Where is the international law with: NAFTA?

From the North American Free Trade Agreement, highlighting via bold italics, mine.

Chapter Twelve: Cross-Border Trade in Services

Article 102: Objectives

1. The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment and transparency, are to:
a) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties;

b) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;

c) increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;

d) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in each Party's territory;

e) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this Agreement, for its joint administration and for the resolution of disputes; and

f) establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.

2. The Parties shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in the light of its objectives set out in paragraph 1 and in accordance with applicable rules of international law.

Article 1201: Scope and Coverage

[..]

3. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to:

(a) impose any obligation on a Party with respect to a national of another Party seeking access to its employment market, or employed on a permanent basis in its territory, or to confer any right on that national with respect to that access or employment; or

(b) prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter.

[..]

Chapter Sixteen: Temporary Entry for Business Persons

Article 1601: General Principles

Further to Article 102 (Objectives), this Chapter reflects the preferential trading relationship between the Parties, the desirability of facilitating temporary entry on a reciprocal basis and of establishing transparent criteria and procedures for temporary entry, and the need to ensure border security and to protect the domestic labor force and permanent employment in their respective territories.

[..]

Article 1603: Grant of Temporary Entry

1. Each Party shall grant temporary entry to business persons who are otherwise qualified for entry under applicable measures relating to public health and safety and national security, in accordance with this Chapter, including the provisions of Annex 1603.

2. A Party may refuse to issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might affect adversely:

(a) the settlement of any labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or

(b) the employment of any person who is involved in such dispute.

3. When a Party refuses pursuant to paragraph 2 to issue an immigration document authorizing employment, it shall:

(a) inform in writing the business person of the reasons for the refusal; and

(b) promptly notify in writing the Party whose business person has been refused entry of the reasons for the refusal.

4. Each Party shall limit any fees for processing applications for temporary entry of business persons to the approximate cost of services rendered.

Article 1604: Provision of Information

1. Further to Article 1802 (Publication), each Party shall:

(a) provide to the other Parties such materials as will enable them to become acquainted with its measures relating to this Chapter; and

(b) no later than one year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, prepare, publish and make available in its own territory, and in the territories of the other Parties, explanatory material in a consolidated document regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter in such a manner as will enable business persons of the other Parties to become acquainted with them.

2. Subject to Annex 1604.2, each Party shall collect and maintain, and make available to the other Parties in accordance with its domestic law, data respecting the granting of temporary entry under this Chapter to business persons of the other Parties who have been issued immigration documentation, including data specific to each occupation, profession or activity.

[..]

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

Side Agreement on Labor, available here.

One of the fascinating things about NAFTA is that it was sold to help all the people in the US, Canada and Mexico. Not only the main agreement, but the labor side agreements agree to establish better working conditions, better pay, and so on, to help get fundamental workers rights established, mostly in Mexico. This, notably, has not happened.

What has happened is an increase in *trade* but not an increase in working conditions south of the border. In fact, not only has poverty not decreased in Mexico, it has increased. Harold Meyerson's column in the WaPo of 08 FEB 2006 looks at this phenomena:

The North American Free Trade Agreement was sold, of course, as a boon to the citizens of the United States, Canada and Mexico -- guaranteed both to raise incomes and lower prices, however improbably, throughout the continent. Bipartisan elites promised that it would stanch the flow of illegal immigrants, too. "There will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home," said President Bill Clinton as he was building support for the measure in the spring of 1993.

But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, could not have been more precisely crafted to increase immigration -- chiefly because of its devastating effect on Mexican agriculture. As liberal economist Jeff Faux points out in "The Global Class War," his just-published indictment of the actual workings of the new economy, Mexico had been home to a poor agrarian sector for generations, which the government helped sustain through price supports on corn and beans. NAFTA, though, put those farmers in direct competition with incomparably more efficient U.S. agribusinesses. It proved to be no contest: From 1993 through 2002, at least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land.

The experience of Mexican industrial workers under NAFTA hasn't been a whole lot better. With the passage of NAFTA, the maquiladoras on the border boomed. But the raison d'etre for these factories was to produce exports at the lowest wages possible, and with the Mexican government determined to keep its workers from unionizing, the NAFTA boom for Mexican workers never materialized. In the pre-NAFTA days of 1975, Faux documents, Mexican wages came to 23 percent of U.S. wages; in 1993-94, just before NAFTA, they amounted to 15 percent; and by 2002 they had sunk to a mere 12 percent.

The official Mexican poverty rate rose from 45.6 percent in 1994 to 50.3 percent in 2000. And that was before competition from China began to shutter the maquiladoras and reduce Mexican wages even more.

One of the thing the *free trade* folks don't tend to address is that localized agriculture, even subsistence agriculture provides a total of two necessities: food and cash. By putting poor, rural and inefficient farmers in direct, head-to-head competition with combine driven, 'green revolution' US agribusiness, that has seen the greatest productivity per person for agricultural goods on the planet, NAFTA wiped out not only cash income that could be garnered from poor Mexican farmers, but, soon, the ability to keep a roof over one's head by selling crops would dry up which meant that the *farming* went with it.

To Jacksonians, the idea that a Nation can support its poorest and most local folks trying to scratch a living for themselves while the rest of the economy works damned hard to better things all the way around is important. Even worse is when an industrial powerhouse utilizes its purchasing capability to deprive the poorest of work and food, there is seen a marked deterioration in the standard of living, ability to find work and, finally, the deterioration of society as this basis of it is no longer supported. I don't believe that this is what the 'free trade' concept was supposed to do, but that is a highly elitist concept based in a society with a high standard of living and thriving industries. That is an internal bias of economics that we tend to ignore in the US: we are rich.

Even worse, is that when an item of food is found to have more profitable utility going towards a non-food resource, say bio-fuels, the cost for that food skyrockets. If you are in a country that has just had its agricultural sector decimated by 'free trade' and no longer have support internally, then the sudden jump in cost of external food being bought up by industry is a huge shockwave to go through a people and their economy. The MIT Technology Review looks at this on 13 FEB 2007 in an article by Brittany Sauser on the effects of ethanol production in Mexico:

The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."

The jump in corn prices is already affecting the cost of food. The most notable example: in Mexico, which gets much of its corn from the United States, the price of corn tortillas has doubled in the past year, according to press reports, setting off large protest marches in Mexico City. It's almost certain that most of the rise in corn prices is due to the U.S. ethanol policy, says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.

So much for 'sustainable energy' involving a food crop.

Now that Mexico has had to shift away from sustainable, even if subsistence, agriculture to one of relying on cheap food from the US, the sudden economic turnaround for ethanol production has capped the effect of demoralizing the poor Mexican farmer, forcing them into poverty or even off of their land, and then whipsawing the entire population with increased food prices. Do note that when an impoverished people forced into further poverty and causing farming to become marginal for life sustainment, you are setting up conditions similar to those prior to many social upheavals, dating back to peasant revolts in the Middle Ages all the way to Russia in 1917 and numerous other revolutionary scenarios in Latin America and Africa.

'Free trade' capitalism causing Socialism? Yes, because the economic basis for Mexico was not there to sustain a 'free trade' environment and the result is millions flooding north to get *any* kind of job they could in direct and absolute contravention to international law and NAFTA itself. Yet, because this has been such a boon for the US, we have decided that giving away National Sovereignty for a good economy is well worth it, so we do *not* enforce international law or the treaty doing this by repudiating the treaty. It is doing well for the US even if we are having to sustain another Nation because they are going down the tubes because of their infrastructure problems.

