Immigration Transformation

by: the Common Constitutionalist (special thanks to Mark Levin)

We are a nation of Immigrants. Of course, so is almost every other nation. So what?

That is the line and argument for a “Comprehensive Immigration” policy, is it not. This throwaway line comes not only from the left, but the right.

They say that even those who founded are nation were immigrants. Yours and my forefathers were immigrants. True enough. Again, so what?

One has to make a giant leap to arrive at the conclusion that there is therefore a moral equivalent between legal and illegal immigration. But the leap is made nonetheless.

Mark Levin reminds us to always go back and look at our founding documents for guidance. The answer is usually there. And of course it is. The Declaration of Independence states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Can anyone tell me who amongst the legally governed, other than our Dictator in chief, consented to defacto blanket amnesty for 1 million or so illegals by Obama’s decreed “deferred action”?

As an aside, bully for Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for standing up to this tyrant.

 The Declaration also gives a handy little solution to this dilemma. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” That’s the crux of this upcoming election. We can take a big step toward the abolition of the current governing body this November.

The progressives, both left and right, tell us that today’s illegal immigrants are the moral equivalent to all other immigrants that came before. As Levin says, the illegal is portrayed as somehow being more virtuous than even American citizens. They are people of faith, hard working and strong in family values. Traits not shared with us citizens, apparently.

So how did we get here? What was the genesis of this upside down thinking?

It was 1965, during the Lyndon Johnson administration. Like his progressive predecessors, Johnson’s “Great Society” would fundamentally transform this nation, forever altering immigration policy in this country.

Johnson signed the Hart-Celler act in 1965. It was to be the beginning of the “new” immigration structure. Johnson claimed in his signing speech that, “When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no one to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong enough to clear the land, were they enduring enough to make a home for freedom, and were they brave enough to die for liberty if it became necessary to do so?” He neglected to add that we were not yet a nation with an elected government charged with protecting and defending our borders. But hey, what do I know.

He added, “This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here.”

Our old buddy the late senator Ted Kennedy added on the floor of the senate, that, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” He added, “The entire mix of this country will not be upset.”

He, of course, was either wrong or intentionally lying. I vote for the latter.

The 1965 act abolished national quotas in favor of what we call chain-migration. This gave preference to relatives of residents (family unification) over applicants with special skills.  Facts are facts and the facts are that since 1965, immigrants to the United States are poorer, less educated & less skilled, and those are the legal immigrants.

This liberalization of our immigration policy gave rise to an increase of illegal immigration.

Cesar Estrada Chavez was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Believe me, he was no conservative.

In the sixties Chavez strongly opposed illegal saying that it undermined his ability to unionize farm workers, improve conditions and wages for the American worker. The union would even report illegals to the feds. How far we’ve come in a short 47 years, eh?

In 1969, Chavez along with Walter Mondale (yes, that Walter Mondale) organized a march on the southern border protesting farmers’ use of illegals. Imagine that happening today. That’s progress, I guess.

Then there is the misuse of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, they always cite. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…” The Statists (as Levin calls them) always neglect the, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the amendment. The amendments purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born here and owed sole allegiance to this country. The American Indians did not have the same right, due to their allegiance to tribal jurisdiction. They were excluded by the 14th amendment.

One cannot be conferred citizenship by their mere presence. Diplomats and other foreign visitors to this country who happen to give birth here are not granted automatic citizenship. Why? Because the parents aren’t subject to this country’s jurisdiction and owe no allegiance to the U.S. They, of course, are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country.

The illegal or even the legal immigration problem we have today can be summed up this way. Statists in the sixties are really no different than the ones that rule us today. Whether it is through healthcare or as this article documents, immigration, it’s always the same, the unending want to fundamental transform America.  They will bend and pervert the Constitution and rule of law however they need to, to accomplish it.

Attribution: Mark Levin

Advertisements

About thecommonconstitutionalist

Brent is not a scholar. He’s not an author or speaker (yet). He hasn’t published a book nor does he write articles for magazines (yet). He has no advanced literary degree or pedigree (never will). He is just an American who writes and shares what interests him. He cares about the salvation of this country and a return to its Constitutional roots. He believes in God, country and family.
This entry was posted in Current Events, History, Political Stuff and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Immigration Transformation

  1. cafeproz says:

    One small point. You seem to be conflating morality and legality. You cannot counter a moral argument with that of a legal one. To see that pick an extreme case: “what is it legal to own slaves?” back in 1800s. Was it moral?

    There is an episode in king David’s life where he is fleeing and hungry. He goes into the sanctuary and takes ceremonial bread. Very illegal stuff. Was it moral? Does that mean anybody should be entitled to walk out with the bakeries? Or that the priests should not complain? Whatever the answer is, it is certain is that an adjudication process was not considered during the events.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s