Author: admin

More on the Australian refugees

It seems that Australia beat Trump to a refugee ban. The Australian Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Turnbull, came to power on the promise to stop refugees. From a recent CNN article:

The Coalition government, now led by Turnbull, campaigned in 2013 on a vow to “stop the boats,” and OSB included posters with slogans such as “No Way: You will not make Australia home.”

Turnbull has been quoted with respect to the refugees, “Our national security has to come first.”  Where are the protesters when you need them…?

President Obama’s administration announced shortly after the elections that they would be accepting ~2500 refugees found unacceptable to Australia. At the same time, the Obama administration has classified information about the transfer and the refugees, leaving Congress – as well as the American people – in the dark. How’s that for “transparency”?

Free speech is on life support

Another college speaking event was the subject of protests and violence this evening, effectively striking a blow to free speech. This time, however, it wasn’t at Berkeley; it was instead at NYU. Fortunately, the police were present and arrested some of the more egregious protesters – something that they seem to have forgotten to do at the recent Berkeley protest for Milo Yiannopoulos, the rabble-rousing  editor from Breitbart.

The people at NYU were protesting the appearance of Gavin McInnes, a controversial speaker, actor and comedian. I know very little about McInnes other than my belief that he is more likely than not provocative for the ratings (like so many others these days). However, nothing forgives the blatant anti-free-speech demonstration put on at the university over his appearance.

The demonstration is described as having been organized via Facebook, citing the following Facebook post:

“Come to Kimmel, Rosenthal Pavilion to let NYU know that we will not stand for bigotry, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny on our campus.”

Might as well have said “Come to Kimmel, Rosenthal Pavilion and let NYU know that free speech is never tolerated (unless they agree with us!). ”

It seems to me, though, that the protestors – like the speakers  – are in it for the publicity, too. If they were not, they’d simply let these people speak and allow the listeners to make their own decisions. After all, isn’t NYU a bastion of intelligent, thoughtful scholars? Can’t these people tell right from wrong without your input?

Come on, people – the only reason these speakers are “famous” is because of your protests. Do yourselves a favor and quit providing them with media coverage; they’ll fade on their own in time.

Refugees unfit for Australia – OK for U.S.?

The Obama administration agreed to resettled refugees that have been rejected by Australia and are being housed on the island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The reason?

“Australia has long had a policy which prevents individuals seeking asylum from entering the country before proper vetting.”

Note that many of these refugees are from Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan – four of the seven countries for which President Trump has temporarily suspended accepting refugees using the very same reasoning as Australia (no way to vet). How come no one is screaming at Australia for effectively creating the same immigration restrictions as President Trump?

If nothing else, at least now we have proof that the noise being made by the left about President Trump’s refugee ban is politically motivated. Otherwise, they’d be protesting Australia, too.

Voter fraud in California

It’s really easy to claim there is no voter fraud if you never look.

A recent article by investigative reporter Malia Zimmerman makes the claim that the California voter registration system is susceptible to fraud, citing identification and voter verification issues as likely causes.

In the article a representative of the California Secretary of State’s office is quoted as stating “…There is no driver’s license required to register to vote…”. Charles Bell, Jr., a partner with California-based Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP (a law firm that specializes in election law) notes that there is also no confirmation of voter eligibility for voter registration applicants; they only need to check a box affirming they are citizens, but this is not checked against any federal government database or immigration records.

To further support her claim that the system is susceptible Zimmerman interviews Claude Arnold, who served as former Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations in different seven states. He notes that over his career he has arrested “…hundreds of illegal criminal aliens who had voter registration cards…”.

A quick browse of the California Secretary of State (CSOS) web site seems to confirm Zimmerman’s assertion. To register to vote one has to only fill out an online form; no identification is required. From the CSOS web site:

How will I identify myself when registering to vote?

The voter registration application asks for your driver license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card. If you do not have a driver license, California identification card or Social Security card, you may leave that space blank. Your county elections official will assign a number to you that will be used to identify you as a voter.

California does not require an identification to vote, either; if proof of identity is needed (in the case you did not provide your California drivers license, identification card, or social security number during registration) then you can use a utility bill or even the sample ballot mailed to you as a result of your online registration. Again, from the CSOS web site:

A copy of a recent utility bill, the sample ballot booklet you received from your county elections office or another document sent to you by a government agency are examples of acceptable forms of identification.

If you don’t look for potential voter fraud then how will you know whether or not it exists? And given California’s apparently lax registration and voter requirements, how can Californians be so sure? Given the importance of  integrity in our election process, maybe it’s time we open our eyes – at least for a little while. After all, it’s justice that is supposed to be blind – not voter registrars.

Another soapbox politician…

…twisting the facts to suit their needs. In a recent news article regarding California’s attempt to provide Obamacare to illegal immigrants, California state senator Ricardo Lara had this to say:

“I take Trump at his words that anyone is subject to deportation at any time, and California will not be part of a wasteful and inhumane campaign against immigrants who are working hard and playing by the rules,” Lara’s statement said.

