Top administration officials have directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.
“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves,” said the instructions, issued Mar. 7, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol.
Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by. This is not unlike the Administration in Mexico pursuant to the talks that transpired between Mexico and the United States last week.
Agents cannot use guns against “a moving vehicle merely fleeing from agents,” say the instructions. Now to us this news is so encouraging we are prompted to ask, “If a fleeing vehicle moving at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour would not everyone around wonder why it is fleeing?”
The new instructions do allow agents to use guns to defend themselves from vehicles that drive at them. “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at a moving vehicle unless the agent has a reasonable belief that… deadly force is being used against an agent,” the new instructions say.
However, the instructions also suggest that officers be penalized if they do not step back. Agents “should not place themselves in the path of a motor vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path,” according to new instructions. The new policy “seems to be a response to political pressure from special interests,” Shawn P. Moran, vice president of the Border Patrol agents’ union, said in a telephone interview. After all why not look at the Open Borders advocacy group, or maybe even look into the work that Bill and Matilda Gates, George Soros, or Mark Zuckerberg are doing with their some, new found riches.
The new curbs were praised by advocates for greater immigration, including Juanita Molina, director of the Border Action Network. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, and Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Menendez is one of the drafters of the June 2013 Senate immigration bill, which would boost the inflow of legal immigrants and guest workers up to 40 million over the next decade. During the same period, roughly 40 million Americans will turn 18.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), the top Democrat on the House immigration policy and border security subcommittee, also called on Customs and Border Protection to be more forthcoming.
These activists include the leaders of such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Blurring the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, radical immigration activists depict any calls for the strict enforcement of immigration laws as manifestations of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia.
Speaking of blurring the lines of distinction, we are not sure if any organization is more out of touch with the issues as these folks mentioned. Blurring the notions of racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are catch phrases aimed in large part to confuse or play upon the empathy of those who are borderline in their own personal decisions.
We ask this question in response, “Where is the Nation’s security even mentioned within the collective conscience of these organizations? This is why we wonder if these are noble efforts. We believe that U.S. sovereignty and national security be at the front of every decision up for consideration. Moreover, it would be nice to see this language in these organizations mission statements. But nonetheless as it shapes up concerning special interest groups, lobbyists, and advocacy groups nothing whatsoever is found in the offering documents of these organizations.
It still remains, how can we get amnesty for our membership, how can we assure illegal immigrants Constitutional rights, and the big one, how can we get the U.S. taxpayer to opt for more for these people?
For the most part I believe that Sean Hannity means well, mind you, I also feel as though he can be a bit impetuous at certain times. Of course lately with a trying-to-be-a-reverse on Mr. Putin, President Obama who is lame when it comes to foreign policy, I believe that Barack Obama is simply waiting for Putin to step-in-it which is about to happen.
I believe that all of this occupation of Crimea the sending of the troops to both the Ukraine and outlying territories is far more a threat that an action delivered on. The brutal notion for me is that I believe that Obama and the Ukraine and Crimea are going to win what it is they want.
According to Hannity, “So we got a community organizer against the former KGB leader who is getting his butt kicked and embarrassed and humiliated on the world stage,” Hannity said. “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.”
Dear Sean Hannity:
Humiliation very much like embarrassment are subjective thoughts or feelings that one may generate; however, it is important to point out that not one person is capable of embarrassing you. And ditto for humiliation – I feel that these two behaviors cannot be forced on anyone by another source. It packs the scenario of only one can embarrass and or humiliate themselves by actions caused which results in the behaviors.
Furthermore, why are you using my airwaves to launch you childish rubbish. When various actions appear on the world stage, it is quite obvious that you will use your recently gained power to rub the rubbish everywhere.
Let us look at what you have written, or who has quoted you on the Fox News Insider. Starting from the third paragraph let’s come to what is so hard for the members of Congress to do…talk to each other and hopefully come to a compromise. Right then…we do have a community organizer-Junior Senator cum President going up against a real bully type in former KGB leader and whomever is getting their butts kicked will be decided in the middle to late rounds in this match.
