Special Opinion to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
Unlike Tim Kaine (D-VA), born February 26, 1958, an American attorney and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from Virginia as well as the running mate of the Democrat presidential contender who maintains that if you have white skin, you are a racist who needs to be cured, but don’t expect Obamacare to pay for it, I am a decorated, disabled Viet Nam combat veteran who went to Viet Nam as an infantryman because I enlisted in the United States Army to defend OUR Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.
As a decorated, disabled Viet Nam combat veteran, unlike Tim Kaine (D-VA), who like Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama never served this nation in a military fashion, quite frankly, I have to wonder where Tim Kaine (D-VA) gets off labeling people in this country, loyal Americans like me, as being “fundamentally in-American” if we happen to question the immigration policy of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, especially with respect to the Syrian refugee crisis, which is the legacy of Hillary Clinton’s misguided and frankly stupid efforts in 2011 to foment armed uprisings in Syria in a bid to militarily depose Bashar Assad of Syria in a military coup, which has resulted in a huge humanitarian crisis while turning Syria into a terrorist-infested HELLHOLE, and God help the children caught in the cross-fire.
Who the hell is Tim Kaine (D-VA) to be slinging around serious charges like that with no foundation or basis in fact?
Is he starting up some kind of Senate Un-American Activities Committee reminiscent of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) which was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties?
Now we are “un-American” if we don’t drink the Hillary Clinton KOOL-AID, whichever flavor she is serving that day?
I am referring specifically here to comments he made made on Sunday, October 16â€™s broadcast of ABC’s â€œThis Week,and which featured Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), where the following exchanges occurred:
RADDATZ: Let’s talk about the hacked e-mails of the Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta, the WikiLeaks hack.
One of the things in those emails that she apparently said in a Goldman Sachs speech, she said, People who oppose immigration are fundamentally un-American.
KAINE: Well, look, we’re a nation of immigrants.
And if you look at the Declaration of Independence, when we broke from England, one of the Bill of Particulars against King George is weâ€™ve got to be independent because King â€” the king won’t let us have a working immigration system.
We are a nation of immigrants.
We have to have a functioning immigration system.
And for anybody whose family, you know, probably came from somewhere else a few generations to say, OK, but now weâ€™re going to put up the drawbridge and not let anybody else in, I donâ€™t think that’s in accord with the values of our nation.
Now we ought to have rules”
RADDATZ: So it’s un-American?
KAINE: More regulations and that’s what Hillary and I want to do.
RADDATZ: So it’s un-American?
KAINE: To say that there should be no â€” to say that there should be no immigration, yes, that is definitely contrary to the best values of our country that were laid out in the Declaration of Independence and since.
Talk about the art of coughing into your hand to duck and dodge having to answer a serious question when you don’t have a clue as to what you are on about, there it is, folks, right out there in plain sight.
In a word, that response is pure gibberish.
Tim Kaine has an Amercan history book with just one page in it, and that page says “Whatever Hillary Clinton wants it to be today.”
So, as a loyal, law-abiding American citizen who believes in Rule of Law, not rule of Tim Kaine, or his Democrat presidential running mate Hillary Clinton, I would like to challenge both Tim Kaine and his running mate on the subject of the “best values” of our country, which are expressed in our written laws, not the words of Tim Kaine of his Democrat running mate.
As to the “best values” of OUR country with respect to the subject of immigration, our U.S. Constitution is actually silent on the subject.
Yes, that’s right, people, immigration is not a subject of our U.S. Constitution.
What the constitutional Framers did do with respect to “immigration” was to authorize Congress in Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution to establish a uniform standard for naturalization and citizenship, subject always to limits placed on Congress by the Constitution itself.
At the time of this nation’s founding, when it was still quite weak as a nation in terms of “national security,” it was not interested in immigration as an issue, as it has become today.
It was interested in securing its borders against invasion, as is made quite clear by a reading of the Federalist Papers from 1787, written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 â€“ July 12, 1804), who was an American statesman and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
With respect to the subject of national security, Hamilton played a major role in the American Revolutionary War as a senior aide to General Washington, the American forces’ commander-in-chief, so Hamilton knew a lot more about the subject of “national security” than does Tim Kaine or his Democrat running mate Hillary Clinton.
