Catharsis Alert: Immigrant vs Illegal Alien

This week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she was "insulted" that "illegal immigrant" was equated to criminality.

Well, that quickly brought my blood to a bubbly boil, and convinced me that now is as good a time as any to finally get this off my chest by bringing a modicum of clarity to this scramble of immigration terms--not only for Sonia, but everyone else as well. So, here goes...

A retired Associate Director for Immigration and Refugee Services, and a USCIS board-certified Immigration Counselor for 22 years, from the beginning of the open-borders debate I've been both vexed and annoyed by the widespread muddling of the textbook meaning of the term immigrant.

For the most part, I have concluded that this muddling has been intentional and has been perpetuated by the Left for the sole purpose of advancing its open-border political agenda. Objectively, there is no other reasonable explanation.

Not surprisingly, the MSM and many clueless folks on the Right as well have either deliberately or unwittingly adopted the paradoxical and misleading use of the term "illegal immigrant" which both adds to the confusion and serves to unfairly legitimize the status of an "illegal alien", aka "undocumented alien", or to de-legitimize the status of immigrants.

The short of it is this: by definition, an immigrant is a legal entrant. He or she was properly inspected and entered the country legally; thus, from a legal standpoint, describing a person as an "illegal immigrant" is self-contradictory for it erroneously describes an immigrant as illegal. To be clear, an entrant is either legal or illegal, i.e. an illegal alien/undocumented alien OR an immigrant. It is impossible to be both illegal AND an immigrant.

FYI: Those formally granted refugee or asylee status, a non-immigrant visa (tourist, working, etc), or immigrant status (family reunification case) are, of course, legal entrants. They were inspected by US authorities (i.e. documented), granted that legal status and permitted to enter the country legally. And only if a refugee, asylee, non-immigrant (visa holder) or immigrant violates the terms of his/her admission, e.g. overstaying one's visa or committing a serious crime, will his/her status revert to that of illegal/removable/deportable.

And this: from a sociological--not legal--standpoint, all persons who enter the country may be correctly described as "migrants" or, loosely, as "immigrants". But, just as all citizens are not natural-born citizens, not all migrants/immigrants are legal entrants.

Obviously, the use of term "illegal immigrant" merely adds a patina of legitimacy to an illegal alien's/illegal entrant's/undocumented alien's status. And, of course, that is the tendentious political purpose of many dishonest political hacks and word police on the Left, many of whom should know better.

So, please keep this differentiation in mind the next time you hear someone using the asinine term "illegal immigrant". Call 'em on it.

We are a proud nation of immigrants--NOT illegal aliens, overs-stayers, undocumented aliens, illegal entrants.  Pass it on!

And for the insulted and woefully misinformed Justice Sotomayor, you have the following immigration descriptors to rely upon to define an entrant into the United States: either an illegal alien, undocumented alien, illegal entrant OR legal entrant, legal non-immigrant, immigrant. Confusingly mixing and matching to accommodate your "feelings" or political predisposition is irresponsible, ignorant and shamelessly self-serving. Of more importance, it badly depreciates your credibility as a Supreme Court Justice.

There! That's it. Gee, I'm feeling better already...

Stopping Executive Lawlessness: A "No-Confidence" Vote or "Censure"

Gen. Paul Vallely of Stand Up America US, who is also helping to spearhead "Operation American Spring" beginning May 16th in DC, has suggested that to counter Obama's imperious overreaching that Congress should tender a vote of "no-confidence" against him.

Alternatively, a person on another conservative site recommended that the House censure Obama. For me at least, "censure" seems more impactful, more significant than merely a vote of no-confidence. So, perhaps censure is the better route to take.

In any event, I researched the matter of censure and found that while the process is, per intra- congressional rules, limited to members of Congress, in 1834 Pres. Andrew Jackson was censured by the Whig-dominated Senate. When the Democrats reclaimed the Senate in 1837, the censure was officially expunged from the records, suggesting to me that censure is of no small consequence to the parties affected. The net legal effect of the Jackson censure was nil; however, from a public relations standpoint, the evidence suggests it was, indeed, impactful.

It is interesting to note that to avoid the disgrace of impeachment, Pres. Clinton actually agreed with his Democratic supporters to accept being censured in lieu of the historical embarrassment of impeachment. Net effect: he was impeached anyway, only the second president, Andrew Johnson being the other in 1868, to have endured this shame. Neither, of course, was convicted and removed from office.

Censure is a formal public reprimand/rebuke for an infraction or violation. It appears nowhere in the Constitution and is, as said, an internal creation of Congress intended to deal with its own members--not sitting presidents, et. al. government officials.

