it does next to nothing, and worse, it wants states not to enforce existing federal laws concerning illegal entry. Eric Holder, the AG under President Obama, even sued Arizona for doing nothing more than using existing federal laws to halt immigrants from illegally crossing the border (worse, he even allowed Mexico to join in the lawsuit against Arizona as a co-plaintiff).  Now it's Texas.

Some states and cities have declared themselves "open" to illegal immigration under the euphemistic sounding title of "sanctuary". The result has been thousands of individuals heading there and immediately demanding and receiving taxpayer funded government services.

As a result, some of the cities involved have seen increases in crime, homelessness, and a growing demand for public and private services, especially food and medical care. Unable to keep up with the demand, these cities and states have...ironically...turned to the federal government and requested additional federal dollars and aid to cope with the very problems they intentionally created. Did their legislatures, mayors, and governors not think this through?

Currently it's believe that there are some 10 million or more individuals  illegally in this country, The majority of them drawing on services paid for by taxpayers---you and me---that they never contributed  into.  Many have also decided that they have no intention or interest in integrating into society as previous migrants have historically done (other nations, such as Canada and countries in Europe and Asia) face similar problems.

It's as if these immigrants want to keep their  traditions, values, customs, and languages while at the same time relocate to where they can receive "free" resources---food, housing, medical care, child care, transportation, and so forth for nothing. In fact, not just do they "demand" these items (and more), but believe they are actually "entitled" to them!  Worse, they expect us---the citizens--- to conform and adapt rather than them!

Remember, these individuals have not come with the intent of gaining citizenship, few have applied for entry, and few have come seeking asylum. They come because they've been told they would be openly welcomed and provided with freebies simply for showing up. The majority of immigrants are coming north for nothing more than economic reasons---"economic asylum".  Bear in mind that the U.S and United Nations does not recognize "economic amnesty". Even Amnesty International doesn't promote "economic amnesty".

Amnesty can only be granted for ethnic, racial, political or religious  reasons only, and then only if you are in danger of torture, extreme discrimination, imprisonment or death.  Even then international law says they must seek shelter in the next closest stable country...not travel thousands of miles through safe countries and attempt crossing  the U.S. border illegally!

So, who is promoting this migration north? Why is the U.S. seen as the only acceptable destination?  

Many of those headed north are coming for economic reasons, so that seems to be a logical place start. The U.S. and some of its allies have instituted sanctions and/or embargoes against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Of those, Cuba's has been the longest, first imposed on March 14, 1958 by President Eisenhower against the Batista Government to prohibit the sale of arms.

In October 1960, following the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship by the Fidel Castro's led revolution, another embargo was placed against Cuba. This applied to everything but food and medicine. The embargo was expanded in February 1962.

In Venezuela, sanctions were imposed in January 2017 by President Trump, for alleged human right violations, but rumors have persisted that it had more to do with Venezuela's suppressing a U.S. led attempt to overthrow the government. Either way, unlike Cuba, the sanctions helped Venezuela's economy to collapse, causing record level inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime (Venezuela has the highest rate of violent crime in the world).   

The sanctions resulted in freezing $5.5 billion dollars belonging to Venezuela. Also, there was a 65% decline in the number of international banks willing to do business with them, with 99% of them coming between 2017 and 2019. This has resulted in severe shortages of food and medicine which the country must buy abroad.

It's estimated that some 80,000 HIV+ patients were affected along with roughly 32,000 individuals in need of cancer or dialysis medication or treatment. Some 15% - 20% of the population no longer has access to potable water during the height of the sanctions.

High unemployment (the result of many oil related businesses closing) triggered a serious increase in crime, making Venezuela the most violent crime ridden nations in the world. Presently, the crime rate (as of 2023) in Venezuela is 83.76 per 100,000. The majority of the crime is committed by individuals ages 20-30 years old. By comparison, the United States has a crime rate of 47.70%. So, if you want a reason for the exodus northward, there you go. U.S. imposed sanctions.

Economic issues have affected other countries in the region as well, such as the Caribbean island nations of Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Their problems are primarily the result of inept governments, rudimentary infrastructure, failed social programs and perpetual poverty. 

The result is chronic unemployment and high crime rates (Trinidad and Tobago are ranked sixth in the world while Jamaica is tenth).  Another key factor, not found elsewhere, is the weather. Due to climate change, the Caribbean has found itself in bull's eye of some of the worse tropical storms and hurricanes on record.