In FEDERALIST No. 25, entitled “The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered,” from the New York Packet, Friday, December 21, 1787 to the People of the State of New York, writing as Publius, Hamilton informed us as possible:
The territories of Britain, Spain, and of the Indian nations in our neighborhood do not border on particular States, but encircle the Union from Maine to Georgia.
The danger, though in different degrees, is therefore common.
And the means of guarding against it ought, in like manner, to be the objects of common councils and of a common treasury.
It happens that some States, from local situation, are more directly exposed.
New York is of this class.
Upon the plan of separate provisions, New York would have to sustain the whole weight of the establishments requisite to her immediate safety, and to the mediate or ultimate protection of her neighbors.
This would neither be equitable as it respected New York nor safe as it respected the other States.
Various inconveniences would attend such a system.
The States, to whose lot it might fall to support the necessary establishments, would be as little able as willing, for a considerable time to come, to bear the burden of competent provisions.
The security of all would thus be subjected to the parsimony, improvidence, or inability of a part.
The security of all.
Think on those words, people, as you ponder this very important subject of immigration in America today, especially from the war-torn Middle East where terrorism now reigns, thanks in large part to Tim Kaine’s Democrat running mate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
With respect to immigration, quoting FINDLAW in its Annotations to the United States Constitution on the subject, with respect to naturalization, the competence of Congress in this field merges with its indefinite, inherent powers in the field of foreign relations.
”As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty.”
“As it has the character of nationality it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other countries.”
Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915).
With respect to this discussion on the “best values” of our country, citizenship by naturalization is a PRIVILEGE to be given, qualified, or withheld as Congress may determine, which is to say, an individual may claim it as a right only upon compliance with the terms Congress imposes.
If Congress may withhold citizenship according to our Constitution, then it would logically follow that that is an expression of our “best values” of our country, regardless of some ignorant gibberish Tim Kaine might have to say on the subject.
As the Annotations to the Constitution at FINDLAW tell us, the naturalization power is the only power granted in Sec. 8 of Article I that is unrestrained by constitutional limitations on its exercise.
Thus, the first naturalization act enacted by the first Congress restricted naturalization to ”free white persons,” which was expanded in 1870 so that persons of ”African nativity and . . . descent” were entitled to be naturalized.
Orientals were specifically excluded from eligibility in 1882, and the courts enforced these provisions without any indication that constitutional issues were thereby raised.
Present naturalization statutes continue and expand on provisions designed to bar subversives, dissidents, and radicals generally from citizenship.
According to OUR laws, which represent our “best values” as a nation, any person ”who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches . . . opposition to all organized government, or ”who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States” or who is a member of or affiliated with other totalitarian organizations is ineligible for American citizenship.
Do Tim Kaine and his Democrat running mate find that objectionable in some way?
Do they wish to change that?
Those are questions that so far remain unanswered, and if we even dare to ask them, we are branded by Tim Kaine and his Democrat running mate as being fundamentally “un-American.”
Going further into our “best values” as a nation, our laws place other limitations on eligibility for citizenship, such as the decision of the responsible officials whether the petitioner is of ”good moral character.”
The immigration and nationality laws themselves include a number of specific congressional determinations that certain persons do not possess ”good moral character,” including persons who are ”habitual drunkards,” adulterers, polygamists or advocates of polygamy, gamblers, or convicted felons.
Does that offend Tim Kaine?
Is he, as a politician, in favor of opening up our borders to people of bad moral character, to make the whole country into an image of what one can expect to find in Washington, D.C., where Tim Kaine spends his time?
Of importance to this discussion is this:
The process of naturalization culminates in the taking in open court of an oath ”(1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the petitioner was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
Do Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine intend to do away with that section of law with their “immigration plan” when they come into power here in the United States of America next year?
Do they plan to do away with the section that requires an immigrant seeking citizenship in this country to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the petitioner was before a subject or citizen?
Put some thought into the implications of that, people, for there is something going on here, which is not exactly clear.
Why are we loyal Americans who know our laws and who want them enforced as written being written off as “un-American” by two politicians who themselves do not appear to know either our history as a nation, or our laws?
What side exactly are they on?
A question for our times if there ever was one.