That said, for those who opt to censure Obama, the precedent is there. The question is which poison would have the greater impact on public opinion and support for the president. A no-confidence vote or censure? I would say censure. It certainly can't hurt, and might actually further diminish Obama's credibility as Chief Executive and substantively impair his ability to govern or to otherwise perpetrate more unbridled mischief against the Republic, the Constitution and the American people.

My view is that to stem what appears to be a veritable flood of federal usurpations, we should commit to a multitude of remedies. As said, we can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time. While censure is certainly a compelling action to take, we must also think in terms of what will actually stop this Progressive tyranny cold.  The obvious answer is, of course, State Nullification of all federal actions (legislation/court rulings/bureaucratic regulations/executives orders) which do not comport with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Realistically, all peaceful remedies should be on the table and vigorously acted upon until such time that constitutional order is restored, the doctrine of separation of powers is fully practiced, and co-equality of the States with the Federal Government is achieved.

Going forward, the most compelling remedial grassroots action we should all get solidly behind is, of course, "Operation American Spring" which will be launched in earnest on May 16th. I urge readers to check it out on the Patriots for America site. You have the option of participating in the protracted occupation or volunteering your services and talents in support of the operation.

Finally and very importantly, if all of these peaceful remedies fail to achieve our constitutional goals, then ALL other remedies sanctioned by our Founders and "natural law" must necessarily be relied upon by the American people. Let the Founders ALWAYS be our guide.

Postscript: Earlier this week, Mark Levin called on Congress to boycott Obama's State of the Union address this month. Boycott, censure, State Nullification. An unbeatable combination! 

10th Amendment: The Commonsense Remedy to Federal Tyranny

Though I've carefully listened to and read his explanations, I remain utterly flummoxed by Mark Levin's implacable opposition to a States' right to invoke its 10th Amendment constitutional authority to defend its citizens from federal usurpations.

Having carefully researched our Founders' intentions with respect to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the notion that States are not permitted to defend their authority and their citizens from federal encroachments and outright lawlessness flies in the face of original intent and commonsense.

Dubbed by Thomas Jefferson the "rightful remedy" to federal usurpation, the meaning of the 10th Amendment is crystal-clear as to what a State's power is in this federal compact. "The powers not delegated [by the States/People] to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution [Art 1 Sec 8], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thus, any powers not specifically delegated to the central government by the Constitution are vested in the States and/or the People AND, similarly, any power not specifically prohibited to the States by the Constitution is vested in the States. Doesn't get clearer than that.

As for the grossly and often deliberately misinterpreted Supremacy Clause, carefully note that the Constitution, of the which the 9th and 10th Amendments are a part, is the Supreme Law of the land--NOT the Supreme Court or any other branch of the federal government, and, of course, most certainly not the States. (If, as many on the left irresponsibly proclaim, the feds are the supreme law of the land, then why have a Constitution at all? Why bother buttressing the notion that we are a republic? In all matters of law, let's simply submit to the central authority and be done with this republican charade.)

Note the carefully crafted wording of the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Para 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus, the Supremacy Clause renders federal authority supreme ONLY insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art 1 Sec 8). Please carefully re-read that provision. Commit it to memory. And never again permit a modern liberal, jurist or any other authoritarian to deliberately misinterpret or misquote this constitutional provision in order to advance his or her political agenda. Don't let them get away with it--ever!

Also, despite Mr. Levin's mystifying assertion to the contrary, objective research clearly demonstrates that James Madison, "father of the Constitution", did not debunk nullification. Not ever! In truth, Madison took exception not to nullification, but to South Carolina's assertion in 1832 that a State's nullifying a particular federal act/law would stand unless 3/4 of the States voted against that nullifying act. And, of course, that assertion is most certainly in error. That said, in his Notes on Nullification Madison did somewhat temper his enthusiasm for nullification, asserting that while nullification is "a natural right" and is "extra-constitutional" that, as a last resort, it should be invoked but only when there is "insupportable oppression." Clearly concerned about the viability of the union at the time he didn't define what constituted "insupportable oppression", leaving that definition to the individual States themselves. But, again, even in his twilight years when he was genuinely concerned about the union breaking up he did not delegitimatize the nullification remedy at all. In short, on this score Mr. Levin is dead wrong!

And this is also well-worth remembering: like nullification and a whole host of other residual powers not specifically enumerated as State powers or specifically prohibited to the States, secession too is NOT prohibited to the States by the Supreme Law of the Land, that being the CONSTITUTION.

I realize that the confusion--deliberate, inadvertent or otherwise--on this subject stems from a terribly misguided and revisionist education or political predilection which advances a nationalist and/or statist philosophy and viewpoint, but the Constitution means what it says, and not what some would like it to mean.