Most of these countries have long depended on the tourist trade to pump money into the economy, but the weather and crime has caused tourists to go elsewhere. As an aside, in 2023, the U.S. pumped $110 billion dollars in humanitarian aid into Haiti alone. Without this aid, we'd see a much larger exodus northward toward the U.S. Compare that with $16 billion in aid (humanitarian and military) to Ukraine in 2023 and $3.3 billion to Israel.  

Brazil is one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world. It is a key member of the economic union know as "BRICs" along with China, India and Russia, among others. Few know that Brazil was one the world's most impacted nations by the Covid-19 epidemic . The economy had been growing at a steady rate of 3.3% between pre-Covid 2001 and 2014. But between 2014 and 2020, the economy shrunk by the same percentage of 3.3%.

However, things bounced back by 2021 with growth rate of 5.5% followed by 2.9% in 2022 and 2.6% in 2023. Despite this, Brazil has seen a relatively high crime rate of 23.6 per 100,000 (ranked 9th in the world). It previously had been as high as 30.8. Unemployment is about 7.8% thus far for 2024, Compare that 2.6% in Mexico. The poverty rate is slightly higher than it neighbors at 24.3%.

Mexico, which has borne the brunt immigration crisis, has the 15th largest economy in the world and the second largest in Latin America behind Brazil. However, for the last 30 years, the Mexican economy has underperformed in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction, and the development of a strong middle class according to the World Bank.  

The  Mexican economy grew at just 2% between 1980 and 2022, though in 2023 it saw a growth rate of 3.2%. However, poverty, while dropping from 43.9% in 2020, still remains high at 36.3% in 2022.

Other countries in Latin America are facing economic difficulties due to a slow global economy (bearing in mind that the majority of these countries are rural and dependent of agriculture, mining, forestry, and tourism, not to mention U.S. and international aid. As a result, many of these countries have expanded their trade interests from one based primarily on the U.S. to one based more on China, as well as Asia and the EU.

However, China's economy has cooled somewhat which has had the expected ripple effect on some of its poorer trading partners.  The result has been something of a unbalanced unemployment rate and largely stagnant poverty levels. Relatively high global interest rate and inflation remains a serious problem in servicing debt and public programs. As a result, we see moderately high unemployment along with a reduction in social programs, adding to poverty.

While "economic amnesty" is not recognized, under other forms of amnesty, an individual must seek sanctuary in the "next nearest safe country" . In Latin America, it appears there is no "safe" country. Just varying levels of poverty and unemployment. So, we see possible explanation for thousands of individuals willing to make the long walk to the U.S..

The next big issue is "who" is encouraging these individuals to come to America. Surely they know that illegal immigrants aren't welcome in America. They must know what they'll face when they get to the border. Are they delusional enough to think they'll be an exception? No doubt the drug cartels encourage these people to sell everything they have to make the long and often brutal journey, as long as they make money.

The cartels, using "coyotes" or guides, charge roughly $200 per person (which is a fortune for most of these people). In lieu of money (or even with it), they are often forced to smuggle drugs or other illegal contraband. Sometimes, they are only able to send their children to friends or relatives until they can raise the money to follow. In many cases, there's no assurance the children will reach their destination or that they'll ever see them again.

Using cartel connected coyotes is very dangerous. Immigrants have often reported being beaten, raped while seeing others murdered. The trip is fraught with other dangers such a injuries and no medical facilities (often the coyotes will confiscate any personal medication), corrupt cops and militias who have to regularly be bribed, as well as the lack of food or fresh water while dealing with the weather conditions and having no shelter other than what they brought with them.  

Aside from drug cartels, there are the various religious organizations, especially Catholic. 57.1% of Hispanics are Catholic. Most are historically highly devout and closely follow the dictates of their parish priest.  In America, Catholics are much more open minded and don't give the same level of credence to the priest's instructions, treating them more like  "suggestions" to be followed...or not at one's own discretion.   

From the 1960's onward, most conservative churches have been dying, especially Catholic, causing many parishes to merge while closing numerous schools and other institutions. In addition, there have been fewer priests and nuns signing up. The average age of a priest in 1970 was 30. Today it's 63. When it comes to nuns, only 1% are under 30 with the average age being 80! 