The board set up to measure such things on the labor side, the NAALC, came out with their 2007 final summary up to 2006, and it has a few very interesting charts in it. One is quite traditional and shows the GDP percentage breakout of the US economy, which demonstrates our shift from manufacturing to services, pretty staid stuff, given the size of the economy from 1998-2002:

The drop from manufacturing as a percent of the economy (15.4% to 12.9%) is joined by decreases in Mining, Utilities, Wholesale and Transportation. The Services sector has picked up in IT, Financial Services and Rental/Leasing, along with Health Care and other social services with only Business Services suffering a decrement. This is something most Americans are familiar with as the economy is now one where Services dominates Manufacturing and Agriculture, completing a trend that had been going on since the 1970's.

Mexico, from the signing of NAFTA to 2002 looks very different:

That 1.2% drop in Farming, Forestry and Fishing is an indicator of a Nation gaining dependence on other sources of income. Even worse is Manufacturing going downwards by 0.6% over that period of time, the traditional interior Service of Hotels dropping by 1.7%, and Real Estate dropping 2.3%. That over 5% drop is seen getting picked up in the Services sector in Communications by 1.3% and a whopping 3.6% in Community, Social and Personal Services. That is an economy shifting from subsistence farming, moving to the cities and then looking for handouts from local communities and governments. And as the jobs in traditional sectors that led out of farming, via manufacturing and traditional services in hotels and real estate are becoming less important, there has been a societal cut-off going on.

Beyond the unrest seen due to higher food prices, there is one, other, traditional services that can *always* expand, but at a very, very high societal cost: organized crime. In 2003 the Library of Congress made a report on the Organized Crime situation in Mexico looking at 1999-2002 and the Key Findings are as follows:

Mexico’s drug trafficking and alien smuggling networks have expanded their criminal activities aimed at the United States by capitalizing on the explosive growth of transborder commerce under NAFTA and the attendant growth in human and merchandise traffic between Mexico and the United States. The growth in trans-border commerce, as manifested in soaring levels of overland passenger and commercial vehicle traffic, has provided an ever-expanding “haystack” in which the “needles” of illicit narcotics and illegal aliens can be more easily concealed.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, increased border security measures temporarily heightened the risks of interdiction for Mexican drug traffickers and alien smugglers. This heightened level of risk forced smugglers to increase their reliance on sophisticated counter-detection measures, such as border tunnels, multiple repackaging of drug shipments, containerization, and rail transport.

Mexico’s three major drug cartels are being superseded by a half-dozen smaller, corporate style, trafficking networks. In a process that mirrors the post-cartel reconstitution of drug trafficking networks in Colombia, this “new generation” of Mexican drug traffickers is less prone to violence and more likely to employ sophisticated technologies and cooperative strategies. The processes that are driving Mexican drug trafficking organizations toward establishing cooperative networks of increasing sophistication and decreasing visibility are likely to intensify in the post- September 11 environment. As a result, Mexican drug trafficking networks are likely to emulate their Colombian counterparts by investing heavily in counterintelligence, expanding and diversifying their legitimate enterprises, and concealing transnational partnerships that could attract undue attention from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Alien smuggling from Mexico to the United States is a US$300 million-a-year business, second only to Mexico’s illicit drug trade in terms of revenues from criminal activities. Between 100 and 300 human smuggling rings operate in Mexico, many of which are loosely coupled with one or more of a half-dozen core human smuggling networks that have extensive transnational contacts.

A variety of Russian criminal organizations, operating through dozens of small cells, are engaged in a wide range of illegal activities in Mexico. Some Russian criminal organizations based in southern California have entered into drug trafficking partnerships with Mexican drug cartels.

Asian criminal organizations are active in Mexico as partners with domestic alien smuggling and human trafficking rings, as suppliers of primary materials for narcotics to Mexican drug traffickers, and as wholesalers and retailers of counterfeit merchandise and pirated intellectual property.

During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana-based Arellano Felix Organization (AFO).

Since the mid-1990s, Mexico, at the request of the Spanish government, has deported scores of terrorists belonging to the Basque separatist group, Fatherland and Liberty (ETA).

Statements by high-ranking Mexican officials prior to and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks indicate that one or more Islamic extremist organizations has sought to establish a presence in Mexico.

The Red Mafia, Triads, Yakuza, Korean Mafia, Colombian cartels, FARC, ETA and some others, like Hezbollah, operating in/through/around Mexico and with their drug gangs. This, as they say, is not a pleasant thought, that 'free trade' is now going to rev up transnational organized crime *and* terrorism. The report then goes through 13 Polydrug Trafficking Organizations, 6 Northern Border Smuggling Gangs, 12 Alien Smuggling Networks, the Foreign Transnational Criminal Organizations, 9 Domestic Terrorist Organizations, and the known Foreign Terrorist Organizations mentioned above.

I thought the idea was to make things better?

Since the level of official corruption (political, police and military) is so high in Mexico, they have a definite problem clamping down on *any* of these problems. A Sign On San Diego article from the Union-Tribune 05 JAN 2008, looks at two murder victims found in Tijuana and how the new Mayor is already corrupt based on his past history with criminal organizations. The same site reported from the Union-Tribune on 18 JAN 2008 of 6 dead in a shootout featuring automatic weapons between cartel members. Even with Federal, Provincial and Local police acting together, they are having a hard time of battling the heavily armed cartels. The Chicago Tribune of 07 FEB 2008 reports on Mexican President Calderon's appeal for COIN funds to help battle this problem, to the tune of $1.4 billion. Here is part of the NAFTA agreement showing up in spades:

MEXICO CITY – In his first year in office, Mexican President Felipe Calderon has gone beyond his predecessors in declaring war against drug traffickers and organized crime, dispatching tens of thousands of troops to lead the charge.

But the enemy isn't going down without a fight. After months of improvement in security, January saw a surge in drug-related violence, including bloody battles with Mexican forces along the U.S. border. Law-enforcement officials call it a counterattack against Calderon's offensive.

In an interview Wednesday ahead of his first presidential visit to the U.S., Calderon appealed for approval of a $1.4 billion U.S. aid package proposed by President Bush to give Mexico's anti-drug battle a boost with aircraft, surveillance equipment and police training. The package has stalled in Congress.

[..]

In a wide-ranging discussion at the Los Pinos presidential compound with the Tribune and Hoy, a daily, Spanish-language newspaper owned by Tribune Co., Calderon said Mexican police and military have felt the brunt of the drug war's casualties.

But his diplomats are stressing to U.S. lawmakers that it "is affecting Americans, that it is affecting the children of those congressmen … and requires the cooperation of everyone to resolve it," he said. "It is a problem that we share as neighbors."

The Calderon administration has claimed its share of successes, including the detention of about 20,000 people linked to organized crime and an operation in October that netted 23.5 tons of cocaine, which the government trumpets as a world record.

[..]

But U.S. law-enforcement officials and security analysts say the successes have come with a price. Mexico suffered 235 drug-related murders in January, up more than 50 percent from January 2007, according to El Universal newspaper Reforma newspaper, which also tracks crime data, put the number of drug-related murders in 2007 at 2,275, a 15-percent jump from 2006.

When you are pulling in 20,000 people, you do *not* have a minor problem on your hands. In Iraq that might account for nearly 1/3 the entire insurgency. Spread over 5 years. So 20,000 people in a couple of months is not only worrying: it is frightening. And as these are criminal organizations making contacts with exterior Transnational Criminal and Terrorist operations, they have resources of their own to draw upon in the way of equipment and training. And the number being killed are those, now, seen in COIN, not just standard organized crime.

And what made this possible?

A lot of poor people seeing their chances of getting into the service sector cut off and no longer able to grow their own crops and gain some modicum of profit. Narcotics and human trafficking are far more lucrative than mere corn and rice. And as part of the COIN problem one of the things that needs to get shut down is the funding and supply sources for organized crime... and that money comes from the northern border region.

The United States.

Thank you to the vaunted two-party system for making one, lovely, possible future one in which the next COIN work we will have to do will be across our southern border... and a series of fences built not to keep the illegals *out* of the US, but to regulate US money flowing *into* Mexico that is fueling their organized crime and narcotics groups.

