History Not Taught.

By Chuck McGlawn 07-12-2018

The fiction: History teaches that we became independent from Great Britain with the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

The facts: We became independent from Great Britain with the ratification of Lee’s Resolution. It was proposed by Richard Henry Lee (Great Uncle to Civil War General Robert E. Lee) of on June 7, 1776. On July 2 It was brought before the Continental Congress, debated and ratified into law on July 2, 1776. This was such a huge day that John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on July third saying July 2^nd will be an epic day where Americans will celebrate their independence forever. It was not until the mid-1800s that we began celebrating our independence on the Forth.

And why the confusion? Jefferson, known for his stylistic writing, was assigned to take the Lee Resolution and put it in words that would be presentable to King George III. The final draft was submitted to the printer on the fourth, and the Printer put July 4, 1776, at the top of the page.² So it has been wrong all these years. The reason that the fourth stands today is a series of events. The strangest twist of history takes place. Both Jefferson and Adams died July 4, 1826, on the 50^th anniversary of the incorrect date. Additionally, on July 4, 1845, the Henry D Thoreau moved to Walden’s Pond. Lastly, General Robert E. Lee retreated from Gettysburg on July 4, 1863 seals the deal.

The Fiction: Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Articles of Confederation did not create a new Nation. The definition of the word Nation as understood in 1789 referred to a kingdom of people with a similar historical background. Like the Indian Nation or the Nation of Israel.

The Truth: What it did was create a confederation of sovereign States and that is States with an uppercase S. (We will cover the meaning of State later)

Joseph Ellis Pulitzer Prize-winning historian points out that the first sentence of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address of 1863 is incorrect, “Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth to this continent a new nation.” It did not create a nation. Ellis goes on to say, “We are not A nation in any political sense of that word.”²

In 1788 most of the founding fathers that you can name had two things in common. Here are the key founders: John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, Governor Morris, and George Washington. All of these men came to the Constitutional Convention with similar goals. They wanted to dismantle the Articles of Confederation in favor of a much stronger central government.

Gouverneur Morris, probably the wealthiest of the founders. Even though he financed a large portion of the Revolutionary War, he always favored a British Style Monarch. Perhaps he saw himself as that Monarch. Alexander Hamilton also favored a Hereditary Monarch and a dissolving of the States. James Madison along with George Mason came to the convention with a completely written out Constitution. It contained no Bill of Rights and the outline of a central government where States must submit laws to the central government for approval before the State could even propose them. [See the “Virginia Plan”.]

The 2nd thing they all had in common [And here comes the language lesson.] was that they took on the name “Federalist”, even though they favored a Central Government.

They were opposed by State Delegates that favored a “Federation”, NOT a central Government. Because of the powerful influence of the misnamed “Federalist” Delegates that opposed the Central Government” plan was called “Anti- Federalist” [Even though they favored a Federation of States.] the “Anti-Federalist” soundly rejected the “Federalist” central government. The Constitution did not create a ‘nation” it created a Union of States called a Federation.  The DC Government has not lived up to the Federal name.

We are not finished with that language thing yet. To solidify this concept of central government calling the US a nation would take us down that road. So Abe Lincoln, not a friend of liberty in 1858 began referring to the US as a nation based on the Declaration of Independence line that said, “all men are created equal” that equality was the unifying historical background that made us a nation.

Now let’s clarify the meanings of three words. State, delegate, and reserved. The word State is defined in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It reads:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, of the good People of these Colonies, declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, ought to be totally dissolved; and as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Delegate, The conveyance of responsibility or authority by a higher power to lower power. Reserved: in the following context it means the States are reserving the power.  It is important to know these meanings because the 10^th amendment to the Constitution reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Who did the delegating, the States (the higher power) who was the lower power the three branches of the DC Government?

