Overwhelming Constitutional Protections with Procrastination

I have listened very carefully to the arguments being offered about illegal immigration and the size of the problem. What emerges is a picture where there are 12 million illegal households set up in our country, costing the taxpayers $113 Billion dollars per year in government services. Apparently there are approximately 300,000 "anchor babies" so called born in the United States every year. This figure alone dwarfs the total number of legal immigrants who enter our country.

Much like the corporations who were "too big to fail"and required government subsidy or takeover, this problem is "too big to solve" by the simple enforcement of law. Or so we're told.  How did we get here?

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, for the purpose of protecting newly freed slaves from certain people who would have them deported on, what at the time, were valid Constitutional reasons. Our citizenry, to their credit, realized that this flaw could, and should, be rectified, thus protecting slaves freed by our government with the expressed intent of being citizens.  We fought a war over this amounst ourselves and killed of a third of our male citizens resolving it.

The 14th Amendment reads thus:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Problem solved, right?  Maybe not. As it turns out, just as the Framers never foresaw the freeing of thousands of slaves as presenting a legal problem, neither did those who crafted and got ratified the 14th Amendment foresee that it would be used as the means for convincing a kindhearted citizenry that the failure of it's government to police its borders made it then impossible, or at least unpalatable to do so, after the fact.

So what are we really facing?  First off, we are facing a problem where exploding population is being fueled by a combination of the failure, at the front end, to enforce constitutional law.  That failure is self feeding, because the folks who came here illegally are having legal children whom we are too kind to strip from their parents to deport the parents. This population explosion has occurred and we are finding ourselves in the midst of a critical unemployment crisis, and we wonder why?  We are creating it, ladies and gentlemen, by allowing folks to walk in and grab our jobs.

So we are facing an insurmountable problem, right?  I think not. We are facing a problem that was created by our own procrastination. And it is a problem that is only unsolvable if we continue to procrastinate.   

The solution is NOT, as some would tell you, to abandon selectively the Constitutional protections we have enjoyed all these years.  The solution is found within those Constitutional protections.

1.  We need to stop procrastinating. Enforce immigration law, no matter what the cost. I'm betting if we invested the $113 billion we are giving to illegals, we'd put a dent in it.

2. Since the 14th Amendment as successfully protected the slaves from deportation, let's begin the process of amending that.  The Constitution provides us with the mechanism to do so. Let's not ignore it, let's fix it. Let's pass an amendment that defines citizenship. Let me suggest language:

"Those people will be deemed citizens by virtue of having been born to at least one parent who is a United States citizen, at the time of his/her birth, or who was legally naturalized prior to the birth of the child who would then be a citizen. Present residents of the Untied States, who had filed Federal income taxes for the 5 years prior to the ratification of this act, would be considered citizens, and their offspring would be afforded such as well."

3.  The period of time that it normally takes to ratify an Amendment would give ample time for hardworking residents to become 5 year taxpayers, and would create incentive to establish "green card status" which is being, for whatever reason, avoided by illegals.  Goodness knows, we are not arresting and deporting, and we are paying benefits to them. Give em the green card...

4.  Finally, learn the lesson of National Procrastination. Not only doesn't it work, it is being used to create crises that are then being used to undermine the simple protections our Constitution has afforded us.

I fear the erosion of those Constitutional protections far more than I do the costs of enforcing them.

A Natural Born Citizen

Over the last week or so, the public battle has raged over President Obama's birth certificate. That battle has been fueled by the rhetoric of potential Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Now, don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of Donald Trump. I think he is making a mockery of our electoral process.

But the question of whether President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be President is significant. I don't think it had to do with where he was born. I've accepted that he was born in Hawaii forever. Nor do I, or have I, questioned if he was a Untied States Citizen.  But let's look at the qualifications as expressly stated in the Constitution:

"Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The interesting Constitutional argument is over the definition of "natural born citizen". The battle rages more quietly over this, but this argument is much more profound. What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens. One can be, and is, a "citizen" by virtue of being born to one parent who is a citizen. But to be "natural born", BOTH of your parents are required to be citizens at the time of your birth.

But the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is belied in the "grandfather clause" that follows it: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Why did they include THIS language if a "natural born citizen" was interchangeable with "citizen".  Because it is proof that they intended to define it differently. Why? Because MANY of the colonists had fathers who were English citizens.

The Framers wanted to set the bar higher for President than they did for simple citizenship. They were striving for "purity" of lineage and more so, purity of loyalty. The loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.

And it looks as if, by arguing the wrong argument, we may have taken that risk.

Why Property is Private

The Constitution guarantees the private ownership of property within the Fifth Amendment. Certainly government is allowed to own property for its own use, such as buildings, military bases, hospitals and means of individual transport, necessary to do the business of government and provide for the greater protection. It is pretty clear that the Framers never meant for government to own businesses. There was darned good reason. The private ownership of property, goods and services....of the means of production is an essential component of freedom.  We are seeing an excellent example of the reason behind that this week in America.

Because it was "too big to fail", so called, General Motors was given billions of dollars in bailout money to save it from its own terrible business practice.  At the same time, Toyota had taken over the mantle of #1 US car manufacturer. Not hard to understand. They had lower production costs, primarily because they had lower labor costs. In spite of paying an average of $36 per hour to its assemblers (Yep, folks, that's $75 large a year before overtime), Toyota's expenses were less. Offered a tad more money to be spent on quality and innovation, huh?

So, what occurs directly after the bailout money is paid? A public crisis occurs with "stuck throttles" on the flagship Toyota Corrola. Our public officials cry out, "Is Toyota killing people with their inferiors cars?" Evening news highlights it. Politicians demand investigation. Evening news highlights that too. The investigations begin. Meanwhile, Toyota says publicly that they are pretty sure it is caused by floor mats sliding forward and covering the accelerator. That could be defined as a design defect. It could also be attributed to dumbassed drivers who don't take care to inspect their vehicle before they drive it. Should cars also have "Coke can rolling from under the seat and getting under the brake" detectors? Hmmmm....I may have an idea there.

Then, in the midst of the Toyota throttle crisis, our government begins "Cash for Clunkers". This program gives enhanced trade ins for older gas guzzling vehicles, that have become decrepit enough not to be traded in. Who do you think made these cars? Toyota? Oh ya...they were one of the first companies to feature energy efficient cars. Weren't THEY the company who highlighted the Prius?  Oh ya. And aren't they the company whose cars last forever?  Doesn't GM make Blazers and Suburbans and Escalades and Impala's and Hummers?  Are they the car company whose cars tended to rust out? Oh ya...

And when the "Clunkers" were traded for down payment cash, were people buying those unsafe, accererator sticking, murderous Toyotas? "I'm not buying those until they square THAT away!!!"

Well, this week, earning reports come out on major Dow components including GM. Guess what? They will report that they are the #1 car manufacturer again. Surprising?  Not at all. The power of the government that owns them was brought to bear against its competitor. The competitor who built less "clunkers" that burned less fuel, and gave us the first "hybrid".

Oh, and that pesky stuck throttle? The investigation showed it was floor mats and operator error. THAT was reported once, quietly, on one evening news show per network.

The Framers of our beloved Constitution understood clearly that the power of government, with its powers of investigation and regulation, give it an unfair advantage in competition on the free market.

And with the loss of fairness on that free market, we each lose a chunk of our liberty.