Perhaps it is time to re-think NAFTA before we do the exact, same thing to other parts of the world unprepared for 'free trade' because they have corrupt governments, police, military and court systems. Might be a good idea to review the basis of 'free trade' as it has things not noteworthy in most of the world: accountable governments, liberty, freedom, anti-corruption organizations in civil, political, law enforcement and military realms, and the ability to go after organized crime and terrorism. Otherwise we are asking for the much larger job of when these Nations slowly sink into a miasma of organized crime wars and terrorists roaming around.

This does mean supporting liberty, freedom and accountable governments before 'free trade'.

But then getting the 'free trade' first usually means you have a lot of trouble getting the rule of law if it wasn't there to start with.

Elitist Republicans and the reason they fail America

Perusing through the NRO Corner this morning I found that Mr. Krikorian had posted about a meeting he had attended an immigration debate held by FrontPage Magazine. Now just on the quick read through on the 'pro' side of the immigrant debate to have illegals put into a 'regular' status we have Linda Chavez and she has one very interesting part of her view which I will highlight:

The bigger problem is that a guest worker program should be only one component of an immigration overhaul. We also need more legal permanent residents if we are to satisfy our labor needs, on the order of about 1.5 million a year when our economy is creating 1.5 to 2 million new jobs each year as it is now. And these should be new persons, not just those already here adjusting their status, which is the current practice. I have no problem with a point system based on our economic needs in determining who gets in—with the caveat that we need not only more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians but also more people who can fill jobs that require little education but can’t be outsourced to another country or done away with by automation. What sense does it make to encourage Americans with 13 years of schooling (on average) to take these jobs—even if an employer could afford to pay wages to such workers to entice them into the jobs? And if any of the critics actually spent time with employers who have seen their industries transformed by immigrant workers, they would learn that having employees who are eager for these jobs-- not resentful as most American high school dropouts are that they’re stuck doing difficult, often dangerous and dirty, work, even at $20 an hour-- they would understand why employers are so eager to hire immigrants. It is worth remembering that the labor force participation rate of illegal alien men from Mexico is 94 %, while the comparable rate for native-born white men is 46% and the rate for blacks is 40%, and many of those not in the work force are in school or entangled in the criminal justice system. These men are largely unemployable.

You know, when folks complain about Republicans making elitist arguments, this is what they mean. So here's the deal: if you actually educate someone through high school it makes NO SENSE to have them take low skills jobs, and if drop-outs took them then they RESENT it. Well, isn't that a lovely view? Yes, American children are, apparently, over-educated *and* want high skill, high wage jobs when they don't have the skills to get the job. So they are resentful! Excuse me for saying so, but THAT is not a well functioning society that encourages that attitude in children: drop out and feel that you should get a high wage job.

The idea of 'universal education' was to get adults who learned civics and their role within society as citizens and the expectation of THEM within society. If those dropping out feel that they should have a privilege to high wage jobs with no skills, then this Nation has a far deeper problem way beyond illegal aliens taking jobs.

Now lets take a look at the labor force participation rate, as seen from Wikipedia:

The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). In the West during the latter half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace. In the United States, the labor force participation rate rose from approximately 59% in 1948 to 66% in 2005, with participation among women rising from 32% to 59% and participation among men declining from 87% to 73%. Conversely, the labor force participation rate can decrease when the rate of growth of the population outweighs that of the employed and unemployed together. The labor force participation rate is a key component in long term economic growth, almost as important as productivity.

This is a form of cohort analysis, to see about how a cohort, usually a group of individuals having similar characteristics like all of those born in a given year, performs on various criteria. An example of this is longevity of the cohort, so that when a given cohort passes a set survival amount, it can be said to be in decline with only a minority survivorship. Insurance companies love this stuff with actuarial tables for selling life insurance. Here Ms. Chavez is looking to use the overall participation of a given sub-cohort (illegal aliens from Mexico) and compare that to the overall white and black male participation rate for their cohorts (whites and blacks). She is saying, if I read this right, that of all illegal alien males from Mexico 94% participate from their cohort, while in the overall US cohort, the sub-cohorts of white and black males are 46% and 40% repsectively. She is also ignoring the participation rate of women in the US and the overall labor force participation rate for the Nation which is *rising* as seen from 1948-2005. What she also does *not* address is that within these cohorts are steep demographic differences: children, elderly, retirees, and those in otherwise non-labor roles are included in the overall population analysis, while for the illegal aliens from Mexico who are primarily childless, male, and non-retirees, the participation rate is much higher.

Well of course it is!

They are not here permanently, do not have families here, are not children, have not reached retirement age or are elderly. They have a high participation rate HERE because they are NOT part of our society. Apparently this is news to Ms. Chavez. The moment you make them LEGAL those rates will DECREASE as dependents, children, retirees and non-working mothers show up in the pool. It is only high because these individuals lack all attachments and overhead to society that they can get such a high participation rate. And once those children become Americans they won't want to do these jobs EITHER.

Perhaps it is time to pay a bit more for undesirable jobs or to not look down upon those that take manual work that is 'dangerous'. Apparently Ms. Chavez has never seen an episode of 'Dirty Jobs' on the Discovery Channel. I have not seen loads of illegal aliens lining up for coal mining, cess pit cleaning, sewer cleaning, or working to make charcoal. There are loads of dirty, dangerous and down right disgusting jobs that do NOT have high pay and people are still found to do them without looking for illegal aliens.

Then there is Clint Bolick who puts forth this lovely inanity:

Building a wall on our southern border will not halt the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigrants want the something we have: freedom and opportunity. People who would risk their lives to come to our nation---like our forefathers and mothers---are not easily deterred. Conservatives usually understand the laws of supply and demand. Our immigration laws have not been overhauled in more than 20 years. Millions of people want to come here, and employers hunger for them. Why don’t opponents of comprehensive reform---who love to say they are not anti-immigration but only anti-illegal immigration---ever propose approaches that lift the number of immigrants who can lawfully enter from Latin American countries? Until that issue is addressed---until those who enter illegally because there is no hope for legal immigration perceive a meaningful change---true border enforcement is a pipe dream.

To which the answer is: we don't know as NO ONE has tried to put a wall there. But the areas that used to be high traffic ones that have *fences* have seen a dramatic decrease in border crossings AND crime. These illegals may want freedom and opportunity, but that only comes with respecting the law. They are not respecting the law and actually degrading it which puts those same freedoms and opportunities at risk for everyone. As for proposing to lift the limits on Latin American countries, how about a counter-offer: raise the limits to all of those Nations that have been Friends and Allies in war and peace? Why make it regional and *not* conditional that people must come from Nations that respect and are friendly to the US and help us out when we need it, and we do the same for them? How about Nations recently out from under Communist repression for decades? How about Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Georgia? How about long time Friends and Allies like: the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea?

Those should work out just as well and give us stronger ties with Nations that have supported us and not those that look to exploit the US economy by coming here illegally. Probably even better as people from those Nations tend to respect the rule of law and understand the responsibilities of being a citizen.

No wonders we have a problem with illegal aliens in the US.

We are teaching our children to HATE work.

Tell you what, lets stop over-educating our children, teach them to respect all forms of work, that getting good paying jobs requires decent education and work attitude and, if you drop out of that path to success, you tend to get stuck with low paying, low skill jobs. Apparently we are teaching our children just the opposite of these things and we are paying for THAT with illegal aliens.

Of course if you say *that* then you really are out of tune with the elitist atmosphere of the education establishment of the US and, apparently, the two political parties.

It is sounding more and more if we need a Nationalist party - a political party that actually supports the Nation and not ideological objectives. The goals of having a law abiding citizen that actually understands and adheres to the responsibilities of *being* a citizen. Not ones of citizen as sum of their 'associations' or as 'economic unit', but as individuals to respected as such and to have expectations of them for the Nation.

I would support a party like that.

Too bad we don't have one like that in America these days.