Illegal Immigrants are a Net Gain to our Economy

by Chuck McGlawn 7/13/2015

Let’s do a mind experiment if the “Ground Dwellers” had been successful in preventing the “Tree Dwellers” from climbing down from those trees and illegally immigrating to the ground, we would not be having this discussion. If the lions, tigers, elephants, snakes, lizards, scorpions, spiders etc could have banded together, created a government with the power to prevent the tree-dwellers from descending to the ground, those tree-dwellers would still, be in the trees and not on the evolutionary pathway, that would lead to fire, the wheel, the lever, the windmill, the steam locomotive, the 747 jet, or the internet. And we would not have Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter et al (The lions, tigers, elephants, snakes, lizards, scorpions, spiders, etc of our day) to remind us of the horrors of illegal immigration

Dobbs, Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et al and most people that are opposed to migrants coming into the US raise the most indefensible objections. Their opposition almost always focuses on economics. They claim, incorrectly, that illegals are an economic drain on our economy. By definition, that means that illegals consume more in social services than they pay in taxes.

Even when economist use that very flawed formula for calculating the benefits to the US economy from this migration, illegal immigration it still reveals a net gain to the US economy.  However, the benefits that accrue to the US economy go way beyond just the difference between the more taxes the illegal immigrants pay, than the social services they consume.

Because the Dobbs, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Conservatives of every stripe control the thinking on this subject so thoroughly that real studies are rarely undertaken, or the more complete studies are dismissed by being labeled as “Liberal” or the conclusions are marginalized in a cloud of ambiguity, distortions and outright lies.

However, when and if you ever read the studies, used by the conservatives you will find equivocation on a grand scale, but read closely you will also find, as we did, that most economists agree that illegal immigration is a net gain to our economy.

The most conservative estimate has illegals paying $36 billion more in taxes than they consume in services. More realistic estimates, place it closer to $200 Billion. And it would be much much more if the ancillary effects of the contribution to the well being of our economy were measured. [See example below] And it would be even more if we had a functional Guest Worker Program, where migrants would not have to be looking over their shoulder while they are, at the same time, looking for work, and we didn’t spend Billions trying to keep them out.

Here are just a few of the statements from major studies.

The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

By Gordon H. Hanson

University of California-San Diego

and National Bureau of Economic Research report:

• illegal immigration has been hugely beneficial to the many US employers

• Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction, food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when the share of low-skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically.

• Illegal inflows broadly track economic performance, rising during periods of expansion and stalling during downturns (including the present one).

• By contrast, legal flows for low-skilled workers are both very small and relatively unresponsive to economic conditions. [In other words, the legal immigration established by Government quotas is responsible for low-skilled labor shortages and low-skilled labor surpluses. This is par for the coarse when the government tries to improve on the workings of the free market. CM]

• Unauthorized entry is the primary means through which the US economy gains access to low-skilled foreign labor.

• inflows of unauthorized labor responded to the demands of US business, helping raise US productivity in the process.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2008, [illegals] represented 25 percent of farmworkers, 19 percent of building and maintenance staff, 17 percent of construction labor, 12 percent of employees in food preparation and serving, 10 percent of production labor, and 5 percent of the total civilian labor force. The US economy could no doubt survive the departure of these workers, but it would cause disruptions in labor-intensive industries and the regions in which they are concentrated.

The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration by Gordon H Hanson

• In the United States, scarce workers include low-skilled workers in construction, food preparation, and cleaning services, for which the supply of U.S. native labor has been falling.

• Temporary legal workers cannot easily move between jobs, limiting their benefit to the U.S. economy.

• Lower prices for goods and services raise the real incomes of U.S. households, with most of these gains going to those in regions with large immigrant populations.

• The total impact of immigration on U.S. residents—the sum of the immigration surplus (the pretax income gain) and the net fiscal transfer from immigrants—would be unambiguously positive. They generate a positive immigration surplus (by raising U.S. productivity) and make a positive net tax contribution (by adding to U.S. Government coffers)

In this Council Special Report, Professor Gordon H. Hanson approaches immigration through the lens of economics. The results are surprising. By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy—a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection.

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, says, "If illegal immigration came to a standstill, it would disrupt the economy, it would lead to higher prices for many goods and services, and some things literally would not get done. It would be a major adjustment for our economy, for sure."

From Why Did Lou Dobbs Quit? by Mark Thornton

§ The only national problem with immigration is the government. Because immigrants are relatively poor they tend to pay less in taxes than their use of so-called government services like health care and education, and thus they increase the burden of taxation. We can, therefore, solve the immigration problem by simply eliminating government programs that provide free services. Note: we would simultaneously solve the problems of education and health care by placing these industries back into the private sector.

