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 16’s broadcast of ABC’s “This 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.
Your reaction?
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 we’ve got to be independent because King — 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 we’re going to put up the drawbridge and not let anybody else in, I don’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 — 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.
end quotes
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 – 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.
end quote
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.
Thank you so very much Paul Plante. So true & so sad. So disgusting what has become of our country & to see it continuing to slide down hill and to see the type of leaders we have elected. Like so many, our leaders are great patriots & have a great love of this country, talk of “fair share” and are willing to send our troops (other mother’s sons & daughters) into battle in places we never heard of, yet, they, themselves, never volunteer to join the ROTC or enlist in any branch of service. PINO. Patriots in name only!
Tim Kaine is my senator & the last I heard from him was an email about his wanting more gun control, a favorite of his Democratic Party. I went to his web site & sent a rebuttal to which he never replied and shortly later Hillary decided he was too good for the people of Virginia & should move to Blair House. I think that’s where Crazy Uncle Joe lives, another non-veteran with a big mouth!
There is a world of difference between “immigration” to which most Americans subscribe and “invasion” to which only liberals subscribe. Most have parents or grandparents or other family members who were immigrants & some, themselves are immigrants BUT they did it the legal way; played by the rules. My dear wife is an immigrant. Came down from Montreal to Plattsburg, NY & legally entered the United States. Enlisted in the USAF & went through basic training while polishing up on her English language. She was stationed at McCord AFB & I at Ft Lewis where we met & married 59 years ago. She had her 1st papers on the way toward citizenship & every year filed her “green card”, studied American history & about our government & went with my father, veteran of two world wars, to the court house, full of anxiety, and correctly answered the judge’s questions, renounced her Canadian citizenship & alliegence to the Queen & very proudly was sworn as a natuarlized American citizen & today she will vote!
There is a great difference, one or two Canadians entering the U S or 3 or 4 Germans, perhaps a dozen Irish , all entering legally and all speaking English or trying & learning and settling in different parts of the country compared to 25 million all from the same nation, most entering illegally, few speaking English & not even wanting to learn, most living in conclaves & wanting the American residents to learn THEIR language & accept THEIR culture. We see “protests”, the flag of a different nation being displayed & our flag on the ground being stepped on or burned.
There are HUGE problems with illegals driving drunk, deportees returning time & again, gangs, crime, aliens on welfare & food stamp, in jails or hospitals, the burden on the local schools and many other serious problems. Hillary wants OPEN BORDERS where all the world’s poor or mistreated will be here as refugees (guests) & like a boat or ship pulling too many out of the water, the vessel overloaded & sinking & now EVERYONE is drowning!
The wheels have come off this country & my family & myself have sacrificed far too much to just keep watching. I served in the Infantry at Fairbanks, Alaska on shis (idiot slats) wore crossed rifles (idiot sticks) on my uniform. ln summer was covered by trillions of mosquitoes & had the “pleasure” of sleeping in my sleeping bag in 6 feet of snow outdoors at 65 below zero. There’s a lot to military life that civilians never hear of, just waiting in lines & getting haircuts you don’t like. Taking & obeying orders, like them or not or like the person or not who gives the order. Being ready to give your life & after active duty being on call for a number of years if needed. During the Cuban missle crisis & after JFK was killed, not knowing what was about to happen, I carried my uniform to work with me in case I was orderedto Ft Dix that night. At the end of it all, if you have been a good boy or girl, there’s an Honorable Discharge which you need to show as testemony you have tested & proven. Does anyone think Bill Clinton would have earned that type discharge?
I only have one person left in Washington, SenatorMark Warner. I will email him today about the “mystry” of 1800 deportees being made citizens. WHO THE HELL PULLED THAT OFF & WHAT HAS BECOME OF THAT PERSON OR THOSE PEOPLE. I also want to know about all the people who were hastily given citizenship and about ALL the aliens who are registered to vote?
TRUMP IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT THIS ELECTION BEING RIGGED!