In a nutshell, what all this means is that State nullification of executive orders, federal laws, Supreme Court rulings and bureaucratic regulations which do not comport with the supreme Law of the Land, that being the Constitution, is, hands down, THE wisest, most credible and most effective remedy. 

Finally, though we've been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all matters of law, for God's sake read the Constitution, the applicable Federalist Papers and Ratifying documents. It will then become abundantly clear that We the People are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional--not the Supreme Court! And not one of our Founders would take exception to that foundational assertion.

     "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very
       dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an 
       oligarchy."--Thomas Jefferson

Tragically, most States are populated by politicians who are ignorant of the Constitution or who reside in States which have been bought off and intimidated by federal largess. And while there has been an extraordinary level of nullification sweeping the country of late, much more needs to be done by the States to restore their co-equality with the central government, failing which the remedy lies clearly on the shoulders of We the People. Will we opt for peaceful nullification or something else too awful to contemplate?

Finally, despite all the preceding revisionist case law and gratuitous political-driven interpretations of the Constitution, we've got to get this right! Let the ratified Constitution ALWAYS be our guide!


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, .liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Just How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

Entitled Canada's Top Ten Stupidity List for America, on December 20th the Give Us Liberty blog published the following Canadian observations about us, their American neighbors to the south. As the article explains, sometimes an outsider can see us more clearly than we can see ourselves. And so it is. Anyway, the need to share these sobering, enlightening and objective observations on my blog was simply too irresistible. • 10 • Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fundraising event. • 09 • Only in America could people claim that people discriminate against black Americans when they have a black president, black Attorney General and roughly 35% of the federal workforce is black (while only 14% of the population is is black. And, 40%+ of all federal entitlements go to black Americans—three times the rate that goes to Whites and five times the rate that goes to Hispanics. • 08 • Only in America could they have the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Dept.) and Charlie Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee) both turn out to be tax cheats who favor higher taxes. • 07 • Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash. • 06 • Only in America would they make people who want to legally come American citizens wait for years in their home countries, and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just "magically" become citizens. • 05 • Only in America could people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists." • 04 • Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote. • 03 • Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major US oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of that in a company making tennis shoes (Nike). • 02 • Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it takes in per year—for total spending of $7,000,000 per minute (with absolutely nothing to show for the spending) and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money. • 01 • Only in America could the rich (who make up less than 2% of the population)—who pay 86% of all income taxes—be accused of not paying their "fair share" by the people who don't pay any income taxes at all. Pretty much puts it in perspective, doesn't it.  So, in reply to this posting's title, the painfully obvious answer is "very stupid!"  And who's to blame? We are! By our inaction and disengagement we permit it. In 2014, let's pledge ourselves to pull all the stops to rid ourselves of the insidious Progressive plague which grips these once proud united States of America.  The threatening abyss of mediocrity, the ineffectively challenged propaganda and pervading ignorance which Progressivism has perpetrated on America must be resisted at all costs. As a greater patriot than I once said, "Let's Roll!"

"Common Core": An Education Disaster in the Making

(Editorial published 11/13)

Let me unceremoniously come to the point.

Objective research clearly demonstrates that Common Core is a terribly misguided and destructive program intended to standardize political correctness, advance ideological agendas, eliminate parental and local control of education, and to robotize our children. In short, Common Core is nothing more than an uninspired political and corporate scheme, not an educational solution.

What Common Core so irresponsibly promotes is a dangerous lowering of achievement standards by “re-norming” (lowering) those standards, thus further dumbing-down our children and imperiling creative thinking, individual innovativeness and intellectual competitiveness, the indispensable building blocks of a dynamic and prosperous society. 

If real education of our children is the goal, then I urge everyone--both opponents and proponents alike--to compare 8^th grade testing standards and outcomes in 1895 with those of 2013. In truth, not even today’s university seniors could successfully compete with American 8^th graders in 1895, thus illustrating how far we’ve strayed from common sense and academic excellence. (In this regard, I urge readers to check out David Barton's critical and instructive analysis of Common Core on the internet.)

So, what's the answer to our education woes? Well, it certainly isn't more fanciful experimentation.

The obvious solution to our education shortcomings is to promptly embrace those common sense educational standards which have worked so spectacularly well in the past! Let’s permit teachers to teach, to encourage critical thinking, inculcate pride in learning, and to promote academic competitiveness! Let’s stop indoctrinating, experimenting with and dumbing-down our kids. Going forward, let educational excellence and academic achievement--not ruinous experimentation and the crass promise of more corporate and government funding--be our guide. Why? Because our kids and our future as a viable and prosperous nation are at stake.

Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) Warns of Civil War

Earlier today on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) assailed those attempting to defund Obamacare with these lofty and inspirational words:  "It's dangerous. It's very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War."