I don’t recall President Trump saying he was going to deport anyone other than illegal immigrants, and he’s specifically concentrating on criminal illegal immigrants. That’s a far cry from “anyone”. In addition, Lara’s claim that these immigrants subject to deportation are “…playing by the rules…” is a bit hard to swallow. After all, they have violated our laws to be here, work illegally without authorization (and as a result pay no taxes), and will have been convicted of a crime (the definition of “criminal illegal immigrant”) to qualify for deportation under President Trump’s plan. Is this what Lara considers “playing by the rules”?

From the self-proclaimed bastion of free speech…

… a riot at the University of California, Berkeley (an alma mater of mine) to protest someone there in the name of free speech.

Free speech requires that all opinions be considered – even the ones with which you don’t agree. Silencing your foes using violence and force only makes you the oppressor.

 

Political posturing at its worst

Sally Yates, the acting AG, has instructed her staff to not defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration. From her statement:

“…I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right…”

The AG does not make law (that’s the legislative branch), nor do they act as the final interpreter of laws (that’s the judicial branch). It is the AG’s  role to defend the laws of the United States (there you go: the executive branch), a role that would require her to support a lawful executive order whether or not she felt that it was the “right” thing to do. Her insistence that she alone decides which laws to support amounts to nothing more than a political attack on the Presidency.

Note, too, that she does not claim that the executive order is illegal (and the White House states that it was cleared by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel), merely that she is “not convince” of it’s legality:

“At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful…”

Just where in the Constitution does it says that a legal order issued by the President has to be cleared by the AG? Yates’ statement was very unprofessional and politically motivated, and it is my belief that she is simply posturing for a new political position. After all, what has she got to lose? Her job? That’s gone already.

My bet is that we’ll see her name on a ballot someplace real soon….

I think President Trump went a bit too far…

There is no right held by any individual to immigrate or travel to the nation of their choice; to confer such a right would defy the rights of a sovereign state to manage its borders and its immigration priorities. By the same token there is no right to demand refugee status in the nation of one’s own choice. Thus the suspension or cancellation of visas for foreign nationals and the suspension of granting permanent resident status – if in support of the security of the United States – is a reasonable action.  However, I believe that President Trump has gone too far in suspending entry for foreign nationals who have already been granted permanent resident status.

I hope he sees his error and makes a suitable correction. If not, the voters can issue their own correction come 2020.

About that poem…

A recent article recalling the poem “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus pined for an America of the past that welcomed any and all who reached her shores. However, things have changed since this poem was penned and as a result so has our immigration policy – and rightfully so.

“The New Colossus” was written in 1883; the America of this period was substantially different than it is today. In 1883 there were no social welfare programs run by the state; if you wanted “life, liberty and happiness” you could find it in America, but you would have to earn it on your own. Such is not the case today, and those that immigrate to the U.S. now are in many cases eligible for social welfare assistance that is paid for by American taxpayers. In addition, due to the disparate application of taxes that disfavor those who are more productive than others,  the system allows for the case where a working immigrant – even one who pays taxes – can reap benefits from the system greater than they have generated into the system. If a country were to allow unlimited immigration of this type it would quickly result in economic suicide. Such a policy would not act to pull everyone (including the immigrants) up to a higher economic level, but would instead pull the existing productive inhabitants down. This is why so many 1st world countries (such as Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, and many others) with extensive social welfare systems place stringent standards on people seeking to immigrate to their countries.

America, too, has now moved in the direction of a social welfare state and as a result it is simply not possible to return to the old America with respect to immigration. We are no longer the America of Emma Lazarus’ era. Live with it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

The claim has been made that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are rights that exist independent of the state. However, I would argue that without the civil structure of the state such “rights” would disappear or be made subservient to other natural rights or laws. For instance, outside of the state you do not have a “right” to your life or property; survival of the fittest rules, which allows any thug(s) who are stronger, more numerous or better armed than you to relieve you of your life, liberty and property (and it seems sans life, liberty and property that happiness would suffer, too). As a result one should be able to conclude that the state is necessary to protect these rights, and that these rights actually stem from that protection.

It is also important to note that as the state protects your rights, it protects the rights of others. You can no more steal the life, liberty or property of others than they can steal yours. This implies that the property you seek to protect must be yours, acquired by willful trade with another or produced by your productive effort. It also implies that the life you seek to sustain must be maintained by this same productive effort; you have no claim on the productivity of others, even to sustain your life.

This results in the identification of an unstated postscript that should have followed the enumeration of the rights outlined above and upon which they are entirely dependent: by your own effort. It is the failure to state this postscript that has allowed the distortion of these rights such that people now claim the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others. This is a dangerous precedent that must be vigorously opposed. Towards that end I propose the following re-written portion of our Declaration of Independence be promulgated at every opportunity:

“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness by their own effort;”

There; that’s better.