• Immigrants, particularly illegal Mexican immigrants have found good jobs in industries associated with the [government created] housing bubble. Large numbers of immigrants work at jobs in the construction, landscaping, and road construction industries. Employment in the construction industry alone is currently nearly two million jobs above trend (7.7 vs. 5.9 million).

• Thornton concludes, “Migration is naturally balancing as long as the government provides no incentives like free education and healthcare.”

It is doubtful that anyone would disagree with the fact that illegal immigrants, by virtue of their working for low wages, boost corporate profits (this is the only reason why corporations employ illegal immigrants) and reduce commodity prices for Americans overall. … not just to direct savings in purchases for individual consumers, it also contributes partly to keep the lid on inflation…And don’t forget the higher taxes paid by the corporations because of increased profits.

The other most common criticism against illegal immigrants are their alleged "sucking-up" of taxpayer dollars (for education/welfare). There have been many studies cited to support these charges and in a topic as controversial as this is, it is very difficult for me, as a reader who is trying to be objective, to find any facts that are trustworthy.

What's the Left-Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure?

by Chuck McGlawn 08/14/2010 edited 06/08/2020

Dear Reader,

By way of introduction, I would like for you to know that I am on a quest to recapture, AND I DO MEAN RECAPTURE, the terms “Right”, “Rightist” and “Right Wing” to mean an advocate of less government, as the article below documents. Just as Left, Leftist, and Left-Wing mean an advocate of more government. [Strangely there is not as much confusion about the meaning of Left.]

When anyone objects to the efficacy or speak of the inadequacy of The Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum, it is because they are trying to measure something that cannot be measured on a single plane spectrum, namely values. Especially liberal and conservative values

A thermometer keeps you aware of the ambient temperature. The altimeter measures how high you are above sea level. The pressure gauge measures the pounds per square inch (PSI) in a compressor. A speedometer measures the speed your vehicle is traveling. All of these are examples of single plane measuring devices. All of these single-plane measuring devices have two things in common. First, each provides the user with useful information. The temperature outside so you know how to dress, the speed your car is traveling, and whether or not you are risking a speeding ticket or an accident, etc. Secondly, they provide ONLY objective information, information that is not affected by feelings or prejudice or preconceived notions. The thermometer reads 92°, there is not a place on this single plane spectrum that says, “It is getting warm”. The speedometer reads 75 MPH, there is not a place on this single plane spectrum that says, “You are risking a speeding ticket”.

Conversely, when a very attractive woman enters a room, someone whispers to his friends, “A 10 if I have ever seen one”, another friend replies, “Naaa, no more than an 8.” Are either of them wrong? NO, because beauty is a subjective value, not chartable on a single plane spectrum, despite Hollywood’s attempt to the contrary with the movie “10”. Other examples of subjective values are: “He is bold.” “She is shy.” “He is gregarious.” “She is a loner.” “He is a rube.” “She is a sophisticate.” These are all subjective evaluations. The most subjective of all is, “She is liberal.” “He is conservative.” None of these values have a place on a single plane spectrum. It cannot be done. It is simple Physics, a single person may hold both liberalists often called “leftist” and conservative often called “rightist” values at the same time, [do you know anyone that doesn’t?] but he cannot be acting to reduce the size of government and increasing the size of government with just one candidate or one issue at the same time.

It is possible, however, for one person to hold:

               Liberal Agendas

1. Favor Saving Social Security

2. Oppose a military draft

3. Favor tax-supported preschool

4. Oppose criminalization of drug use

5. Want employer-paid Family Leave 

                                Conservative Agendas

              And at the same time 6. Support 2nd amendment gun rights

                                                 7. Want illegal immigration stopped

                                                 8. Want to reduce Foreign Aid

                                                 9. Want Internet sex sites blocked

                                                10. Oppose minimum wage increases

                                                11. Oppose same-sex marriage

12. Want to decriminalize prostitution

Using issues 1 through 6, the person is liberal on five of the six issues. Does that make him a “Leftist”? It does not, because if you evaluate this same person, using just issues 7 through 12, the person is a Conservative five of the six issues. So, does this make him a “Right-Winger? It does not.