With the immigration of individuals from mostly Catholic Latin America, it's hoped this trend can be reversed. Thus, they are offered shelter (and presumably legal sanctuary since most law enforcement agencies won't enter a religious institution) once they cross the border, as well as help find housing, a job, help with translations and getting various services at taxpayer expense, and of course, religious services are offered in their native Spanish or Portuguese.  

However, to the chagrin of these churches is that a growing number of immigrants, while taking advantage of the services offered, are leaving the restrictions of the church behind. A good number are converting to Islam faster than any other demographic. In fact, in Latin America itself, Islam has grown by 23% with Shiites outnumbering Sunnis. A smaller, but significant percentage, have converted to Evangelical  Protestantism. So, we find not just Catholic organizations encouraging migrants northward, so apparently are Islamic and Protestant organizations too.

Illegal immigration has become more than a political issue of right versus wrong in terms of following the law. It's become an economic issue as employers seek a cheap work force not dependent on unions and are willing to accept long hours for very little money without complaining, thus forcing the traditional workforce to work for less too.

 Various religious groups are looking to grow their numbers and political clout. Meanwhile, mostly traditional conservative Americans are desperately trying to hold on to an America they see slipping through their hands like Texas sand. Hitler once praised Islam, saying that he wished all Germans were Muslims because Islam makes people compliant to authority.

So why isn't Washington doing anything? Simple. The federal government is on the side of Big Business. They fill their coffers, provide the perks and underwrite their campaigns. Both political parties may pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration, but remember that both the Democrats and Republicans are corporate owned and controlled. In truth, they are only concerned to the level Wall Street is. Meanwhile, Washington and Wall Street will continue to offer smoke and mirrors as our America slowly evaporates before our eyes.  

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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Sanctions during the VenezuelanCrisis

How Sanctions Contributed to Venezuela's Economic Collapse

 

World Population Review: Crime RateBy Country 2024

USAID: Providing AdditionalHumanitarian Assistance to Respond to Rising Needs in Haiti

Foreign Aid By Country: Who's getting the most---and how much?

Latin America economic outlook, November 2023

 

Why are more Hispanics converting to Islam...

 

Finding Happiness in a "Brave New World"

Are you happy?  Most people would shrug their shoulders and say something like "I guess so" which isn't really much of an answer.  But for most people, the question needs to be qualified in order to give you a more honest answer. For instance, are you talking about my finances, my work situation, my home life, and so forth?

It would also be relative as to your situation at the particular moment.  As an example, you could say you're not real happy with your work situation, but then you suddenly get a promotion with more pay, and suddenly you're one contended clam. You could have cancer and feeling pretty depressed. Then, out of the blue, you get some news that reports a potential cure and your depression almost instantly goes to euphoria.

Nevertheless, to answer properly someone question about happiness, we need to take into consideration the topic and timing. Well, the World Happiness Report is published in partnership with Gallup, The UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Oxford Wellbeing Research Centre, and the WHR Editorial Board, decided they were going to poll the globe to find out.

The report, which is published annually, looks at number of wide ranging factors including age demographics, opportunities, health, population, GDP, political satisfaction, degree of freedom, and environment. So, without further adieu, let's see who's the happiest in the world and who isn't!

Starting with the overall score, Norway came in the fifth spot. In fourth place was Sweden. Third place went to Iceland while second went to Denmark. As for the top spot, that went to Finland...again! In case you didn't notice, but all five overall are Nordic, which isn't unusual. Scandinavia is typically ranked in the top ten when it comes to the best educated, best healthcare system, and best government (strictly based on personal opinion obviously).

When the list is expanded, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, New Zealand  and Australia round out the top ten. Notice who's missing? Yelp. The United States didn't fare to well. In fact, for the first time ever, the U.S. fell from the top tier and landed in the 23rd spot, just ahead of Germany in 24th.  The countries just ahead of included Czechia (18th), Lithuania (19th), the UK (20th) and Slovenia holding down the 21st spot.

It's worth noting the bottom third worst countries to live in are mostly in Africa, although Afghanistan is dead last in the 143rd position (Lebanon is just above it at 142),  With the bottom third being the worst places to live in terms of happiness (not to mention economics and opportunities), it's no wonder that Europe is overrun with "migrants"  mostly from Africa. Unfortunately, most appear to be looking for four star rated accommodations and other freebies rather than a job.