Break the law - get rewarded!

I am sure that most everyone has heard of Sen. Clinton's baby-bonus payment plan!

No?

The one where every baby born in America gets a $5,000 bonus, just for being born an American? It was done at the debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, so I am sure that it was a pretty straight bit of pandering... but consider the position of an illegal alien.

If you break the law to get to the US, and your baby is born here, you get $5,000 account for that baby FREE! That's right, you get PAID to break the law!

Isn't that splendiferous?

Say, I thought that Congress was supposed to be addressing the 'magnets' attracting illegals here, like undocumented jobs, free health care, refusing folks work because they don't speak Spanish...

Here in Northern Virginia, my neighbor (herself an immigrant from asia) is currently out of work and went to the county employment office to apply for work. She spent long years in line, getting paperwork processed, learning English and very proud to be an American. So, when she gets there, applies, they ask her ONE question: Do you speak Spanish?

No? Sorry there are no jobs available... that in a county with solid economic growth, decent business climate and expanding population.

Tell you what: remove the magnets and encouragement for folks to come here so that those that come here legally can get jobs. And as for State, Municipal and County Governments... drop the damned Spanish on jobs programs and encourage folks to 'speaka da english'.

And on the Federal side: do your damned jobs and enforce the law and end the MAGNETS to encourage illegal entry to the Nation. Maybe even toughen up the employer sanctions bit by, you know, ending the businesses doing this and tossing their management into the Federal Pen for a decade or three. A fence makes for good neighbors, too... a wall makes a fantastic neighbor, ask the Israelis.

The shifting politics of the Emirs of Incumbistan

On 02 AUG 2007 the House of Representatives decided that this concept of 'representative democracy' really didn't matter upon process but upon outcome! Yes the wise Emirs of the Incumbistanian Party had seen a minor shifting in the last polling of Electistanians and have determined that their one party rule needed to be firmed up as the choice between candidates was getting to be too much of a bother upon poor Electistanian people.

You see the Incumbistanian Party did not like the idea that it was rebuked in the House of Elder Emirs, known as the Senate, over the importation and displacement of Electistanian workers by 'illegal aliens' who were 'willing to do the jobs' that Electistanians just 'wouldn't do'. Even their servants were outraged that mere Electistanians would dare to have a *say* in anything done by the older, wiser and sinecured heads of the House of Elder Emirs. Yes, there was difficulty with that in some few realized that having an uprising in the vassal state of Electistan would not be good, and so they were swayed by poor Electistanians to not perform a wholesale replacement of them via immigration law.

Not to be deterred, however, the House of Popular Emirs, because there are more of them and serve shorter terms although their lifespan in office is something near perpetual, took upon itself to start a slow-motion replacement via sector based funding. Thusly the Agricultural Bill had in it no language to penalize those that would hire or give aid and support to illegal aliens by the use of Federal funds. Some of those in the House of Popular Emirs realized, like their brethren in the House of Elders, that a long-term uprising in the vassal state of Electistan would be the result and tried to remove that language. A full and proper vote was held and this faction, seeking the safety of their own hides, won!

Ah! Little do we realize how well these Emirs have learned from their peers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iran! Or even their willingness to take a book from their previous Communist idols in the former Soviet Union or even that of the National Socialist Germany. No, with the vote finished and closed and finalized, the ruling faction realized that their wisdom was being DENIED by the lesser faction and that this could not stand! No, no, the process held for generations in the House of Popular Emirs was of no consequence at all and the voting was re-opened for 'select' Emirs to change their vote to the 'proper' one so that the will of the ruling faction could be realized. Thus it was done in the true dead of night, and the uproar from members expecting actual RULES OF ORDER and PRECEDENT OF GENERATIONS to be followed were outraged! And the fine ruling faction even went so far as to try and expunge their post-vote manipulation by having it wiped from the record, although that was very hard to do as many video outlets had captured the free video of the circuses of the House of Popular Emirs and re-broadcast it globally for all to see!

Such splendor! Having the iron fisted rule of authority on plain and clear display in the Capitol of Incumbistan and, perforce, the head of Electistanian non-politics. No longer would mere PRECEDENT and RULES guide the House of Popular Emirs! Decision could now be REMOVED from the House and its leading faction could now install whatever it sees fit via ANY MEANS as their will upon Electistan and Incumbistan. Indeed the awful burden of actually deciding upon Incumbistanian Party members for titular representation may soon go the way of the DoDo and Incumbistan can move to pure factional control politics in which winning one election, once, is good enough for all time.

So, my fellow Electistanians, remember that we did NOT fight for 'No taxation without representation'! Oh, no! These Incumbistanians will 'represent' us, so long as it fits their agenda and when the needs of Electistanians does not do so, then they will use the 'older, wiser Emirs knowing more than poor Electistanians' as their excuse. And when there is any factional division, we can now expect to see the Iron Fist of Rule by Fiat over that of actually having to 'vote' for legislation. For if they will do this for a mere Agricultural Bill to displace Electistanians employed in that sector without REPRISAL upon those that break the Laws of the Land, then there IS no Law of the Land: just ruling from Incumbistan over the Laws so as to inflict their views of what Electistan needs to be to suit their purposes.

I assume, that within an election cycle or two, the pretense of having a 'choice' on the ballot will be removed by Incumbistanians. If they can vote to displace and replace Electistanians and then amend the vote to make it go the way the ruling faction wants, after all, then actual voting via the ballot for Electistanians is not something they would cherish.

Thank you to the House of Popular Emirs for showing us the true nature of their Rulership.

Incumbistan and its vassal state Electistan

From 05 JUN 2006 Examiner:

Washington - Recalling his favorite Reagan observation that America is a nation that has a government, not a government that has a nation, columnist Mark Steyn applies a marvelously descriptive term for the current state of the U.S. government as reflected in the outrage of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other GOP congressional leaders over the FBI search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s official office. Steyn’s term is “Incumbistan.” We suggest the Incumbistan Complex applies throughout the federal government.

Ah, the true Nature of what America is becoming is foreshadowed! For a little over a year later on 15 JUN 2007 at The Corner at NRO we get this:

Vacant Lott [Mark Steyn]

Andrew, I have no serious expectations of Senators these days, but I would like them at the very least to try and sound a little less like the plump complacent emirs of the one-party-state of Incumbistan. Trent Lott fails even that test.

And indeed it is!

Welcome to the one-party-state of Incumbistan and its zero-party-vassal of Electistan.

We hear a lot, out here in Electistan, the place where American voters are, from the political and ideological Elites from Incumbistan. That latter is centered in Washington, DC and doesn't stretch much out beyond the lobbying firms and monied interests that suckle up to the Emirs of Incumbistan, named Senators and Representatives. This lovely Imperial Government has pontificated much and often about how lazy and worthless Electistanians are and that they are just not going to do some jobs because they are just too demeaning.

That we heard from one of the Elder Emirs of Incumbistan, John McCain from the Emirate of Arizonia:

[...]But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain’s job offer.

“I’ll take it!” one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. “You can’t do it, my friends.”

Some in the crowd said they didn’t appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.

Yes, the people of Electistan in the Emirate of Arizonia were TOLD that they wouldn't take jobs at a wage rate that was HIGH, even when individuals of Arizonia said they WOULD take them! Yes the high Elder Emir of Arizonia does know his own population far, far better than THEY DO in regards to work ethic and what is seen as a good job!

And last year we heard from Ken Mehlman, head of the Republicarian Faction of Incumbistan on just what was so good about helping illegal aliens:

Part of securing those borders, though, is recognizing that we have a reason for a lot of this illegal immigration today and that is a disconnect between supply and demand. There is a big demand for workers and the supply, available in this country, doesn't meet that demand.

So we need to have a system, in the future, that says: We're going to figure out how to meet our economic [needs] without encouraging illegal immigration.