Please note the first five + 12 are all liberal agendas. And Items 6 through 11 are conservative agendas. But take a closer look every odd-numbered agenda calls for more governmental power. Additionally, every even-numbered agendas call for decreasing governmental powers.

The paramount question and solution to the prevailing confusion in the current usage of left/right is: What is the Left/Right Political Spectrum Supposed to Measure? This question is clearly answered by Murray Rothbard, in two separate articles.[And by many others that preceded and followed Rothbard.] In The Transformation of the American Right, first published in Continuum, Summer 1964, pp. 220–231. Murray Rothbard correctly observed,  

“The modern American Right began, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention…” (Emphasis added)

According to Dr. Rothbard, the left/right political spectrum measures the increases in governmental power, especially the power to intervene into the daily lives of individuals and businesses.

Reinforcement of this concept is found in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard further observed: “…we adopted the standard view,” (Emphasis added) let me repeat “…we adopted the Standard view”, (Emphasis added)  of the political spectrum: “left, meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves extreme rightists." (Emphasis added) Rothbard’s  “standard view” of the left-right political Spectrum would have looked like this, I have added some of the major occupants and their relative positions on the chart. (view fullscreen)
100% government ß-----------------------------------------------------------------------------L---I --B---E--R--T--A--R--I --A-- Nà 0% government.

Left  (Totalitarian Communism Socialism Fascist Nazi)                                                                       Anarchy. Right

Note: Because different Libertarians believe in different amounts of government, we have spread Libertarianism over the right end of the chart. [There is no such thing as a left-wing Libertarian.]

Additional confirmation, farther along in the same article Rothbard said, “Originally, our historical heroes were such men as [Thomas] Jefferson, [Thomas] Paine, [John]Cobden and [Richard] Bright and [Herbert] Spencer. As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker.”  In other words, as they became “purer” and more “consistent” in their Libertarians thinking, their heroes were chosen from men who were closer to anarchy and 0% government on the right end of the Political Spectrum, that Dr. Rothbard called the “standard view”. 

Going back to our example, when evaluated on all twelve issues our imaginary politico is conservative on six and liberal on the other six.

It would look like this:

                        These are all

Left-Wing Agendas Call for more government

1. Favors saving Social Security Liberal

3. Favor tax-supported preschool Liberal

5. Want employer-paid family leave Liberal

7. Want illegal immigration stopped Conservative            

9. Want Internet sex sites blocked Conservative                         

11. Oppose same-sex marriage Conservative                           

                                   These are all

                 Right-Wing Agendas All Libertarian

                   Call for Less Government

                   2. Oppose military draft. Libertarian/Liberal

                   4. Favor legal drugs. Libertarian/Liberal

                  6. Support gun rights Libertarian/Conservative

                  8. Oppose Foreign Aid Libertarian/Conservative

                10. Oppose Min. Wage Libertarian/Conservative

12 Want legal prostitution. Libertarian/Liberal                                                           

This exact person may not exist. However, of the hundreds of issues that we face every day, it is possible, in fact likely, that one person to hold at least six liberal views and at least six conservative views at the same time. That person would not be a Leftist, he would not be a Rightist, and more importantly, this person could not even be a Centrist. Therefore, if one person can hold liberal and conservative issues at the same time then that person cannot be charted on a left/right political spectrum. Except when he is calling for more government power, [On those issues he is a right-winger] or when he is calling for more government [On those issues he is a left-winger.] 

This means the terms “Liberal and Left are no longer (as they once were) almost synonymous. This means the terms Conservative and Right are no longer (as they once were) almost synonymous.  However, it does not change the Left/Right Political Spectrum. It still measures the power of government or the degree to which government makes the decisions for individuals and businesses, or the degree to which individuals and businesses are free to make their own decisions. Just because Liberals have changed and now advocate less government on some issues does not make them left or right. Just because Conservative has changed and now advocate more government on some issues does not make them left or right.  Because of these changes, the Left/Right Political Spectrum is a more useful tool today than it ever was during the Roosevelt Administration.