Obama, the liar, saying Trump is a cry baby about this issue when Obama & his people are engineering the whols sham. Reminds me of a cartoon in the ARMY TIMES where a general asks a Lieutenant why the Lt thinks the service at the club is so bad when the general finds the service to be excellent!
I email Del Bloxom & Sen Lewis about what Gov McAwful had done here with an executive order & that is to restore voting rights to 200,000 felons obviously to be sure Hillary wins in Virginia. I also raise the issue of many aliens being registered to vote from a small sample, how many state-wide is unknown. I will vote today except for Commonwealth Attorney until I get some information but I asked my law givers, Is there any use in our voting when the election is so apparently rigged & the outcome almost a certainty?
Not only are the voter rolls packed with aliens & felons whose political views are predictible but the main stream media & press are doing everything in their power to promote Hillary & destroy Trump. Maybe to save time & money just let them pich who the next president should be!
With respect to Tim Kaine’s statement that we are a nation of “immigrants,” I would counter that we are a “nation,” not because of immigrants, but because we have a CONSTITUTION.
At the time of the Declaration of Independence, we were not in essence a nation; to the contrary, we were a CONFEDERACY of thirteen (13) separate and independent “states” which had been colonies of Great Britain dating back to the 1600’s.
With respect to the composition of the citizen body or body politic in the United States of America at the time of separation from England in 1776, eleven (11) years later, in FEDERALIST No. 26, circa 1787, entitled “The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered” for the Independent Journal by Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius to the People of the State of New York, he had this to say on the subject:
It may not be amiss in this place concisely to remark the origin and progress of the idea, which aims at the exclusion of military establishments in time of peace.
Though in speculative minds it may arise from a contemplation of the nature and tendency of such institutions, fortified by the events that have happened in other ages and countries, yet as a national sentiment, it must be traced to those habits of thinking which we derive from the nation from whom the inhabitants of these States have in general sprung.
end quotes
Study on these words for a moment, if you will, as you consider Tim Kaine’s statement that we are a nation of immigrants – “yet as a national sentiment, it must be traced to those habits of thinking which we derive from the nation from whom the inhabitants of these States have in general sprung.”
THE NATION FROM WHOM THE INHABITANTS OF THESE STATES HAVE IN GENERAL SPRUNG!
Notice that the word “nation” is in the singular there.
Those people at the beginning of this nation’s political history as a nation were, by and large, of English extraction.
That is why one finds these following words in the body of the Declaration of Independence, after what Tim Kaine, a top-notch, hot-shot fancy lawyer, calls the “Bill of Particulars,” to wit:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
end quotes
For those unfamiliar with the word, according to WIKIPEDIA, “Consanguinity” (“blood relation”, from the Latin consanguinitas) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person.
In that aspect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person.
end quote
And note this language from the Declaration of Independence:
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
end quotes
According to our dictionary definitions for the word, “Emigration” is the act of leaving one’s resident country with the intent to settle elsewhere.
Thus, we really are a nation of EMIGRANTS – people who left eternal wars, eternal corruption, eternal strife, eternal political BULL**** in Europe and elsewhere to come to place with a supposedly clean slate regarding that CRAP.
As to our United States immigration laws at the beginning of this nation’s history, (and why Tim Kaine doesn’t seem to know this eludes me, given that he is a United States senator charged with making these laws) they are listed as follows at WIKIPEDIA:
1790 – Naturalization Act of 1790
Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration.
Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
1795 – Naturalization Act of 1795
Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
1798 – Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)
Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)
Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)
Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years.
Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”
It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America.
Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
end quotes
Bringing this up to modern times, and keeping in mind that Tim Kaine’s Democrat running mate Hillary Rodham Clinton served as a United States Senator from New York from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009, in 2005, when Hillary Clinton was supposedly a member of the United States Senate, the Congress of the United States, which includes the Senate, voted to enact the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, which is an Act of Congress that modifies U.S. federal law pertaining among other things to various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.
Of relevance to this discussion of “keeping people out,” a provision of the REAL ID Act of 2005 waives laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders.