It seems to me the same tools we're using to keep out drug dealers and terrorists and criminals ought to welcome in tech workers and carpenters and workers willing to do the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.

Yes, the National Inumbistanian Police are so effective at actually stopping the trafficking of illegal drugs and narcotics TODAY that they will be JUST AS EFFECTIVE tomorrow at stopping the trafficking of human beings, plus international gangs like MS-13, which is already under their purview for Electistan. Plus we now hear that the poor underclass of Electistan is unable to be trained to do tech worker jobs, carpentry jobs and unwilling to do other jobs! The Republicarians sure do know the Electistanians so well!

Such is the efficiency of the National Incumbistanian Police that they have ENDED the DRUG WAR SUCCESSFULLY with regards to shipping of illegal drugs to Electistan! They have also secured the Electistanians from all sorts of foreign criminal elements in the form of gangs, black market goods dealers and even in such things as trafficking of humans from Nations on terrorist watch lists that there is absolutely, positively no worries that this absolutely secure system in place today can handle a work load 10 times its current size. Plus they have shut down all forms of money laundering that utilizes untraceable contacts, remote exchange/purchase agreements and are all person-to-person networks based on ethnic communities. The ability of the NIPs to disguise themselves perfectly and be accepted into even the most vile of criminal operations is manifest by how safe Electistan is TODAY. Yes, the NIPs are the most efficient police force on the planet that they can do this for Electistanians! We are PERFECTLY SAFE from those things today!

With respect to the illegal immigrants that are here now what do I think we should do?

What I think we should do are several things. First of all we need to uphold the rule of law. It would be very wrong and inappropriate if we were to say there were no consequences if there were just a blanket amnesty,

Second of all we've got to figure out who among this population is a threat, and who among them is not a threat. I think the fact that there may be criminals among the illegal immigrants we've got to figure out who they are.

Yes, even when they don't know who the criminals are or where they are, we know that they have tracked them down and found them even when they can't do that! I think this may be a case of needing to augment the NIPs with illegal aliens so that they can do the jobs that the Incumbistanian Police cannot do. Those are such high assurances from Mr. Mehlman!

And Mr. Mehlman is so correct that poor, underclass Electistanians cannot be taught how to use a hammer, a hand saw, and drive nails with the correct tool! All forms of carpentry are UNKNOWN in Electistan and we are unable to TEACH anyone to do those jobs, including the unemployed Citizens of Electistan and the children of Electistanians. No one can be taught how to use a soldering iron nor how to trace out an electrical circuit as that knowledge has been lost, forever, in Electistan. In truth Electistanians are unwilling to do any form of manual labor AT ALL and prefer a servant underclass to work for us just like is done in Saudi Arabia. It is so good that they have taught us HOW to be as indolent as THEY ARE that we need a foreign servant class to do such things for us.

Of course we do take time to disabuse ourselves that doing such jobs has social value and that such work is needed in Electistan. So, to help us out, we have an entire business class to help ensure that Electistanians cannot even FIND such work:

And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker. And you know in a sense that sounds funny, but it's what we're trying to do here. We are complying with the law fully, but ah, our objective is to get this person a green card, and get through the labor certification process. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are the most numerous. We're going to try to find a place where we can comply with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.

Ah, praises be showered upon such businesses that ascertain what Electistanians will not do and ensure that no Electistanians can be found to do those jobs! They have even so figured out that looking for where Electistanians may be trained for such work is the best place not to look for those that would be QUALIFIED to do these jobs Electistanians will not do. The most progressive of Republicarian Emirates, that of Californicalia, has found that even running their own political party is beyond them and they now bring in foreigners to lead their party:

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions -- state deputy political director -- and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

[..]

But the party nationally has fought efforts to increase immigration, calling during the recent debate in Congress for much tighter border security and resisting efforts to providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

The hiring of two immigrants at top Republican Party posts has handed ammunition to critics who note that many Republicans have spoken critically about the impacts of waves of Mexican immigrants.

Extreme and high praises for how WELL the Republicarians have LEARNED from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and going one step farther so as to farm out important decision making to foreigners as that is BEYOND the Republicarians of Californicalia. It is good that they are learning from their Elder Emirs, like Emir McCain of Arizonia, that there are, indeed, jobs that Electistanians will not do at ANY PRICE.

And one of the supporters of such illegal aliens is from the Democratolite party of Incumbistan, who is the Great Elder Emir from Taxechussets, Edward Kennedy. He has, indeed, pointed out that it would cost far too much to send illegal aliens home:

"There are 12 million undocumented workers here now," Kennedy said. "What are we going to do with them?"

Kennedy said most illegal immigrants are law-abiding and hard-working and are drawn to America by employers eager to hire them. "But I hold no brief for those who violate the law," said Kennedy, who noted that deporting illegal immigrants would cost $240 million.

This is an assured bank breaking proposition for the Emirate of Incumbistan which knows now little it can afford for such luxuries as enforcing the laws of the Nation. Of course the Great Elder Emir Kennedy has priorities for spending and that can be seen by his grand wisdom in the swinola he was able to get into the budget just a few weeks after pronouncing it would be too costly to deport illegal aliens:

An amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), approved 53 to 46 yesterday, would add $289 million to compensate recipients of an experimental flu vaccine, in the event of an adverse reaction.

Yes, this was necessary pork stuffing to the budget because those that volunteer for an experimental flu vaccine are far more important than actually enforcing the laws of the Nation. Perhaps we can now get some illegal aliens to do *that* for us so that no more money need be spent on reimbursing citizens for volunteering to help their Nation. Other pork is, of course, stuffed into the expansionary budget of the Dept. of Agriculture where billions are handed out annually to farmers to support farming, subsidize crops, and even pay farmers to not farm, which is, of course, paying Americans not to do the job they want to do. Luckily in the top 20 we can see this in action from 2003-2005 and find some of the best supported agricultural businesses in the realm of Electistan. Yes, those farmers that own farms in far off parts of Electistan are not to be thought of as 'itinerant farmers' or 'absentee landlords' but good Electistanians just no longer willing to live where the work is actually done so that they do not have to do the work involved.

And it is far and well away known that mere citizens of Electistan have problems actually carrying around any sort of identification, and so the Grand Vizier Harry Reid ensured that all 'undocumented Americans' really should be citizens, because they are just as lazy as those already living here to carry any form of identification with them. Indeed, that is a growing problem where only terrorists can actually bother to carry documents with them so a to get proper truck rental for performing their explosive ordinance delivery service. That would be a tell tale way to find them to be sure, but the NIPs don't bother on that as checking documents is a job they cannot do, either.

Yes, it is such a grand thing that Incumbistan is becoming more and more like Saudi Arabia.

I am sure that the great oil of rejoicing will follow that trend, so we can have the oil that no one can be bothered to get here in Electistan.




Ah, we already do that, too! So way ahead of the curve are these Emirs of Incumbistan!

On illegal aliens, Conservatism and Nationalism

Over at National Review Online there is an interesting post by Linda Chavez to chide conservatives who opposed the recent amnesty bill dealing with illegal aliens. It is fascinating to see how an individual can upbraid others for using emotional arguments and then turn right around and make emotion based arguments in return. She first apologizes, however, for the utilization of the 10% or less that hold extremist views on racism, ethnic bias and other sorts of things that are inherently individual based on outlook. It is, indeed, a long lasting phenomena going back centuries. It is also so minoritarian in extent that it is rarely brought up in any other circumstance, save where racism or ethnic bias is being addressed.

That makes me wonder *why* someone would even bring it up at all, as crimes based on such are rare compared to gangland violence, domestic abuse, and even such things as carjackings and jaywalking. She points to those making the 'talking points' on 'media' and 'talk radio' as pushing an agenda of racial extremism, hatred based on ethnicity and other forms of bias outlook based on individual viewpoints. As her polling points out: it is less than 10% of the Nation that represents that.