Now for an eye-opening experience lets revisit the twelve issues listed above through the filter of Dr. Rothbard’s “…standard view, of the political spectrum: ‘left,’ meant socialism, or total power of the state; [and where] the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored.” You will note that every odd numbered agenda in the list, whether it was a Liberal agenda or a Conservative agenda calls for increases in governmental power, and consequently if adopted it is a move toward 100% government that is found on the left end of the Political Spectrum. Likewise, every even numbered agenda, whether it was a Liberal agenda or a Conservative agenda calls for decreases in governmental power, and happily a move toward 0% government on the Right end of the Political Spectrum

This also means that on half of the conservative issues that we are listing here the Conservatives are calling for more government, or more shockingly a move toward a communist, socialist, or fascist-style totalitarian government.[Could this be a contributor to the confusion that right-wing is fascist????] Additionally with half of the liberal issues, we are listing here Liberals are calling for less government, and a move toward freedom and liberty on the right end of the political spectrum, toward “extreme rightist”. [Does this mean we incorrectly label liberals anti-liberty when they are rightist and advocates of Liberty on some issues???.]

It looks like this:

      Left-Wing Agendas                                          Right-Wing Agendas

      Liberal or Conservative                                   All Libertarian

1. Favors saving Social Security. Liberal                

                                            2. Oppose a military draft. Libertarian/Liberal

3. Favor tax-supported preschool. Liberal

                                           4. Oppose the criminalization of drugs. Libertarian/Liberal

5. Want employer-paid “Family Leave”. Liberal

                                           6. Support gun rights. Libertarian/Conservative

7. Want illegal immigration stopped.    Conservative

                                          8. Opposed to foreign aid. Libertarian/Conservative

9. Want internet sex sites blocked. Conservative

                                        10.Oppose Min. wages. Libertarian/Conservative

11. Oppose same-sex marriage. Conservative   

                                      12.Want legal prostitution. Libertarian/Liberal

This should not come as a surprise. If we were not so busy studying economics, or so deeply involved in our own special agenda, or if you were not so busy just trying to keep our head above water, if we just had the time to stop and think about it, we would have noticed a trend, that all governmental powers were at one time individual rights. If you had the right to do it then the government did not have the power to prevent it. Once the government has the power to prevent it you no longer have the right to do it. Here are some examples of it:

§        Until Feb. 3, 1913, individuals had the right to spend, save, invest or give 100%, of the money they earned, and the National Government did not have the power to take any of the money individuals earned. On that date, the 16^th amendment to the US Constitution was declared ratified. Thereafter the National Government had the power over some portion of an individual’s income, and the individual no longer had the unfettered right to spend, save, invest or give 100% of his/her income. Notice how your individual right was converted into a National Governmental power.

§        Until Jan. 16, 1920, individuals and companies had the right to manufacture, sell and transport intoxicating liquors. And the National Government did not have the power to stop individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling, and transporting intoxicating liquors. The ratification of the 18^th amendment converted the individuals and companies right to manufacture, sell, and transport intoxicating liquors into a National Governmental power to prohibit individuals and companies from manufacturing, selling and transporting intoxicating liquors. Again, an individual right becomes a National Government power.

§        Until Jan.1, 1971 cigarette companies had the right to advertise cigarettes on television and radio. And the National Government didn’t have the power to prevent cigarette companies from advertising on TV and radio. After Jan.1971, by simple legislative action cigarette companies’ right to advertise on TV and radio had been converted into a National Governmental power to dictate cigarette companies advertising privileges. (Please note, the first two examples required a Constitutional Amendment to convert the rights of the individuals or companies into powers of the National Government. However, by 1971 the American people had become so conditioned to the concept that it was government’s job to solve problems the amendment to the Constitution process was no longer necessary, and changes could be made by simple legislative action. [As of 2014 the Executive branch can simply decree changes.]

Every new power of government and the corresponding loss of an individual right is a move toward the left end of the Political Spectrum, because, at some time along that continuum all rights will be gone and the government will be all-powerful, and “Totalitarian”. That is what the left/right political spectrum was devised to track. It tracks the power of government or the degree to which government makes the decisions for individuals and businesses, or the degree to which individuals and businesses are free to make their own decisions.