You again state, “The Russian media keeps showing a picture of [Obama] in Martha’s Vineyard, riding his little bicycle with his little helmet on. It’s so humiliating.” Okay let us peruse these images. What Obama is doing is setting a great example because in most states helmets are required as is a license. Take a look at the statistical data where the per annum death toll arranged by those riders who do not wear helmets is roughly, 10,000. (Source citation here.)
Still with me? Great! So let us put this entire ridiculous mouth espousal to rest and assign blame on photojournalists. How would you feel if you were out intentionally on a summer day flabby and bear chested?
The only bit of Russian laughter that I receive is when I see the same person in a wrestling togs whipping some tiny adolescent boy.
OBAMA’s lack of knowledge in areas of Foreign Policy
What is coming more and more, even day by day, and finally we know now that President Obama is not prepared, to plan or implement any Foreign Policy with matters in Crimea or the significant invasion that is occurring in the Ukraine at present.
The implications of his lack of planning are currently frustrating (not wanting to mention embarrassing) as well they should be insofar as it is America as a whole that is suffering on the international platform.
To think even for an instant that America has had a solid position for at least the last sixty-five years which of course is for the most part designed, constructed, and implemented by successive Republican controlled legislation and presidential administrations for nearly a century.
All one really need to do is look at The Cold War. This is not mentioned because Barack Obama believes that the Cold War does not exist. Moreover, we think that it is safe to understand that any and all Democrat Party members as well as those Obama supporters in the main-stream media are exhausting themselves pushing these last rounds of the lack of foreign policy on President Bush.
Notwithstanding the utter ignorance by those who engage in the “Bush Bashing;” we find it critical to observe President Obama’s record as a U.S. Senator and find his own positions a matter of record in Congressional update information. For further reading please see…click here.)
Don’t You Just Hate It when Alleged Responsible People Project Inaccurate Information
An organization that publishes many of the issues that I write about sent me an email the other day to see if I had any comments on a recent poll and/or the written commentary that went along with it; an opportunity that I have been unable to shake since viewing and reviewing the article since its publication.
The article which I am referring to is at none other than the Pew Research Center’s section called, Fact Tank News in the Numbers written by Ana Gonzales – Barrera. The article that is titled, Record number of deportations in 2012 is generally lacking any of The Pew Institutes integrity for truth in reporting and carelessly allowed the article to be published.
The “Alleged Responsible People” mentioned in my title is Ana Gonzales – Barrera, who proffers such self –titles as Research Associate at the Hispanic Trends Project. Putting this title in an as-it-were type vernacular, thrusts an interested or more knowledgeable reader into a position of looking to see if, in fact, the Hispanic Trends Project is part of The Pew Research Institute. And it is, as we know from their good work in other area projects.
Before anyone gets uppity with my assessment please understand that I have already viewed the writer’s sources which openly has admitted to publishing information that was given to them by President Obama and it was in fact full of “various inaccuracies” of number pilfering. Please see by clicking here a more accurate report.
Our two previous posts have dealt with simple definitions and explanations concerning economic theory in particular, the demand side of what we have always been told that the study of economics is about supply versus demand. And to all of those out there who have studied or majored in economics will readily admit that there is so much more than this block one of open market based economic theory in a capitalistic society. Then again it is so important to source properly so here is my attempt. Almost all economic theory came from a great source: A CAPITALIST MANIFESTO; Understanding the Market Economy and Defending Liberty, by Gary Wolfram who is a scholar, academia, and works at Hillsdale College and president of the Hillsdale Policy Group.
All of the other information with respect to the special interest groups, Department of Justice (DOJ), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICES), Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, Explosive Devices (ATF), Immigration and Nationality Act (s) (INS) and the general overall status of affairs regarding immigration and control of America’s borders is my personal expertise. As such source documentation is in my possession with assistance from NumbersUSA.
It should be noted that every single individual has a process in economic theory. Of course insofar as when it comes to satisfaction the number one overall want or need is controlled by an individual’s preferences. For all it is worth some people prefer the quality of Ralph Lauren’s Polo Shirts versus Stafford or other brands.
This factor of demand should be of no surprise to anyone. The number two most often used is determined by an individual’s income. It is not that difficult to equate the relationship between preference and money or money and preference.