Apparently these individuals are leading, but few are following. So, again, why bring them up? So that Republicans can 'disavow them'? Apparently joining the Party of Lincoln now requires an ideological test to ensure that one is following in the footsteps OF Lincoln. If Linda Chavez believes that, then she is looking for adherence to something that those in the GOP should have in their hearts, as seen through the Emancipation Proclamation and via the acts of Lincoln, himself, while going through nearby town and communities right after the war and before he was assassinated. He was a gracious and good gentleman who spoke kindly with blacks and did not demean them. If Linda Chavez really and for true believes that this is necessary in the Party of Lincoln, then it is no longer the Party of Lincoln. That is something that should be understood by Republicans: it is the Party that granted equality to those that had been enslaved.

It is the Party of Emancipation.

It is the Party of Freedom.

I am NOT a Republican and I can still see that.

I do think that some few of the Republican Party should practice as Lincoln taught including, if I may say so, Linda Chavez. President Lincoln set a damned high standard for America and the urge to openness is NOT a message of disavowal but of WORKING with your fellow citizens to ensure the message of Liberty and Freedom rings throughout the Land. Those that have emotional based hatred that guides their decisions are not to be 'disavowed': they are to be reasoned with in hopes that the Nation can remain a Nation built on reason and faith in Our Fellow Man to uphold our joint Liberty together so that all may be Free.

The way to address bias is not to shun, not to hate them, but to pity and forgive them their sins and help them towards redemption.

I am of no known religion and I can still see that.

It is a sacred trust taken up by all Americans. So that this Nation can speak as We the People.

That is the message I get from the Founders of this Nation and even *they* had their problems upholding their beliefs. Those problems would be papered over for decades and cause the mightiest bloodshed this Nation has ever known as brother fought brother. We did not try enough to understand each other and come to a common conclusion on what it means to be HUMAN. Now I hear a message of disavowal, of hatred, of shunning to make one an outcast because they hold beliefs that are not in common. Does answering their emotions with your own HELP? I see that it creates more of a rift, more alienation and less held in common until that portion of the society that holds such beliefs comes to no good end. The Antebellum years between the Revolution and the Civil War should have taught us that: that such things need to be addressed head on and without rancor and that reason should be a guiding means to enact our emotions.

If your blood starts to boil, Ms. Chavez, may I suggest taking a 'cooling off period'? Of not letting your emotions get you in trouble? Of not causing harm before you can help others understand the problems? And if all you meet is unreasoning, emotional hatred, then you know you have met an individual who is BEYOND REASON. You will meet those in life as they do not adhere to the common weal and seek to create a more perfect Union within the Nation. If you cannot deal with your own emotions, Ms. Chavez, then why do you then seek to inflame that of others? Is it to get an unreasoning response? Inflaming passions to justify actions is something the Left loves to do so as to not help people realize that society is held in common. By doing that they seek to overthrow society and the common culture of the Nation and change it to their will. Is *that* what you are doing, Ms. Chavez?

As Ms. Chavez points out 'words do matter', and I cannot agree more!

She then pushes forward that she cannot understand *why* illegal aliens have become such an important issue. I cannot and will not address her personal views on others, save to say that when one confounds illegal aliens with immigrants who have come here legally, one is trying to mix apples and oranges and call them all apples. And then decry when someone else calls them all oranges. I prefer to call them as they are, and illegal aliens, no matter what race, color, ethnic background or Nation of origin, be it Mexico, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Mauritania, Thailand, China, Rwanda or Tahiti, I consider them all the same for what they have DONE not who they are. And what one does in life starts to describe who you are by your ACTIONS.

Their ACTIONS speak louder than words.

I am extremely fair and even in that appraisal. What you DO determines what your outlook is and tells of this thing called 'character'. Because that is another deep premise in American society: you achieve by what you DO in life. The sweetest of a mass murderer is *still* a mass murderer, for all that they may have been kind to dogs and led a good and upstanding life save in that one, tiny area.

If someone cannot, for the life of them, figure out that the Party of Lincoln is about stopping the long lasting wrongs in which the Citizens of the Nation enslaved others against their will and that the Nation could not put up with that to consider Freedom to be a guarntee of being a member of the Nation, which all slaves WERE, then imagine what sort of problems would be had if folks were walking over the border to offer themselves up on the slave market without any coercion involved. That would have made putting the idea of the universality of individual rights as a touchstone more than a bit harder because there would be an ability to point at people that did, indeed, consider themselves to be slaves.

The United States has all sorts of laws to address working in the Nation, freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract within the Nation and with those Nations that we have set up agreements with so as to allow their Citizens to work in Our Nation. That is the freedom offered by this Nation State known as the United States within the system of Nation States which holds each other accountable when they or their citizens break such agreements. This puts forward that Nations are Sovereign entities that contain their People and that their outlook must be respected both via their physical borders and by the agreements held between Nations.

Do note that Nations may enact discriminatory Treaties and legislation for themselves. Externally one may or may not sign up to Treaties, but we have ZERO say over that internal conception, save to use our Freedoms to decry inhumanity when we see it. Similarly other Nations and their Nationals are expected to do the exact same thing with us. That is something known as 'reciprocity amongst Nations in World Affairs'.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of this concept in all of her life?

I put forward a very Tart and somewhat Testy idea on Immigration Policy.

I point out, in that, the Powers that We the People grant to Our National Government to CONTROL immigration and naturalization and then, give them the authority to DO what is necessary to UPHOLD those laws they create. I also point out in The People are alienated, not the illegals, rather testily, that this very same authority has been used in wartime to utilize 50% of the GDP plus excess earnings and savings to produce war material and support a conflict the United States was in. That exact, same, power is available for EVERY single power that is Granted to the National Government via the Congress.

Previous to that I looked at the actual Bedrock of the Nation and Warnings the Founding Generation handed to us so that we could know our Nation and ensure its security against invasion and creeping tyranny. Those classical liberal roots of the Nation were given enacting authority via the things that made the bedrock of the Nation.

I think from the concept of the Westphalian system of Nation States and the concept of reciprocity amongst Nations to hold each other accountable and to uphold the right of their own People internally there are some extremely salient points that can be made.

First is that the United States and all of its powers are for those that are here legally or who have sought asylum or refuge or otherwise act in accordance with the policies set up by Congress and administered by the Federal Government.

Second is that individuals in their respective Nation States are to uphold the agreements of their Nations.

Third, that when one breaks the immigration and naturalization laws that are covered by Treaty between agreeing Nations, then one is breaking three sets of laws: That of the Nation of Origin, That of the Nation they are seeking, and that of the Treaty or Agreement between their Nations. That single, solitary activity is one that BREAKS three laws: Two National and one International.

These points are very clear and do not depend upon: race, ethnicity, economic capability, religious outlook, nor, indeed, any personal traits save those that are embodied in those separate areas of law.

Those that have entered the United States from Nations we have Treaties and Agreements with on this matter have broken their own laws, our laws and that of the Treaty.

Those that enter the United States from those Nations which we have no Treaty covering such things and then do NOT seek immediate asylum or relief from persecution have broken their own laws to leave in such manner, our laws to enter in such manner and the Laws of the Seas which recognize the sanctity of the territory of Nations.

I really don't care how *nice* these individuals are in the rest of the respects of their lives.

They are international scofflaws of the first order. They blithely break laws for PERSONAL GAIN.

And to those companies that entice, offer or give any help or leeway to such individuals: they are acting outside the confines of the US Constitution which delegates those things to the National Government. By not behaving in accordance to the National Laws of the Land, these organizations are committing a crime against the Nation and its Sovereign Rights Granted from We the People to Our Government.

I want those companies closed and auctioned off piecemeal.

And those that break the Laws of the Land should face life imprisonment for taking the actions they have done in consorting with foreigners outside of the channels strictly set up by We the People.

I did not elect companies, churches, civic organizations, political parties nor any other group to decide on those matters: that is something that is solely the domain of the Federal Government of the United States.