HUH?
Waives laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders?
WTF, people.
Did Hillary Clinton as a U.S. senator vote for a law that calls for building WALLS around the United States of America, given that a wall is a physical barrier?
Can that be?
Stay tuned, more to come.
We were a nation of immigrants when we needed immigrants. We now have a situation that massive unskilled immigration is decreasing the value of American labor and wages. Too many cars on the market means lower prices for cars, too many workers on the market means lower wages. In defense of current and future American worker, we must eliminate illegal immigration and reduce the level of legal immigration. Trump is correct on this issue. If we want a secure economic future for our kids and grandkids, we have to curtail immigration.
On refugees, if we can’t run full security background checks on them, they should not be allowed into our country. No risk should be taken in this regard. The safety of Americans trumps humanitarian concerns for refugees. I was in the refugee business for 15 years in Austria and the State Department in Washington – I know what I am talking about.
Paul & Kearn are exactly correct. What Kearn says is just plain common sense & is obvious. As it now stands I maintain that what we think our workforce should be is just downright unrealistic. Women got into the workforce big time during WW II because millions of men were in service. With all the ex-GI’s coming home the labor market was so overloaded that the G I Bill came into being. Put the men in college classrooms & give the economy 4 years of breathing room. G I loans to buy a house which put people to work with such as Levittown & give business loans to veterans to create more jobs.
We have a huge number of unskilled, uneducated native Americans & with that type of immigrant there is no way to provide the kind of jobs they are ALL able to perform. We now depend on two incomes and again, are there enough things that need doing or building to employ every husband & wife or are we trying for 150% overload?
On top of so many men & women out of work; what to do with the younger generation? In my day we high schoolers had work if we wanted. We didn’t ask for much, we didn’t need much, we didn’t expect much, we didn’t deserve much & we DIDN”T GET MUCH but we were LEARNING. I worke half days at the Pru in Newark for 60 & then 65 cents an hour & I took home $10.40 a week. Bus ride was 5 cents each way. In the summer much better working full time & the Pru had a great free lunch. School pals, friends & reletives worked there & it was fun as well as work. A cousin was in the cafeteria & she piled my tray. Another cousin was a secretary & in my rounds I would visit. Iwent to a VP’s office daily & we talked & were friends & I went to the president’s office once a week but never saw him.
Our father’s & grandfather’s built this nation & we also helped & now our kids & grandkids are working at it. Do we really want to open the borders & let the whole world in to take advantage of what WE built? It is as if I am building a nice home & when done anyone who wants to can move in.
Paul is right. It is OUR Constitution which makes us the nation we are or more correctly “were”. I am with Trump. The words are what they are, live with it. There is a way to amend but it takes a LOT of thought & a LOT of agreement and not one or more judges or justices or congresspeople making it to THEIR liking.
I went to Senator Mark Warner’s web site yesterday, as I said I would, and asked HOW THE HELL WERE 1800 DEPORTEES SUDDENLY MADE CITIZENS AND WHO THE HELL DID THIS and WHAT HAS BECOME OF THAT PERSON OR OF THOSE PEOPLE?
Warner is my ONLY representative down in the “swamp” since Kaine is hanging with Hillary and Rigell is gone, not that he ever was.
I raised other questions about this entire sorry mess with aliens by the millions being registered to vote and with people being quickly made citizens in time for the election when there are LAWS and even Constitutional PROVISIONS that are being OPENLY violated.
The reply from Warner’s office goes something like this: “Thank you for expressing your view”. No attempt to answer my question & I guess unless Judicial Watch, to which I belong, goes after our rotten government under The Freedom of Information Act we will NEVER know the truth and even then to quote Hillary…”At this point what difference does it make?”
In my experience this is all that ever comes back from any issue raised with any of my law-givers.
Here in Virginia 200,000 felons will vote because the 4 conservatives on the state’s supreme court caved and allowed the Gov to grant a “MASS” pardon which I believe is CLEARLY prohibited. I’m sure if anyone would go over each of the felon’s histories and rap sheets the results would be shocking.