Conversely, if the Liberty Movement successfully ended the IRS, then the government would lose the power over any portion of your income and you would have the right to choose how your income was to be used. If we eliminated all minimum wage laws, then the National Government would lose the power to dictate labor prices, and individuals and businesses would have the right to hire or be hired at the market price. If all national taxes that were not used by the DC Government to protect life liberty property were repealed we would have a DC Government that was functioning within it proper scope. As we successfully accomplished these individual steps, we would be moving the nation toward the right end of the spectrum. Because at some time along that continuum, [and we are not necessarily recommending it] we would arrive at Anarchy.

My slam-dunk here is when you look even a little more closely at the twelve issues we covered please note, how all of the odd-numbered agendas require the initiation of force.

In conclusion, Liberals have adopted and co-opted parts of the Libertarian Platform of NOT initiating FORCE to accomplish social and political goals and Conservatives have also adopted and co-opted the other parts of the Libertarian Platform of NOT initiating FORCE to accomplish social and political goals.

But the only political party that adheres to the right-wing advocacy of less governmental power and the Philosophy of Liberty is the Libertarians.

The Truth About Immigration.

Being more confident with your position on immigration 

By Chuck McGlawn chuckest@aol.com 05/22/2019

To get to the Truth about who legally controls immigration policy in the US we will have to dip our toes into a little more history than you may think necessary. But if you are like me you need something solid to anchor your foot to do any pushing back against the DC Government encroachment then you will need this history. There is nothing like history to validate a position.

Most people today incorrectly think that powers over immigration are in the hands of the Executive Branch of the DC Government, namely President Trump. Even Small Government Conservatives believe the DC Government Legislators hold power over immigration. And given the “laws passed” the headlines generated, and the news stories that have been written over the past 137years it is no surprise why the confusion prevails. However, I would like to make the case; that the powers over immigration morphed from control by each State to the DC Government through steps that were completely unlawful.

Let us demonstrate this position with a thought experiment:  Fred knows that Bob is going on a very extended vacation to the Bahamas. When Bob departs Fred moves into Bob’s house telling the immediate neighbors that he is house-sitting. The other neighbors just think someone new has moved into the neighborhood. People see Fred coming and going from the house for two years and no one suspects that Fred is doing anything wrong.

For two years Fred exercises powers of ownership that he does not legally hold. No one complains, no one stakes a claim on the powers that Fred has usurped. When Bob returns from his two-year vacation and finds Fred living in his house, does Bob have to go to court to evict Fred? No. Bob merely reports a trespass violation to the proper authorities and Fred is taken out and perhaps jailed. That is maybe what should happen to the DC Government violators.

If the anti-immigration folks will pause for a time from their calls for more immigration control, and absorb a short lesson we will clear any confusion as to who has the real power over immigration policies. On October 19, 1781, The British surrender to the Continental Army at Yorktown. [Yes, we have to go back that far.] On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris is signed ending the War of Independence That Treaty converted the thirteen British colonies into thirteen independent self-governing States. [read "States" here as independent Countries.]

Even before the surrender these thirteen British Colonies combined in an effort to knit themselves into a Confederation drafted and approved the "Articles of Confederation". This first attempt at a Confederation was not completely functional. 

After the Treaty of Paris was signed a Constitutional Convention was scheduled to fix the Articles of Confederation. The Convention was attended mainly by two groups. There were Government Limiters hereafter called GL. They favored a limited Federation, and they were real Federalists. However, the Government Growers hereafter called GG favored a controlling strong Central Government but they called themselves "Federalist". The State Delegates debated many issues. Most of what the GG (calling themselves Federalist)  proposed were soundly rejected by the State Delegates, and therefore, the GL prevailed, and the thirteen States ratified a "federal" Constitution as we can read it today. 

In the Constitution, no powers over immigration were delegated to the Executive Branch. Additionally, no powers over immigration were delegated to the Supreme Court. [Now stay with me here.] This may be new to you. The powers over immigration were not even delegated to the DC Government Legislature. In other words, in 1787 the only governing powers were held by the States, and the States were not willing to delegate any powers over immigration to the DC Government.