In examining our drop, the report says that among those 30 and under, the U.S. ranked a pitiful 62 place. But for those over 60, the survey said the tenth place was all ours (as an aside, the 30 and under crowd are the Millennials and Gen Z while those 60 and up are mostly Babyboomers and some Gen X.  It also includes those of the Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation).  

Before going any further, I need to break up these groups by date. The Greatest Generation (WWII) comprises anyone born before 1927. The Silent Generation is 1928 - 1945. Babyboomers are 1946 - 1964. Gen X is 1965 - 1980. Gen Y/Millennials 1981 - 1996 . Gen Z is 1997 - 2012 and Gen Alpha is 2013 - ?.

It should be mentioned that among Millennials and Gen Z, political party registration is its lowest and dropping.  Among Millennials, Republicans make up barely 21% of registered voters. Democrats are 27% while Independents are a whopping 52% and growing. Among Gen Z, it's not much different. Republicans are only 17%. Democrats are 31%, and Independents are again 52% and continuing to grow.

When we look at Gen X, Republicans make up 30% compared to Democrats at 27%. However, Independents are 44%. Among Boomers (that's me), Republicans are 35%, Independents are 33%, and Democrats are a close 32%. The Silent Generation is the Republicans core voter group. The GOP makes up 39% while Democrats take up 35% and Independents are 26%. As an aside.

The "World Happiness Report" would seem to back this up as it says those under 30 are increasingly unhappy about pretty much everything, but especially the economy, the environment, and corporate control of politics.

Another way to look at how the percentages by generation will affect voting and the economy is based on generational preference for capitalism (our current system) and some form of socialism (likely similar to the top ranking happy Scandinavians).  The Silent Generation overwhelmingly back capitalism with 77% in favor. The balance is equally split between socialism and no preference.

Baby Boomers like their capitalism too (despite their Che posters). 60% back capitalism. 16% like socialism, while 10% are too high to care. When it comes to Gen X, we start to see a shift. While capitalism still wins out 39%, 14% want socialism. Significantly 22% don't care. When we get into Millennials, the shift becomes a little more noticeable.

Among Millennials, 34% like our current capitalist model, although 20% prefer socialism of some type yet 21% are open. Lastly, let's look at Gen Z. Although mostly in their 20's, only 29% support capitalism while a close 28% back socialism and 19% are willing to go either way. So what does that means?

From my take on the numbers, as the Silent and Boomer generations age out, the new power players will be the Millennials and Gen Z. Given the present situation of the United States (such as need to stay on an artificial war economy to get economy going, growth of illegal immigration, slide as a world power, failing infrastructure, etc), I would expect a change away from our current predatory form of capitalism.

In its place, a more managed economy which may include more regulation, especially of critical resources or industries. The biggest change may be the political system. In place to a corporate controlled duopoly, we may find open primaries, easier entry for third party and Independent candidates into election, real campaign finance reform, and term limits. 

While I question whether our southern border will ever again be secure, I expect Spanish to become our second defacto "national" language. (its essentially that already)  The U.S. will start showing concrete signs of balkanizing into racial and ethnic zones. Maybe the "Reconquista" will happen yet.

Gen Z and Gen Alpha may be the last wholly American generation. The U.S. economy may show short lived signs of the dominance it once had, but we will be in stiff competition with countries like India, China, Mexico, and Brazil (all, incidentally, members of the BRICs union). Other similar economic and military unions will form out of necessity in order to compete and defend trade lanes.

For those of us of the Silent, Baby Boomer, and older Gen X generations, the America we grew up in with all its idyllic collective memories  are gone, never to return expect on late night reruns. The Oligarchs are working hard to build a bulwark against what's coming, not for our sake, but for theirs. Their aim is to minimize choices while making it appear choices are abundant; to create a managed political and economic system.

That also entails more surveillance. For instance, while we'll have more electronic goodies than we can imagine, but ultimately you have to wonder who do they serve---us or someone else. Siri and Alexa have already proven they passively listen and store damn near everything. At what point does the illusion of convenience trump  our right to privacy? 

Will our electronic cars take us only to where we're authorized to go based on our credit rating?  We'll also interact less and less with our fellow human beings. We will start replacing flesh and blood relationships with cyber ones. Even our sex partners may come with off/on switches!  