Knowing that 12 million illegal immigrants have come to the U.S.A. based on information already established or better yet, “to make a better life for myself and my family” or “to gain more money to send home or back to Mexico” solidifies both preference and income.
Anytime that a marginal benefit supersedes the marginal cost then it has been observed that rational individuals will continue [buying] any activity as long as this formula exists. Marginal benefit and marginal costs are nothing more than when the next to the last or the last unit is at the margin.
Let us move onto how such a basic theory of supply and demand is so easily considered as a small factor by our government and most often is overlooked or simply passed over for anything; albeit, one’s golf game, world vacations with exotic destinations, or perhaps just about anything will do including being involved in some way with the process of illegal immigration.
As for us at The Contemplative Thinker we find the largest culprits would be the main-stream media for not covering or even reporting the real circumstances. As for the nation’s leadership – Congress (both houses) the entire U.S. judiciary proceedings, and above all the President of the United States (POTUS) because he is the leader of the agencies that deal with the problem.
Have you ever thought of somewhere between 12 and 30 million people? The easiest estimate for me was to look up the ten largest by population cities in the United States. There are more illegal immigrants living here than the combined total of the ten largest cities.
Considering the government agencies who are collectively responsible for keeping this number at its bare minimum we wonder who within that array of overpaid elected politicians have and continue to fail We the people…year by year by year. So I just want to leave you with this proof…
Audit Shows Obama Administration Going Easy on Businesses that Hire Illegal Workers
Pres. Obama has made cracking down on employers who hire illegal workers a focal point of his immigration reform plan, but a new audit shows that the administration is anything but tough on unscrupulous employers. According to the audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, administration officials have cut fines by an average of 40%.
According to the audit, one business had it’s fine of $4.9 million reduced to just over $1 million – a 78% reduction.
“The knowledge that fines can be significantly reduced may diminish the effectiveness of fines as a deterrent to hiring unauthorized workers,” the inspector general said.
The inspector general’s report found that ICE sent notices for fines totaling more than $52.7 million from 2009 to 2012, but only charged $31.2 million.
TRANSITION FROM THEORY TO FACT: THEORY WORKS WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS OF PRIME CONCERN
As previously promised today is the day that we make the transition. This transition involves the economic theory [open market] of rudimentary and fundamental postulates such as consistent rational thinking, with self-interest, and the desired act of purpose in obtaining something that we believe will enhance our lives. However, I am sure that we – all of us – want very similar needs, wants, and utility satisfaction to be granted at the lowest cost available to us.
We refer to the fact that an immigration policy with rules, procedures and laws does exist and that, for a very good reason. However, in order for any law to work, or procedure followed let us just complete the obvious – a law is nothing more than words on a sheet of paper, that when leadership, and especially enforcement agencies put forth the energy to support the law as well as the citizenry that enacted the moral values must not be wavering.
We are of the opinion that with the proper means of supporting our leadership especially through enforcement that when basic laws are disregarded, then people make up their own rules unless this situation has the very least – integrity – that is, doing the bare minimum of enforcement to maintain sovereignty of the United States. Please see below for crime within the system.
Millions of people are screaming everything from discrimination to racial profiling. Furthermore, at anytime that a newly instigated program is started and is successful we ask where is the moral values of our leadership? Such as Section 287(g) enforcement for communities.
The biggest difference between American immigration policy and Australia’s equivalent program is that in Australia their program is not put to the mercy of a non-constitutional-wannabe-king who hangs out with a pen and a phone.
Now is time for the news. It is rather obvious to us that 11 million people do not just come to another nation, take up residence, and that is just about it until certain special interest groups get involved.
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today (Please click here for complete report).
I would really like the opportunity to ask Mr. Obama that very question; our immigration system is in obvious need of restructuring, with all due respect Sir, what have you done within the rule of law to assist making it better?
Remember Section 287(g) of the INS Act? This particular section was enacted for the sole purpose for making community living “communities” more safe to live in. Therefore, the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (USICE) where then hired and paid in advance to assist with identifying illegal immigrants and taking them to booking to free up ICE time. This program worked like magic until illegal’s started gripping to special interest groups then all of the sudden – out of nowhere, came “they are racial profiling” and this is discriminatory.