Aside from exposing his woeful ignorance of history--it wasn't a "civil war" by any academic stretch--he may have unwittingly probed the truth. In fact, we ARE, since Obama's election,  at "one of the most dangerous points in our history". But, it certainly isn't because the Conservatives or the Tea Partiers are irrationally pressing to repeal, defund or delay the Obamacare  horror. It is precisely because the Progressives are hellbent to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into another failed utopian state.

Like it or not, Harkin and his verminous Progressive co-conspirators are totally responsible for the historic spike in State nullification actions around the country, to say nothing of the burgeoning secessionist sentiment now sweeping this once venerable union of States. Were we a Republic ideologically at peace with ourselves, this turmoil wouldn't be happening. Sadly, however, we are in the throes of a sinister and probably irremediable ideological struggle whose outcome, while still uncertain, is probably pre-ordained.

What Comrade Harkin and his Progressive apparatchiks are disinclined to appreciate is that not all Americans--especially those who are still alive, breathing and thinking--have any intention of going down with a sinking ship. Only suicidal and feckless ideologues of the neo-Marxist genre are willing to blindly follow that self-destructive path.

Over the years, we've been spoon-fed a lot of crap and drivel about secession and nullification--what it is and what it isn't; whether or not it is treasonous or legal. The short of it is that when all else fails to check tyranny both remedies are constitutional--no less so than rebellion and civil disobedience.

History and the wisdom of our Founders clearly demonstrate that  neither nullification nor secession is treasonous--unless, of course, you are one of the country's ruling elites today who disdainfully view the Constitution as a pesky document to be circumvented and violated if such actions advance one's self-serving ideological agenda and unquenchable thirst for power.

As I substantively explained in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", secession is absolutely, irrefutably, incontrovertibly constitutional and, therefore, lawful. Successful force of arms alone doesn't extinguish the unalienable rights of the People subjugated or the reserved powers of the States. (Note: there's a good reason why Confederate leaders weren't hauled into court for treason following the North's costly victory over the South. The North didn't want to lose in court what it thought it had won on the battlefield.)

Always remember that the union is based upon a contract between the sovereign States and the federal government, the former which created the latter. As in all contracts, if either party to that contract violates the terms of that contract (think Constitution), then the contract is null and void. Simple contract law. More precisely, those powers, stated or unstated, not specifically granted by the States to the federal government are, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, solely vested in the States and/or the People. And nowhere in the Constitution or in our founding documents are secession and nullification prohibited or subject to federal review or sanction. (It is important to note that three States--look it up--conditioned their ratification of the Constitution upon their reserved right to secede if the federal government usurped undelegated powers, or if the contract no longer adequately served the sovereign interests of the States.)

Though over the years the States have been lulled into a condition of servility by obscenely huge unconstitutional federal giveaways, the Constitution can be ignored, but it can't be bought off. As is, it remains the Supreme Law of the land, and only the People, the final arbiters, through their duly elected representatives can amend it.

So, again, Harkin was unwittingly more right than he was wrong. Where he erred was in conveying the dimwitted notion that the union's dissolution is the fault of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Partiers who oppose Obamacare.

Going forward, we need to expunge the dangerous revisionism and misinformation which stigmatize or otherwise delegitimize secession and nullification. In these precarious times, let the Founders be our guide. We negate or otherwise ignore sacred constitutional remedies at our own peril.

Latte? Thanks, But No Thanks.

In recent interviews and statements, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has made it clear that armed patrons are not welcome.

Unlike Peet's Coffee & Tea and Whole Foods, Schultz isn't refusing service to armed patrons, but in deference to those brainwashed unarmed patrons who might be intimidated by the appearance of firearms in their midst, Schultz asserts that he "prefers" that armed patrons not seek service at Starbucks establishments.

Ok. On the surface, this seems harmless enough. Right?
Well, not really.

No matter how one cuts, dices or spins it, what this gratuitous and discriminatory policy really means is that at Starbucks establishments law-abiding folks with licensed firearms are, in effect, persona non grata. Oh, they'll serve you okay. But, you're really not welcome. You're a gun-toter. Ouch.

Obviously, this policy exposes Starbuck's opinion regarding the sanctity of our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights. To all but the mentally impaired, Schultz's message is abundantly clear: while Starbucks won't refuse service to you, armed persons are a no-no, a threat, fearsome, and something to be stigmatized.

For me, the nub of the issue is this: abetted by a cynical and seductive Progressive policy to eliminate Americans' right to keep and bear arms, an odious anti-gun mindset is now gripping our country. And by its action, Starbucks is effectively buying into this insidious one-step-at-a-time Progressive goal of disarming Americans. Thus, in good conscience I cannot--will not--patronize Starbucks, for by doing so I too would be endorsing and encouraging this destructive anti-gun mindset.