 Our definition of "happiness" will surely have to change to meet changing technology and global demographics. Even "happy" Scandinavia is rapidly changing.  The so-called "migrants" pouring into the country and demanding to be given their free share of prosperity without contributing. I guess when you import the third world, you get the world.  I bet even Aldous Huxley couldn't have predicted this  "Brave New World".

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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

World's Happiness Report 2024

These are the world's happiest countries in 2024

Finland named the world's happiest country (again) but young people are struggling

Party identification in the United States in 2022, by generation

Millennials,Gen Z Clinging to Independent Party ID

Which U.S.Generation Holds The Most Political Power?

Gen Z willchange capitalism as we know it

 

The Migrant As Pawn

For decades city mayors and state governors, mostly Democrat, have chosen to ignore federal immigration laws by defiantly declaring themselves  a"sanctuary" in the name of compassion. However, all isn't so well in the liberal world of "Bolshevia'. The problem is that they're running out of taxpayer money. 

I suppose all is well so long as the "gravy train" continues to run.  But for that to happen, ordinary working men and women must work longer and harder to stoke the economic engine with more of their hard earned money while leaving ever less money to pay their own bills, put food on the table and put a roof over their heads. Data shows a virtually non-existent middle class compared to just as few generations ago while poverty and homelessness (especially among veterans) grows to unsustainable levels.

To make matters worse for these mayors and governors of Utopia is that other elected representatives and their constituents in other states and towns don't want to play the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" game any longer. Someone, after all, has to be the grown up.

As a result, they've started sending these migrants to all those sanctuary locations with one way bus tickets and a meal card. It's certainly cheaper than forcing their citizens to pay millions just to support the grand ideals of others. If sanctuary cities and states want them, then they can have them along with the responsibility that comes with their words.

But now sanctuary cities and states are rapidly  running out of money. They've already had to cut back on public programs which were available for and paid by their citizens. They've started allowing the homeless to live in public parks, doorways, or wherever else they want. They can use public sidewalks as their personal toilets. Local businesses can't keep them out of their stores or from using their restrooms to clean up in. Businesses are even prohibited from detaining shoplifters, thus crime and everything associated with it becomes rampant.

The result is that tax generating businesses are leaving and taking revenue generating jobs with them. So, local mayors and state governors are demanding that the federal government in Washington turn up the money faucet in order to help them continue to defy federal immigration laws and reinstate public programs. How's that for having chutzpah? 

No one is quite sure about how many illegal immigrants have been shipped around the country, but it's  at least around 100,000 if not more. Of course, you have to feel sorry for these individuals---the men, women, and children---for being moved here and there like some pawn on a chess board, to be used and discarded. After all, most are simply coming here for work and hopefully a better life.

But nevertheless, it's fair to assume that they are aware of the risk and what they were attempting to do was illegal. Breaking U.S. immigration laws was little different from breaking immigration law in their native homeland, except that the repercussions were almost always far more severe.

We can only assume that these individuals have been convinced themselves that they were different. That they could evade authorities and slip across the border undetected. Perhaps long the way one of those church organizations who help individuals break the law could help them. Maybe too they could help shield from the border patrol, ICE, and others. All they need to do was make their way undetected to one of those sanctuary states or cities.  

Hopefully someday, down the road, they can stop looking over their shoulder, stop running and hiding, and just settle down. Perhaps, if they're lucky, some U.S. President, while trying to curry support from certain voters, will grant them amnesty like President Reagan or President Obama did.  Until then, they remain political pawns and will continue to live their life like anyone else on the run. But until then, that's a lot of hoping, wishing, and stress to go along with those "maybes" and "perhaps".

We've all seen those signs which read "No Human is illegal". It seems they're always at every pro-amnesty or pro-migration protest. While it's true that "no person is illegal", on occasion their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws.

The countries from where many of these migrants embark from, be they in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East, all have similar immigration laws. just like the United States does. The main difference is that the punishment for breaking their migration laws often far more severe than ours, and yet why does no one complains or speaks out against those?

Nations have defined borders and the right to regulate who crosses those borders. It's one of the cornerstones to national sovereignty which have existed for over five millennia, but today there are those who would deny us that right.  Why should we not have that same right of national sovereignty as any other country? Why should other nations be allow to have borders and laws to enforce those borders but America's be porous?