In my bones I KNOW all of this is WRONG but how can these things be stopped?
Once in motion, andy zhan, they can’t be stopped.
That was why we as kids were taught about Pandora’s Box.
If you don’t want the consequences of opening the box, then don’t open the box.
There is the lesson of Pandora’s Box, plain and simple.
Once the box is opened, and it has been in this country since at least the 1960s, especially 1968, the year of the bloody Democrat convention in Chicago, and October 18, 1967, when a peaceful student sit-in at the University of Madison, Wisconsin against the makers of napalm, “liquid fire” used extensively by US forces against guerillas and civilians alike in Vietnam, prompted a police assault, then a melee with thousands of students joining the side of the peaceniks.
According to historians of the event, that caused the political atmosphere in this country to change at an unprecedented speed.
The Madison, Wisconsin campus moved into the forefront of peace, anti-conscription and “Student Power” activity nationally.
Otherwise far-sighted administrators, seeking to protect the University itself from controversy and crisis, butted heads with students and faculty increasingly concerned with corporate takeovers of campus life and decision-making.
The two sides, in agreement on many issues including the greatness of the university, found themselves badly divided.
Local conservatives, meanwhile, faced challenges unknown since the Depression and the breakup of the Progressive Party for Cold War consensus.
The student strike — unofficially honored by many faculty members while bitterly opposed by others — and the resulting dialogue also emphatically reshaped Madison politics: Paul Soglin, a student activist, emerged with a strong community following, projecting him into the mayorality six years later, his administration a symbol of the larger changes locally in policing, gender equality, day care, ecology and related issues.
Most notably, Madison had regained its national standing as an antiwar center, a standing lost since the days of Robert M. LaFollette, and which it has never forfeited in the years since.
As Tacitus notes in his Annals, it is out of seemingly trifling events movements of vast changes often take their rise, and such it remains in our times.
And now we are here.
But nobody knows where “here” really is, since in this nation, we have never been here before, so nothing in our history prepares us for this, and gives us a guide as to how to proceed.
We’re not going back to the past you once knew, andy zahn, that is no longer possible, because too few people anymore even know those times once existed here in the United States of America.
As the saying goes, the future is now.
How many “Americas” have there been since Alexander Hamilton and Jemmy Madison sat down back in 1787 to pen the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius?
Were either or both of them to have been transported forward in time to our times, would they even recognize us as “the American people?”
More to the point, what on earth would we think of them?
Would we treat them as subversives?
Would we treat them as terrorists?
Would we have them on a terror watchlist as likely domestic terrorists?
Would we consider them to be dangerous lunatics?
Why do I ask these questions?
Let’s go to FEDERALIST No. 28, “The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered,” for the Independent Journal by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York, circa 1787, where writing as Publius, Hamilton informed the people of the State of New York as follows:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.
The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
end quotes
In all seriousness, people, HUH?
What on earth can he be talking about, and who on earth can he be saying these words to – provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them?
Why should we have to know and understand our rights?
Isn’t that why we have a government in the first place – to give us our rights as it sees fit, so we don’t have to trouble our heads wondering about them?
We are not all lawyers, afterall, nor should we have to be, when we have a government in place to defend our rights for us.
And how about this: The natural strength of the people in a large community in proportion to the artificial strength of the government is more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
Is he honestly talking about people in this country today daring to talk back to people in government in positions of authority over them?
What kind of wild-eyed, radical talk is that?
Is he trying to incite the people of the United States of America to rebel against the federal government if it were to try to establish a tyranny here in the United States of America?
How on earth can he even dare think such a thing, that the federal government of the United States of America would ever try to establish a tyranny over us in this country.
My goodness, it loves us, doesn’t it, and wants nothing more than to care for our every need and see that we are all without want.
That is why we have a federal government, is it not?
And what about this guff he is saying about if the representatives of the people betray their constituents?