The actions of those coming here illegally tells me much about those individuals and about the respect the US is being shown by their Nations of origin that DO NOT STOP THEM.

Linda Chavez forgets that we are a Nation based on principle. Our emotions guide us to good principle and we then STATE that principle and back it up with the Powers of We the People.

The Declaration of Independence puts forth that Government is created among men. To have the right to have common government, those doing so must be able to say who IS and IS NOT part of that Government and its Nation. That is a basic and founding right that goes back to Westphalia.

When this Nation put its Constitution together it boldly stated exactly Who has the Power and What their Responsibilities are. I looked over that as it is a basic and guiding view of the Nation which should have some impact on what we do as Citizens to ensure that the Nation is UPHELD.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of it?

If not I will reproduce it in full:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Does that ring any bells, Ms. Chavez? We have come here as a People to form a more perfect Union and do you see what that next thing IS?

To establish Justice.

Yes it IS discriminatory: those here first get to make the rules.

Even worse is that we get to make them in accordance with our own outlook so that we may have a more perfect Union with our fellow Citizens.

And those rules establish Justice for Ourselves First before any other thing.

We agree, as a People to do this so that we may then have a Nation together.

I do not see any mention of any other Nation involved nor its People.

The US Constitution is, indeed, a highly biased document.

I happen to like it.

I am not so sure about Linda Chavez.

Perhaps if these illegals would act in a legal fashion and respect the Laws of their Nation and those of Our Nation and the Laws held in Common between Our Nations they might get more respect?

Just a thought.

Immigration Amnesty II : The Return of Seatwarmers, the sequel!

Yes, we had a rough go of it at the start of the flick, to say the least! The 77 decrepit Seatwarmers had their Senatorial Contingent bestir themselves to actually, after 21 years, address the very same issue they promised to address (real soon now!) in 1986! The Intrepid Snoozer Brigade felt the icicles of the Cold War still holding them firmly pinned to their seats long after the glacier has melted away, but their scripts remained very much the same. And so the roll of 27, the still barely wakeful Senators, was called:

NAME	PARTY	STATE
AKAKA, Daniel Kahikina	Democrat	HI
BAUCUS, Max Sieben	Democrat	MT
BIDEN, Joseph Robinette, Jr.	Democrat	DE
BOXER, Barbara	Democrat	CA
BYRD, Robert Carlyle	Democrat	WV
CARPER, Thomas Richard	Democrat	DE
COCHRAN, William Thad	Republican	MS
CRAIG, Larry Edwin	Republican	ID
DODD, Christopher John	Democrat	CT
DOMENICI, Pete Vichi	Republican	NM
DORGAN, Byron Leslie	Democrat	ND
GRASSLEY, Charles Ernest	Republican	IA
GREGG, Judd Alan	Republican	NH
HATCH, Orrin Grant	Republican	UT
INOUYE, Daniel Ken	Democrat	HI
KENNEDY, Edward Moore	Democrat	MA
KERRY, John Forbes	Democrat	MA
LAUTENBERG, Frank Raleigh	Democrat	NJ
LEVIN, Carl	Democrat	MI
LOTT, Chester Trent	Republican	MS
LUGAR, Richard Green	Republican	IN
McCAIN, John Sidney, III	Republican	AZ
MIKULSKI, Barbara Ann	Democrat	MD
REID, Harry	Democrat	NV
SNOWE, Olympia Jean	Republican	ME
SPECTER, Arlen	Republican	PA
WARNER, John William	Republican	VA

And so we have the Ranks of Bronze Doorstops.

These same 27 Bunglers of Somnolence have stood by for 21 years and now arrive in the Senate to raise their inability to levels never before seen in the modern era. This bill of their convenient excuses was compiled to put forth that they, yea and verily, could NOT DO THEIR JOBS and one amendment was utilized to show that they were serious about that. In one vote that was exactly what they voted NOT to do: enforce the laws that they had already PUT ON THE BOOKS. Thank you to Michelle Malkin for this! Those in RED above are those that positively voted NOT to enforce the laws, many of which they have put on the books in previous years. And a special mention goes to the two Johns in Green: Kerry and McCain.

Why?

Because they could not even figure out if they wanted to vote for or against the law and could not bestir themselves out of the Cold War slumber to say if they stood with or against it. The did not VOTE. I do not care if they were in Timbuktu. And since they both could figure out how to stick their finger in the winds on prior and subsequent votes, that only means that they either have a brand-new Senatorial teleportation system, or they just sat on their hands to keep them warm. Thank you to McCain and Kerry for not even deciding if the US should *have* laws regarding illegal aliens. By not voting you have made your positions *crystal clear* to me.

As to the 17 that voted to not uphold the Laws of the Land: you have just clearly identified that you are no longer serious on this area and, as this involves a Primary Duty handed to Congress via the Constitution, you have made your support of the Constitution and the Nation perfectly clear to me: You cannot even bother to 'talk a good game' about doing your jobs, but have decided to positively not do them and never be serious about them EVER.

For all the money these individuals dole out to Pork projects, it can now be concluded that they do not even know how to buy a clue.

Remember that this, the most August Debating Body on the Planet, houses within it 17 individuals who have no intention of actually doing their jobs, carrying out their duties or keeping to their Oath to do same. They will vote in any law they want and then know they will not fund it to actually enforce it and will feel absolutely free, later, to put forth that the laws should not be upheld.

Because they can't be funded.

Because they have no intention to fund them properly to see them enforced.

But it does feel so Senatorial to put laws on the books!

Perhaps we can get some Undocumented Congressmen to do their jobs.


Perhaps they would do the job these Senators are unwilling to do.

Illegal alien amnesty is NOT establishing Justice

Needless to say I am quite extreme in defense of my Nation and make no particulars about that. This is put into terms that are derogatory to those who wish to end such views as are had on such trivial things like National Sovereignty and the Rights of Man to have self-government unhindered by foreigners. Yes, such trivial things those are, in this lovely, modern era, when Human Rights trump that of Nations and that Nations, indeed, have no place in protecting those rights. Some grand and glorious brave, new world of compassion for those that have proven to be global scofflaws will be brought about by putting forth that breaking mere international law and National law still makes one a good candidate to *be* a Citizens of the United States. Which laws between Nations are those?

Well, lets start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as so many love to point at this very thing to put forth that once a person shows up on the doorstep of a Nation after going through no formalities, after not applying via Embassy or Consular Official, after obtaining no visa or in obtaining visa then decide that a time limit is just too difficult to figure out and thus do not do that, or just plain walk in for their own convenience to do as they will... these folks, no matter if they come for love nor money nor job nor family must be held accountable to the Treaties that make up the Laws between Nations. Strange as that may seem that is something that MUST BE DONE to get the PROVISIONS of those Treaties for one's self-protection.

When one reads the actual Articles in the Universal Declaration you are suddenly hit upon by something: they are based UPON Nation States. Let us look to Article 8:

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Yes they do, by whatever provisions are in the Constitution or other ruling charter or legal procedure of the Nation they are *in*. Further in Article 10:

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Again, this is an assurance that WITHIN A NATION a fair hearing can be had. I do wish some Nations would actually do this thing and uphold this, but it is, apparently, an 'optional' right for some Nations that do not abide fully by international law. Mind you, in the US it is fully mandatory as we enjoy laws here for Our Nation to protect and keep it.

To go on we see what should be done with criminal charges in Article 11:

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

These are for purely civil crimes within a Nation State. And here is where there is a major attempt by those wishing to destroy the idea of Nation State play upon the fact that civil law is conflated with international law, so that any breaking of international law is a purely civil matter. It is NOT. Breaking international laws, via the Treaties that binds one in the Nation they are from or are in by permission of that Nation is paramount. Thus, those that do NOT adhere to international laws and the Treaties that are the substance of them, and that do not follow regularized procedures of the Nation they seek to enter may NOT appeal to mere civil code *within* that Nation for redress. A violation of the Laws of Nations is a paramount procedure of the Nations involved and has often led to violence and warfare. While civil penalties may be put upon such things in a Nation, a Nation is also free to put forth that individuals breaking with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are no longer covered by it due to their actions.