Europe is prime example of what happens when countries fail to secure their border. The EU has a "open border" policy which allows anyone from anywhere in enter their country regardless of any other factor. As a result, they are being overwhelmed by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Most are young, male, poorly educated, and Muslim. The result has been a serious clash of cultures.

Many of these individuals are under the false impression that they are "entitled" to practically everything; that the state has to provide them with whatever they want. As a result many have become a serious drain on the nation's safety net. There have been numerous clashes over culture traditions, and values which has its basis in Christianity and the Enlightenment. Crime has also become as serious matter with assaults, rapes, and robberies leading the way.

Meanwhile, oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait  have seen virtually none of these migrants despite sharing similar traditions, values, culture, and language as many of these migrants. They even share the same faith--- Islam.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough tents with air condition to house and support three million migrants, and yet they remain empty. So, why aren't these millions of migrants from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa not going there?

For one, these Arab nations have strong border security. Anyone illegally crossing their borders are dealt with severely. They also have very restrictive immigration laws. While they do allow individuals to apply to come and work there, long term settlement is very rare.

In addition, these countries are highly selective in who they award temporary work permits to, preferring individuals with good educations and no criminal records, and while they have a very liberal social safety net, they actually expect people to follow the law and work. Imagine that!  As a result, Europe is getting the dregs I suppose.

The U.S. may be facing a similar situation. Very few of those seeking to come illegally aren't well education. The overwhelming majority have a minimum education. Many have little about a basic level. In addition, most of these individuals are low skilled or unskilled. They're coming for any low level job they can find, which is unfortunate since it perpetuates the poverty they're trying to get away from.

In today's high tech world where companies (and employees) compete on a global basis, what the United States desperately needs are doctors and nurses, engineers, data scientists, software developers, and AI specialists. There is, however, a demand for skilled and licensed electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC specialists, data systems service technicians, and carpenters thanks to the closure of trade and technical schools several years ago.  

So, what does that mean for us? While most of the illegal immigration is coming from Latin America, there are strong indications that we're beginning to see more coming from Asia (especially China and North Korea), India and Ski Lanka, the poorest of the African nations such as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Among this latter group, there has been several arrest by Mexican authorities of individuals with connections to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS. These individuals were caught while trying to blend in with the migrant caravans. While there's no doubt that there are likely terrorist cells already here, what we don't need are more.

Presidents, Congress, and others of both parties have been promising the American taxpayer for decades that they will "do something" to secure our borders, especially our southern border which is a porous as Swiss cheese.  Thus far, whether you like him or not, only one--- Donald Trump----actually made a serious effort, and he meet with unbridled resistance from both political parties, the media, and financed special interest groups with a vested interest in keeping the border open.

We cannot continue to allow our borders to remain open. Not only are these serious national security issues, they represent a serious threat in the form of diseases we're no longer vaccinated again and viruses like COVID, while the influx also puts as serious strain on our national safety net just as in Europe. And while we need to fill low level jobs, what we seriously need are engineers, doctors, and high tech specialists. Anything less, will only continue hasten America's decline as a world leader.  

Finally, no more "anchor babies". To many women have used their pregnancies and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to circumvent immigration laws to remain in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was never intended to be use in that way. It was intended to confer citizenship on all former slaves. Currently, any child born on U.S. soil automatically gains birthright citizenship. That right extends to the child's parents as well.  

In the interim, the United States needs to accept responsibility for its part in creating the situation in the first place.  We need to stop trying to remake other nations over in our own image. Not everybody wants to be America when it grows up. Hell, given our broken political system, even we don't even want to be America anymore!

 We need to stop throwing our political, economic, and military weight around and intervening in other countries elections. That also includes imposing sanctions and embargoes. If they want to freely elect a socialist, republican, or whatever form of government, that's their business not ours (as an aside, let's stop installing Far Right wing military juntas too okay?). Why don't we act like a world leader and come to a civil solution?

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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

A few countries take responsibility for most of the world's refugees

US to reopen border crossings as illegal immigration drops

 

Migrant crisis explained: What's behind the border surge

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

Anchor Babies

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist?

Saudi Arabia Has Enough Tents With AC To House 3 MillionPeople, And Yet Has Taken In ZERO Refugees