And Eric Holder’s Justice Department led an all out order to stop Section 287(g). And after suing at least 15 different states it was the local police and their states that electively stopped the program.
Or let us just mention E-Verify. As businesses were in hog heaven making bigger profits at the cost of illegal labor BIG BUSINESS originally started with “it is a crap shoot.” And again with special interest’s it was shut down.
Now that they have started to reenact E- Visa Verification who do you think they’ve hired to verify the old “crap shoot” verifying system? E-Verify.
What does all of this mean given economic theory? When U.S. government officials are caught and arrested for letting the cocaine, weed, and/or heroin or cash bring them to their knees as well as some Border Patrol Agents and ICE officials, AFT officers, and all of their management being involved as well then the system begins to break down.
Let us apply added benefit v added cost in here to solidify. Illegal member of MS-13 (major crime gang) without proper identification decides on moving north to America what are his added benefits. Let us start with anonymity; no one knows who this guy is so no criminal record is involved. Hum benefits… let us see now this guy has automatically upward mobility with some sort of job (that an American has lost), does he worry about his latest bullet wound. Nope because now this person has health care and it is probably for free. Oh but wait…our newest member of our society is very hungry, no matter, let us get him some food stamps and allow him to purchase weed with them as well. I think it is fair to say at this point that when someone – anyone elects to come over the U.S. border they instantly have more privileges than the Ward of any state.
Continuing from our earlier blog article, Economic Theory and Illegal Immigration, it is again noted that according to many renown economists, is the notion that they believe in studying individual behavior to assess and draw conclusions for a group of people to be most effective in reducing crime.
Again most economic theory begins with the assumption that the best model of how the world works rests on the idea of [important] of a rational, self-interested individual who act with purpose to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible knowing that they will be confronted with certain circumstances.
In most disciplines and/or professions define rationality as consistent thinking. However economists take a small but different approach. Economists define rationality as “choosing the option that one believes will increase his satisfaction the most when presented with a constrained choice.”
When one looks at the variance of definitions there is not that much whatsoever. In fact the only inferences that I am able to draw is that economists use “choice” whilst others use “certain circumstances.” Either way we have a definition of rationality from both stating it is consistent thinking. We do not have any difficulty with either’s definition.
What do these theories mean about self-interest? One thing that hit me straight up was in the notion that self-interest does not mean or even remotely equate to selfishness. In fact let all of us remember that the decision involves choice, rational thinking, and purpose to achieve gaining the greater satisfaction or improvement of life. It is important to note that this decision can come from buying a new shirt or by giving away the shirt off one’s back. Again it should be noted that in a market economy people act to improve their well-being, not necessarily their wealth or number of possessions.
If we assume that individuals are rational and self-interested, then we can think of a simple rule that will lead us to maximize our satisfaction/improvement given any option. That rule is to compare the added benefit from an action to what the added costs will be. If the added benefits exceed the added costs, then most often people will undertake the action.
Now back to the example of criminal activity. According to the economist’s, they would look at a criminal and say that if she commits a crime it is because she has made a rational choice. Essentially therefore, the person weighed the benefits from the crime against the added costs and determined that the added benefits of the crime outweighed the added costs and therefore, with purpose committed the crime. The practical implication of this concerning public policy is that if one wanted to reduce criminal activity, then one must reduce the benefits of committing the crime and one must increase the costs.
Now that is about as basic as it comes. It is just like saying if there is enough demand for something then people will just about find the costs. How anything as simple as this basic assumption could somehow go wrong is I believe something only humans are able to engineer.
Back to the criminal data assessment. We have mentioned that given the age characteristics as well as educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and of course psychological profiles all are characteristics of humankind; regardless, of having anything to do with crime. But if only for the moment I would like to introduce the rationale of why people do the things they do – or better still is as to what limits will people go to make themselves satisfied with their dispositions?