By breaking the Treaties involved and individual is not granted their coverage.

This is not mere civil crime against a Nation or State: it is a crime of Nations to do this. In prior times it has gone by the names of: espionage, piracy, brigandage, and simple barbarism. Those first three are addressed NOT by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but by the prior existing and paramount Geneva Conventions covering conflict and warfare between Nation States. That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is, indeed, based upon Nation States and individuals upholding Treaties is seen in Article 13:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

When legally inside a Nation or State one is to have unhindered freedom of movement so long as it does not put that Nation at risk, and those are civil crimes or war crimes depending upon action taken. Further, when visiting another Nation legally, an individual has the right to GO HOME. These are obvious and blatant. These things cannot and do not cover those who break the Laws of Nations known as the Treaties between Nations. And anyone who breaks this Treaty by not adhering to the Nation State organs involved for such movement of individuals is not given access to these rights. This idea of upholding the Nation State is further reinforced with Article 14

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Anyone may 'seek and enjoy' asylum in other Nations, but there is no onus upon Nations to provide such. Many a Nation has specifically refused this to various individuals and are signatories to this Treaty. Further this may not be invoked for anything OTHER than political outlook. This may not be invoked for: economic reasons, reasons of poor health, reasons of poor opportunity, reasons of poor upbringing. There is no such thing as 'economic asylum'. The reinforcement of the primacy of the Nation State is giving in Article 15

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Nationality is normally provided to be the Citizenship of one or the other of one's birth parents, although some backwards countries, like the United States, provide for birth at that Nation to be a requisite, although internally that is flexible to the States themselves. Normally this is one or both the Nationalities of the parents and an individual given the choice of one or the other at age of majority. Each and every single right mentioned within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are universal only to those Nations that have actually signed up for the Declaration.

Even further the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then goes on to clearly and openly state that Nation States are to have self-government, as in Article 21:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Government access within one's own Nation is not to be infringed upon. The People are seen as the authority of government and to form government. A government of, by and for the People of that Nation. It can mean no other thing and still have the Universal Declaration make any sense at all. With illegal aliens we hear this strange idea of the universal right to contract work by some, especially the Wall Street Journal, and so let us look to Article 23:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

All of these rights are internal to a Nation State or via the methodology arranged between Nations by Treaty. One may not work something else outside of that as that is breaking with National Sovereignty. It is meaningless to have self-government and Nation States if Nation States may not reflect the will of the People within them. One does not have the right to form an illegal contract especially one that breaks international law which are the Treaties between Nation States. In some Nations this is known as Treason. It also goes by names of sabotage and 'falling under the influence of a Foreign Power'. Without utilizing the strictures and structure given for the reciprocity between Nation States in the form of their Treaty agreements, one may NOT form a contract between oneself and any member or part of another Nation State. In point of fact that is directly stipulated in Article 29:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Any Nation that signs up to this Treaty agrees that all members and parts of that Nation shall operate with full regard to this and will NOT do things contrary to *any* Treaty between Nations covering these areas. No Citizen or Member or Organization or Corporation has the right, within one Nation, to break with this Treaty once it becomes Law. To do so is a breaking of international law and this Treaty. Finally the Universal Declaration upholds these things and the other grand restriction in the omnibus restriction in Article 30:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

One may not break any part of any Treaty between Nations, put the National Sovereignty of any other Nation at risk nor interfere in those affairs to seek personal or National gain. That is prohibited. To get the provisions of the Universal Declaration one must ABIDE BY IT.

Yes, amazing, isn't it? Those that decry 'liberal views' are saying that individuals should not abide by the Laws of Nations, should not abide by Treaties between Nations, should not enforce mere civil laws within a Nation that are a guaranteed equal protection for those within it.

Nope, can't do that, wouldn't be nice to the international scofflaws!

They are such great people, those making work agreements and conspiring to break international laws and Treaties, donchyaknow? Best of all people if they would just be allowed to do this without ANY adherence to the actual laws involved and treaties. Don't need those things! Totally useless! Be nice and generous and just forget that the United States deserves the exact same full protection of treaties and international law as any other Nation. If they don't uphold the law, well, then why should we? We can just ignore it as millions of individuals have made it irrelevant. Mis-guided. Useless for the modern era.

That is exactly what the 'compassionate' argument boils down to: scrap international law and Treaties.

If the United States cannot abide by the duties and agreements it has signed up to with other Nations, then why do we expect them to do the SAME?

My compassion has an abrupt *end* at the Nation's borders and those agreements that we have signed up to with other Nations.

I really don't care how nice folks who break international laws and Treaties *are* once they arrive on the doorstep of the Nation in their millions.

They have broken the compacts between Nations and refuse to abide by the Sovereignty of the United States to have self-government and direction for its Citizens.

Nor do I have any especial good feelings towards those companies, organizations or individuals who have broken international law from WITHIN the United States to form illegal labor and other goods contracts with Foreign Nationals. That is NOT HANDED TO THEM save when Treaty allows and then only through the functioning procedures of said Treaties. Doing so is a direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States and willful breaking of it for personal or economic gain. I do not seek monetary penalties upon such. If they are companies I want them ended.

Closed.

Shuttered.

Broken up and sold at auction never to appear again.

To those individuals who have not abided by the Constitution of the United States you are liable to Civil Penalties so long as you have helped NO individual from a Nation openly hostile to the United States. If done on your lonesome, you may only find that to be a misdemeanor by the beneficent outlook of Congress via the law. Conspiracy to do this, however, starts to see tougher penalties just due to conspiracy itself. I would like to see mere employment made into a felony, so that the seriousness of enticing illegal aliens to work in the United States is underscored by hard prison time.

I do not say these things because I hate foreigners.

I say them so that MY rights and freedom can be protected and safeguarded by the Government we hold in common. Doing anything else to forgive or reward this activity against the Laws of Nations and the Law of the Land in the United States erodes and demeans my right to have a Nation in common without interference by outsiders together with my fellow Citizens. And so that those of Foreign Nationals may ALSO be kept. That is what reciprocity by Treaty means and upholding the Laws of Nations. Together we are stronger upholding such laws and reinforcing them than in not abiding by them and making them worthless. Otherwise there is a sinking into barbarism as laws are broken for any reason whatsoever and no one is willing to uphold same as they have become meaningless.

For those seeking refuge from persecution for political or religious beliefs that place foreigners at risk of their lives for professing freedom of same, then I do hope you can find asylum with the Nation.

For those seeking to lawfully enter and abide by the laws between the United States and your Nation of origin or for other lawful entry due to other circumstance covered by provisions and Treaties, you are also welcome. By demonstrating adherence to the Laws of Nations and respecting the United States and its laws, you are welcome.

I truly do not mind those with bleeding hearts that feel deeply for the plight of those driven to illegality to try and find a better life.

Slitting the wrists of the Nation and putting National Sovereignty at risk by CONDONING the breaking of international law, Treaties and National Law I have a hard time understanding.

That is the upshot of these actions: removing National Sovereignty and putting NOTHING in its place as this puts forth that mere individuals and companies may now SET immigration and foreign policy for the United States and NOTHING will be done to END IT. And if you enjoy liberty, freedom and the rights you have, then upholding the Laws of Nations and the Treaties between Nations should be of prime and paramount concern above and beyond people trying to 'earn a better living'.

Unless you truly do want to end my rights and yours so that we can no longer guide this Nation together for justice for us, first. Because if we cannot get equal protection under the law *here*, then nothing else matters. And helping those out breaking the Laws of Nations is putting equal protection at home on the chopping block because we no longer hold a Nation in common.

And I don't like the direction of that one, little bit.