What country can he possibly be talking about where the representatives of the people would ever think to betray their constituents?
That can’t be the United States of America, can it, because our representatives would never even think of doing that to us.
They love us, afterall, because we are special and exceptional.
So what was Hamilton thinking when he wrote that seditious stuff?
Does anybody know?
So, with respect to the subject of “immigration” as the subject was broached by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate Tim Kaine, 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, on Sunday, October 16’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week” where Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) informed us as follows as to what he wants us to believe is our nation’s history:
“To say that there should be no – 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.”
end quote
I would reply to Tim Kaine that in here, in this public discussion which is being followed by people as far away as California, thanks to the internet, we are up to Federalist No. 30 in here now, and to date, I have not found anything expressed in those writings about this nation having open borders to anyone wanting to come in.
To the contrary, the Federalist Papers deal with securing our national borders, not turning them into Swiss cheese with a welcome mat for the world to come waltzing in, no questions asked.
Far from it, as FEDERALIST No. 29, “Concerning the Militia,” from the Daily Advertiser, Thursday, January 10, 1788, makes clear where Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius to the People of the State of New York, stated thusly in fairly blunt language it does not require a rocket-science degree or a Ph.D. in political science to comprehend and translate for the common person to understand:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
end quotes
Common DEFENSE!
Commanding the services of the militia in times of invasion is a natural incident to the duties of superintending the common defense!
Is that a radical idea, or what?
Superintending the common defense, I mean, in times of invasion.
Which raises this presidential debate question which was never addressed by either main-stream presidential candidate, nor was it addressed by Tim Kaine on Sunday, October 16’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week”:
If we have people from other countries not necessarily friendly to AMERICAN VALUES as defined by OUR Constitution and OUR written laws flooding through our national borders because we have no effective plant to DEFEND our borders, are we being invaded?
It would seem a simple yes-or-no question, would it not?
Or is that another one of those that depends on what your definition of “is” really is, and how flexible you can make it?
And what about “watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”
How come we never hear any of these supposed “presidential” candidates talking about how their immigration policy is going to first restore and then maintain the internal peace of the Confederacy of states known as the “United States of America?”
We certainly did not get any of that out of Tim Kaine on Sunday, October 16’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week.”
All we got out of him then was ignorant gibberish inconsistent with history as founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton wrote it.
National security, people, immigration policy is inseparable from nation security, and in the United States of America, the federal government is responsible for both our national security and internal peace.
With respect to the role of the federal government in providing for our national security, writing as Publius in FEDERALIST No. 29, “Concerning the Militia,” Alexander Hamilton spoke thusly to us from across the gulf of time:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
end quote
Under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
THE GUARDIAN OF NATIONAL SECURITY, people!
That is the federal government of the United States of America.
That is a DUTY Owed us as the American People by the federal government of the United States of America.
That is why we have them there, not so they can fly around at taxpayer expense to attend fundraisers for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So why aren’t we hearing anything about national security and internal peace from these clowns being put forth to us as “presidential” candidates?”
And why on earth are we accepting it as our due to be treated as ignorant sods?
Notwithstanding that the United States Constitution as written and as intended by the original framers of our form of government in the United States of America, held to be unique in the world in the words of the original Americans who formed it after first defeating the most powerful military force in the world, both on land and on the sea, where they had no real power at all, gives the president of the United States of America absolutely NO AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION OR DISCRETION to have, entertain or attempt to enforce an “immigration policy,” said policy being inimical to, in contravention of, and in repudiation and rejection of existing law in the United States of America, and therefore repugnant to the interests of the American people, whose laws the president of the United States of America is there to enforce, not make mock of and ignore as if a despot; notwithstanding all of that, which honestly does not amount to a hill of beans in America anymore, not withstanding all of that, does Hillary Clinton have a stated “immigration policy” that she wants to impose by fiat on the American people when she becomes U.S. president?