We can all agree that educational level can assist when time to look for a new position, right. So let us assume our newly paroled lady did not get the opportunity to finish high school. Ut oh! She is there filling out applications when to sudden the question comes up – have you ever been arrested, or convicted of a crime? Now there is an altogether set of circumstances. Most people might allude to the notion of “okay let’s see, we have a high school dropout that has done a short stint in the big house, what gives with that…”
Who stated anything about criminal activity being a rational choice? Tomorrow we will begin to look at policies, and what should we do with somewhere between 14 to 30 million illegal immigrants who were given choices and for some reason applied some economics theories without or even with rational thought.
ECONOMIC THEORIES AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
I am sure we have all heard the expression, “We want it all, and we want it now.” We let us start by linking in some economics, social sciences, religion, and pure fantasy for this article.
On the religious level or for Christians we are instructed that although we may think we all have needs and wants, yet furthermore in copious quantities we are outright told not to worry about such little things; moreover, we are told all of our needs and most of our wants are known to our Creator. Furthermore, and what I find amazing lies within the notion that we will be provided with both our needs and our wants.
Just one step further, we are even instructed to ask, yes ask for our needs and wants and they will be rendered. Notice how I do not want to give even a sign that I may know the answer, therefore, I openly admit to all my religious friends who subscribe to a different name, could you write in or comment how and particularly where the same notion is taught in your religion. Thanking you in advance.
Now on to social sciences. Would you say that your focus is on an individual – or – a group level? Some social sciences make the individual the focus of their research while other disciplines may focus on the groups of individuals in which to maximize their research potential. It is a good thing that this article is not about the benefits of individual versus group behavior.
Yet this article is going to use (at times) both individuals and groups especially with relationship to crime and the activity of being an illegal immigrant residing in the United States. This is definitely where we employ simple economic strategies to give us a way to define why a person would enter the realm of illegal living.
A very distinctive characteristic in the field of economics is its focus on the individual. While other social scientists, often examine the characteristics of groups and use group behavior to explain or predict individual behavior in our experience can and does solidify false claims by its nature. We cannot even infer that anything that happens within a group (let alone what group) can or does parallel that of an individual. Economists do exactly the opposite. They gather data on individual behavior to discuss the behavior of potentially those who are in groups.
Examining criminal behavior is a classic example and a good one too. One method of looking at such behaviors starts with criminals as a group. We could try to find criminal characteristics such as age, educational level, family status as children and adults, race, and various psychological profiles. Then we would draw inferences from these characteristics and try to change criminals as a group.
Suppose we find that 60 percent of convicted robbers are twenty-five year old urban males with an eighth-grade education who have been convicted of a crime before the age of fifteen, come from a single parent family and are unmarried. From this information, we might try to explain how each of these characteristics contributes to criminal activity, and then as most politicians do begin to initiate policies to reduce crime.
We could initiate a policy that offers people within a group the opportunity to increase their education level of …urban males. Economists instead use theories of individual behavior to draw conclusions about what sorts of policies would be effective in reducing crime.
Next within our policy making group of economists move into their own assumptions such as a staunch belief that our world works because of an idea that people – for the most part – are rational, self-interested folks who acts purposefully to achieve the highest level of satisfaction possible while operating under certain circumstances…to be taken up in detail at the start of the next blog entry. Until then…
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “POLICY INITIATIVES” ARE A FAILURE…
Just as our title implies, it will be years perhaps even decades before the chaotic menagerie of Obama’s sometimes held close to the breast pocket, without very many people in Washington D.C, or clearly elsewhere having even the slightest bit of knowledge of what this man has been capable of doing.
Far be it from me, who says that everything done on domestic improvements within the Nation should as a matter of due-diligence be directed toward the American people if, for nothing else, the very feedback the president’s advisors, policy experts, and need based function people (perhaps even unknown) can render their reasons for public policy enhancements or how about “shovel ready jobs.”
I will admittedly agree that if as in the 1970s one was being charged $95.00 per toilet seat when the real cost was $1.50 and so forth with nails, and just about every government contract, without proper checking either through one’s “people” or making sure the matters are well in control. There can be only a few words that can simply identify that incompetence, and corruption is the first that comes to mind.