In the Constitution, there are just seven words in Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 where the States delegated the only power over people coming to the United States to the DC Government. The power they delegated to the DC Government Legislators was, "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization," [That is all that is said in the Constitution about people migrating to the US.] And let me remind you here about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (part of the bill of rights) clearly says, [read this slowly and thoughtfully.] "The powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

At this point, I am sure some will say, “Between 1789 and today there must have been some laws passed, or some Supreme Court case decisions that conferred some powers over immigration to the DC Government.” That, gentle reader, is not the case. What has just been described is the period of time that Fred was living in Bob’s house without authority. 

The DC Government has been exercising powers over immigration without authority. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, in 1882 the DC Government Legislators passed the first unconstitutional immigration law. And there was no Bob to say get out of my house. Please note that was almost one Century, almost 100 years with States the only holders of power over immigration.

Bob was not around to remind the States of their powers. You see, the States being very jealous of their powers had included in the Constitution a guarantee that the DC Government would not usurp state powers. That protection can be found in Article VI of the Constitution. It states that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are null and void and have no power if they were not passed in "pursuance to the Constitution". This means that laws passed by the DC government legislators and signed by the President HAVE NO POWER if the law extends the DC Government's power into an area that had not been a power delegated by the States to the DC Government during ratification. Read it for yourself in Article VI of the Constitution.

Now dear reader there is a way around that limitation. If the people of the US really want powers over immigration to shift from the States to the DC Government the Constitution included in Article V the steps necessary to AMEND  the Constitution. No such amendment has been submitted or ratified by the States.

I am sure the anti-immigration folks will continue to rant about the horrors of "illegal immigration. But I am hoping that they will recognize that it is they who are advocating lawlessness; because none of the three branches of the DC Government have any powers over immigration.

In conclusion, the ONLY legal powers over immigration are State powers, PERIOD. It is time for Bob to come home and discover Fred exercising ownership powers where none exists. It is time that powers over immigration are returned to the States. Think about it, if the power over immigration is spread over the Legislators and Governors of 50 States competition between the States will generate the “Best Solution” to the immigration question, much better than a monopoly power carried out by the DC Government.

Let me leave you with this; anti-immigration folks are advocating for a government that has the power to give them what they want. However, that same powerful government will also have the power to take from them all that they have.

The Most Misused, and Most Misunderstood Word in the English Language

 by Chuck McGlawn 04/28/2016

Now what are the chances, that the MOST misused word and the MOST misunderstood word would be one and the same? Well, they are. And the word is [wait for it] government, yes, government.

Simple Definition of government

• : the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. [Read “etc.” in that definition as County, City, Homeowner’s Association and Household  Government.]
• : a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc. [Read “etc.” in that definition  as County, City, Homeowner’s Association and Household Government.]
• : the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc. [Read “etc.” in that definition as County, City, Homeowner’s Association and Household Government.]

Please note every time the word “government” is used without a modifier, it is being misused. You see there is a DC Government there are State Governments, County Governments, City Governments, Homeowner’s Association Governments, and Household Governments. But everyone just goes merrily along saying just government without any descriptor or modifier.

   I was asked one time, ”What form of government do you prefer?” My answer was, “all of them”. On the DC level, I prefer a republican form of government. The purpose of government is to protect all peoples’ natural rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what we are supposed to have. Within a State, I would accept a Representative Oligarchy Where four, five, or more people from a pool of experts are elected to head certain aspects of running a State. City Government could embrace some elements of democracy, making sure that individual rights could not be ignored. For households, I would accept only a Dictatorship. “You will be home by 11:00 pm or your driving privileges will be suspended for a week”

   How did we get a republican form of government in DC? At the end of our War for Independence England gave up all claims to the Americas. That converted 13 British Colonies to 13 separate countries or independent governing entities. The Treaty of Paris, “Acknowledging… the thirteen states, to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof”. Wikipedia

   If you search out early facsimiles of the Declaration you will see, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,”. 

https://www.nps.gov/articles/images/StoneDeclaration960.jpg?maxwidth=1200&maxheight=1200&autorotate=false

You will, of course, find others where the word united will have an uppercase U they are the later versions.