And that answer is in the affirmative; in fact, depending on who her audience is and what day of the week it is, and where she is, she has several of them, which should not be found surprising in a world-class politican like Hillary Clinton, who Michelle Obama has only recently called “the most qualified, best prepared presidential candidate in the nation’s history.”
So, of course Hillary Clinton has many different positions on the question of immigration versus illegal immigration into the United States of America today.
Those of us who suffered under her reign as U.S. senator from the state of New York remember the “TOUGH ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS-KICK THE BUMS OUT” stance taken by then-U.S. senator Hillary Clinton during her 2005 re-election bid, where she was trying to capture the upstate New York vote by appearing tough on the issue, as we all were informed by The New York Times article “The Evolution of Hillary Clinton” By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and PATRICK D. HEALY, JULY 13, 2005, wherein we were informed as follows about Hillary stance back then on illegal immigrants coming across our borders:
As she gears up her re-election campaign for the United States Senate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is presenting a side of herself that might have given some of her supporters great pause just a few years ago.
end quote
Said another way, and this should surprise no one, Hillary is a pragmatist – see which way the wind is blowing, and then set your rudder and sails to go that way.
Returning to the NY Times, we have:
In fact, in the last few months, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly confounded the expectations of people who judged her from her White House years.
She has appeared publicly with Newt Gingrich, her onetime political foe.
She has stood fast in defense of her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq.
It is a striking departure from just five years ago when she was seen as a fierce Democratic partisan and a symbol of the liberal excesses of the Clinton years.
end quotes
In that article, we are told the following, as well:
Today many Republicans acknowledge somewhat grudging respect for Mrs. Clinton as a senator and say they often find common political ground with her.
Mrs. Clinton has become known as anything but the political extremist that many of her critics expected her to be, and has done and said things that have surprised friends and foes alike.
Although she has found allies on the Republican side of the aisle, her public statements and positioning on issues have aroused suspicions that she is setting the stage for a presidential run.
end quotes
Setting the stage for a presidential run, who would have thought it, people.
So what about immigration, then, what does the N.Y. Times have to say about that?
How about this:
Immigration
Among some leading Republicans, there is no better evidence that Mrs. Clinton is positioning herself for a presidential run than her remarks and record on immigration.
With Sept. 11 in mind, she has also cast immigration as a national security issue, pressing the president for more money for border security and highlighting the potential threat of terrorists entering New York and the United States through Canada.
end quote
So, pressing the president for more money for border security was a vital part of Hillary Clinton’s immigration policy in 2005 when she was trying to appear tough on illegal immigration to the upstate New York voters.
Back to the NY Times:
Republicans have made much of a radio interview Mrs. Clinton gave to WABC in 2003, in which she declared, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”
She called for a comprehensive system to track these immigrants, some form of entry and exit identification and tighter border controls, and she reluctantly suggested that an identification system for citizens might be needed.
end quotes
There we have it again, people, this time from 2003 – tighter border controls.
“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” she (Hillary Clinton) said in the 2003 interview.
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau Counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx — you’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”
According to the N.Y. Times in 2005, those words alone were enough for Republicans to predict that she would position herself to the right of even President Bush on illegal immigration.
So how about that, people?
That would make her far tougher on immigration than Donald Trump, as is evidenced by the following:
The conservative commentator Tony Blankley called her remarks “Pat Buchanan-esque” and added, “I never thought I would write the following words, but: God bless Hillary Clinton.”
But then, there is the other side of her immigration policy, as we were informed in 2995 by the N.Y. Times:
That said, her Senate record on the issue is not as rigidly hostile to illegal immigration as some conservatives say.
She supported college tuition relief for young people who had entered the county illegally.
end quote
“If you can get in here illegally,” said Hillary Clinton back then, “I’ll be your champion and work hard to get you tuition relief, because as an illegal immigrant, you are entitled to all the benefits a real American citizen would be entitled to, but cannot get, because I am giving them to you, instead.”
As the New York Times says, those positions have mostly been overlooked, however, as Republicans have sought to rally their donor base and grass roots by citing illegal immigration as one more sign that she is moving to the political center.