I also openly admit that through The Heritage Foundation and their distinguished blog, The Foundry, information is now being released. As for me I am not sure if this man and those he surrounds himself with are really as stupid as they have proven they are, it just seems to me that imagine that you are the President. And you have worked for months coming up with the name which was The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that he knew well in advance he would be needing the funds. I am only able to cover a portion of these findings, however, I will post another page if you care to see what this person has done.
As a follow up to the Green Graveyard overview, this post provides additional information concerning the funding for each of the now-bankrupt green energy companies. In one of the most extensive compilations to date, Heritage has identified 19 bankrupt green energy companies that were unable to succeed even with the government’s promise to provide generous financial assistance totaling a whopping $2.6 billion.
1. Abound Solar: George W. Bush’s Administration first offered this Colorado-based company federal assistance in 2007 to the tune of $3 million as well as a $400 million loan guarantee. Before announcing bankruptcy in June 2012, Abound was promised an additional $374.6 million from the Obama Administration. The company was also offered $12.6 million in federal tax credits. During its short-lived heyday, Abound received the distinction of ranking 17th out of “100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America.”
Government’s Bad Bet: $ 790.3 million
2. Solyndra: Despite the fact that Vice President Joe Biden once hailed this now-infamous company and its $535 million loan guarantee as an “unprecedented investment this Administration is making in renewable energy and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about,” Solyndra succumbed to Chapter 11 status in September 2011. That’s two short years after being offered federal financial assistance. Despite supportive statements and visits from top Obama Administration officials, Solyndra was unable to avoid its fate in the Green Graveyard.
Government’s Bad Bet: $570 million (includes federal loans and state tax breaks not listed)
3. A123 Systems: Having been showered with visits from a host of elected and government officials during the Obama Administration (then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), to name only a few), government funding for A123 actually began in 2001 during the Bush Administration. The company declared bankruptcy in October 2012, a little over one year from the date that President Obama offered this encouraging remark: “There is A123, a clean energy manufacturer in Michigan that just hired its 1000th worker as demand has soared for its vehicle components. Companies like these are taking root and putting people to work in every corner of the country.” And this isn’t the only form of praise A123 received. Secretary Chu called A123 “a great example of how we are working with industries to create jobs, strengthen our manufacturing industry, and help our auto companies compete in the global market.” In fact, A123 is also still listed as a “Hall of Fame” company on the Small Business Innovation Research website.
Now how can these alleged experts, advisors, and policy analyst be making the unabashed biggest mistakes in the totality of their professional careers. Again if you were president – wouldn’t you at least find out who the best most accountable accountant there was to hire. No kidding here gang, I sit and read reports of the staff at Heritage Foundation, it is simply amazing how often one of their scholars get it ALL right.
Please read on by clicking here.
FOUNDING FATHERS ON IMMIGRATION
Hello and welcome again to Founding Fathers Quote’s Friday! This is a little meme that was put together years ago – and now when I look back at some of my earlier articles dating from 2007 it openly stuns me! Credit due where credit is due of course, and in this particular case this meme was originally designed and put together by Hercules Mulligan, who at the time maintained one of the most perfect and well-versed blogs around.
That is when a lot of rubbish began about something I know very little about referred to as “The Illuminati” which Hercules Mulligan was actively (spare time) writing about. Yet when someone takes one’s writing and viciously attacks it, I believe as much as Mulligan did that it was time for proof to hit the pudding.
He calmly informed me that he was going to finish his book and knowing that I have published books, made the request to be left alone. Hey c’mon already! With even an outside chance of gaining the publishing rights I assured him I would leave him alone and wished him the best of luck in all his endeavors.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…” Samuel Adams in letter to James Warren 1779.
In Samuel Adams’ letter to James Warren during 1779 there is nothing more important than what he is actually saying. He states that a general dissolution (breaking down of one’s known ways) of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the entire military of the common enemy.
Further he espouses, “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue then [they] will be ready to surrender their rights, liberties, and their actual ways of living to the first external or internal invader.”
Next up…Alexander Hamilton, who after being at odds with something Thomas Jefferson was going on with, namely precisely what our president Barack Obama has to some measure already done, and now after the GOP launched their Republican Principles most of us feel much the same as Mr. Hamilton did.