Of relevance to this discussion is the Correction to that article dated July 20, 2005, which stated:
An article last Wednesday about the political evolution of Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated a word in a comment from her interview with WABC radio in 2003.
She said, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants” — not “illegal immigration.”
end quotes
So what exactly is Hillary Clinton for today when it comes to illegal immigration and illegal immigrants?
Does anyone have a clue?
2016 Democratic Party Platform
July 21, 2016
As Approved by the Democratic Platform Committee
July 8-9, 2016 – Orlando, FL
Fixing our Broken Immigration System
The United States was founded as, and continues to be, a country of immigrants from throughout the world.
It is no coincidence that the Statue of Liberty is one of our most profound national symbols.
And that is why Democrats believe immigration is not just a problem to be solved, it is a defining aspect of the American character and our shared history.
The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security.
People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers.
Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken.
More than 11 million people are living in the shadows, without proper documentation.
The immigration bureaucracy is full of backlogs that result in U.S. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members, and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children.
The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color, and needs to be reformed to the realities of the 21st century.
And there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed.
Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system—which tears families apart and keeps workers in the shadows—and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country.
We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars, which often force persons in mixed status families into the heartbreaking dilemma of either pursuing a green card by leaving the country and their loved ones behind, or remaining in the shadows.
We will work with Congress to end the forced and prolonged expulsion from the country that these immigrants endure when trying to adjust their status.
We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants.
Those immigrants already living in the United States, who are assets to their communities and contribute so much to our country, should be incorporated completely into our society through legal processes that give meaning to our national motto: E Pluribus Unum.
And while we continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform, we will defend and implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive actions to help DREAMers, parents of citizens, and lawful permanent residents avoid deportation.
We will build on these actions to provide relief for others, such as parents of DREAMers.
We will support efforts by states to make DREAMers eligible for driver’s licenses and in-state college tuition.
We will invest in culturally-appropriate immigrant integration services, expand access to English language education, and promote naturalization to help the millions of people who are eligible for citizenship take that last step.
We believe immigration enforcement must be humane and consistent with our values.
We should prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities, not hardworking families who are contributing to their communities.
We will end raids and roundups of children and families, which unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities.
We disfavor deportations of immigrants who served in our armed forces, and we want to create a faster path for such veterans to citizenship.
We should ensure due process for those fleeing violence in Central America and work with our regional partners to address the root causes of violence.
We must take particular care with children, which is why we should guarantee government-funded counsel for unaccompanied children in immigration courts.
We should consider all available means of protecting these individuals from the threats to their lives and safety—including strengthening in-country and third-country processing, expanding the use of humanitarian parole, and granting Temporary Protected Status.
We will promote best practices among local law enforcement, in terms of how they collaborate with federal authorities, to ensure that they maintain and build trust between local law enforcement and the communities they serve.
We will also vigorously oversee any programs put in place, to make sure that there are no abuses and no arbitrary deportation programs.
We will establish an affirmative process for workers to report labor violations and to request deferred action.
We will work to ensure that all Americans—regardless of immigration status—have access to quality health care.
That means expanding community health centers, allowing all families to buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges, supporting states that open up their public health insurance programs to all persons, and finally enacting comprehensive immigration reform.
And we will expand opportunities for DREAMers to serve in the military and to then receive expedited pathways to citizenship.
We will fight to end federal, state, and municipal contracts with for-profit private prisons and private detention centers.
In order to end family detention, we will ensure humane alternatives for those who pose no public threat.
We recognize that there are vulnerable communities within our immigration system who are often seeking refuge from persecution abroad, such as LGBT families, for whom detention can be unacceptably dangerous.
We reject attempts to impose a religious test to bar immigrants or refugees from entering the United States.
It is un-American and runs counter to the founding principles of this country.
Finally, Democrats will not stand for the divisive and derogatory language of Donald Trump.
His offensive comments about immigrants and other communities have no place in our society.
This kind of rhetoric must be rejected.