During his campaign run against Aaron Burr, Jefferson simply switched in everything be believed in with regards to immigration policy during that time. Ostensibly, what Jefferson had done was started talking about, writing about, and stumping all around about was the simple notion of dropping all requirements of a previous assimilation responsibilities. During that time just before 1800 Jefferson began arguing about the requirements of naturalization.
Jefferson believed that a fourteen year residency requirement was too long, and demanded immediate naturalization (meaning citizenship then…) This is IMPORTANT: During his First Annual Message to Congress, Jefferson argued that the longer waiting period from 5 years originally to 14 years caused the “unhappy fugitives” distress. Furthermore, Jefferson believed that for the bona fide reason of embarking his life to America should be sufficient for citizenship. The important part mentioned earlier was that through counting, Jefferson and his followers believed that too strong were the votes of recent immigrants.
Hamilton was Jefferson’s longtime enigma. Being the Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, Hamilton did not believe that should be given as cheaply as Jefferson was proposing in 1801.
In two different newspaper editorials Hamilton summed it up this way;
In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other. (Published in “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1801—1802)
It seems rather inconsequential, but after President Thomas Jefferson’s first term the assimilation and residency period for new emigrants was again put forth to 5 years were it has been ever since. It is furthermore important to state that Mr. Jefferson a true founding father in addition to Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, and James Warren did not elect to pull out an Executive Order to see to it that his way or the highway was achieved.
LISTEN TO THE IMMIGRANTS OF OLD…
Many times during life’s tumultuous times such as sky high unemployment, an economy that really hasn’t done anything for the last five to six years, hopefully you will agree with me that when the centralized federal government begins doing mindless issues such as negotiating terms and agreements for criminals or those who have openly committed crimes against the Nation.
To just walk freely into our country and gain amnesty, free health care, welfare, and unemployment because hey! they just arrived and need some walking around money. Why don’t we chose a day of any month and open the lines for the illegal-undocumented-unnatural-individuals issue them a US Benefits card and open the door to issue only to them food stamps.
The United States of America and the Congress as well as the President thereto have issued nothing less than seven amnesty contracts with those who have arrived in unconventional ways. And the House Republicans as well as the Senate, and House Republicans and Democrats are writing the new amnesty laws as I type. Senator’s Schumer, McCain, Rubio, and Graham, what is it do you think is going to happen if you continue with your plans and grant a massive 11 to 25 million person amnestyfor those who are not acting as though something that is not theirs and yet gained illegally is going to accomplish?
During days such as I’ve described all I want to do is get home and read “other” immigrant stories – those who have not protested in the streets at everything from racial profiling to accommodating ways to be located in this nation at eight months and thirty days before the newest arrival of unchartered and unearned citizenship?
Please…what cheers me up is reading the stories of immigrants of older times arriving to this country.
No sooner was the Statue of Liberty erected than its meaning began to change. It quickly acquired a new significance from its location on Bedloe’s Island in New York harbor. Nearby was Ellis Island, which during the late nineteenth century became the largest point of entry for immigrants to the United States. In the moment of their arrival, they shared a common experience that became part of the mythology of the republic.
Imagine the agony of parting and the anxiety of an unknown future being very painful for most of them. The long sea voyage was difficult, and often times dangerous. Then at last they reached the New World, and had their first sight of Liberty with her upraised torch.
Most of the immigrants retained an indelible memory of the moment. One particular gentleman who was arriving from Italy, never forgot the instant when his ship sailed into New York harbor and the Statue of Liberty suddenly came into view. He remembered that a great silence fell suddenly across the deck of the immigrant ship – a silence filled with awe and hope and glorious inspiration. Parents reached down and raised their children above the rails to see the Statue of Liberty, “shadowy through the mist.” This gentleman even recalled the feeling that Liberty was beckoning to each of them, bidding them welcome in the great republic that was to be their home. .
I believe that this was the attitude that built America. This was the attitude that immigrants had being what we so aptly refer to as “America…the land of immigrants.”
Not that anyone one of these immigrants planned or conspired, to break any law to achieve their goal – no they endured the process. And before they asked for a thing mind you, they worked until almost death to fend for their family members.