The beginning of the end for the USA

I’m reading Martin van Creveld’s The Rise and Decline of the State and came across this passage regarding government centralizing services:

By that time even the United States, traditionally the stronghold of rugged individualism and low taxes (to make the House of Lords vote money for his plans, Lloyd George had threatened to create the necessary number of new peers), was feeling the need to do something for its working population.  A modest first step had been taken in 1912 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law requiring the payment of minimum wages.  However, it only lasted a few years; in 1923 a Supreme Court decision declared a State of Oregon minimum-wage law for women unconstitutional.  Other measures to extend government control and limit private enterprise were equally unsuccessful.  For example, the number of persons who benefited from a government vocational education scheme instituted in 1917 was so small that statistics about it simply ceased to be published.  In 1920 a law calling for the abolition of child labor failed to make it through Congress.  Five years later, a Kansas law for the compulsory arbitration of industrial disputes was similarly thrown out of the High Court.  In 1929, the last year of prosperity, all American federal welfare expenditure combined only amounted to $0.25 per head of population, which constituted perhaps one percent of its British equivalent.

In the event it took the Great Depression and 12 million unemployed to shake the United States out of the world of laissez faire and into the one in which, whatever the names attached to the various schemes, welfare came to be financed out of taxation.  The foundations were laid in 1933 when President Roosevelt, ignoring howls of Republican opposition, set up the Federal Emergency Relief Agency (FERA).  Its first director was a social worker, Harry Hopkins; armed with a war chest of $500,000,000, it provided work for at least some of those who needed it.  Over the next six years this and numerous other programs led to the spending of some $13 billion over and the construction of 122,000 public buildings, 77,000 bridges, and 64,000 miles of roads inter alia – all, however, without making a real dent in the Depression which only ended in September 1939 when, following the outbreak of war in Europe, the stock exchange went through the roof.

Administratively speaking, the annus mirabilis of the New Deal proved to be 1935.  That year saw the introduction of social security including old-age insurance and assistance, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind.  In 1939 survivors’ and disability insurance, already a standard feature in the most advanced European countries, were added to the list.  By that time every American citizen had been issued with his or her social security card and the Department of Health and Human Services had been created to oversee the system’s operation.  Even the Supreme Court was prepared to cooperate, though not before Roosevelt, having fought a battle royal with Congress, packed it with his own supporters.  In 1937 a Washington State minimum wage law was declared constitutional.  Another ruling did the same for social security itself; the age of big government had truly begun.

If only we could go back to the days where the Supreme Court actually respected the Constitution and “rugged individualism” was the law of the land.  Instead we let the socialists take over and burden us with the albatrosses of welfare and social security, and a bit later open borders.

Self-responsibility is a powerful motivator.  Yes, some people suffered by some of those Supreme Court decisions and yes, some people would have suffered if some of those social service programs weren’t in place (note that these social service programs did not end the Depression).  But you know what?  Having the onus on you and you alone to survive and fulfill your destiny is a powerful motivator.  When there is no guaranteed safety net most people will be motivated to work, or else that’s it.  With that also comes a greater sense of satisfaction.  And it is better for EVERYONE in the long run.  Sometimes we need to let things fail.  Some short-term pain saves a lot worse long-term suffering.  These decisions made decades ago have shackled us and our children and future generations.  They have destroyed far more lives than the few individuals who would have suffered at the time.

Adding these disastrous programs, in combination with the 1965 Immigration Act, which opened the floodgates for people who had no allegiance to the founding of the country and do not have the will (or often the capacity) to possibly live up to the original American ideal, and you have a bonafide disaster on your hands.  The demographic alteration that took place because of that cannot be emphasized enough.  The country, as it was before these social services programs and opening the borders, fundamentally changed forever.  And for the worse.

Debunking a myth: Illegal Alien crime

One argument that a lot of liberals like to throw out is that immigrants, including illegals, commit crime at a much lower rate than Americans.  They use this as if that’s a good reason to let them in…like crime is an average rather than an aggregate.  They’ll cite studies like that done by the CATO Institute as they proudly proclaim this.  You’ll notice they’ll never include the crime of entering the country illegally in the first place when they tally up these statistics.

This article from American Thinker is a bit old, 2015, but offers a lot of useful information.  It’s important to keep in mind that these numbers go off the absolutely absurd notion that there’s only 11 million illegals in the country.  That number has been bandied about for years now, as if all illegal immigration stopped.  The number is likely upwards of 30-40 million…but they don’t want you to know that…being that it would represent about 10% (!!!) of the population.  The rate of illegal immigration has likely only increased since these numbers have come out, and with that have their violent crimes.

Per the GAO, “as of fiscal 2009, the total alien – non-U.S.-citizen – population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status.”

Since the population of the U.S. was about 306.8 million in 2009, non-citizens comprised 8.25% of the population and illegal aliens about 3.52%. (Recall that they represented 25% of the federal prison population then, and almost 39% in 2013.)

How many crimes did they commit? Almost three million. Here they are.

Now here is where the data get dicey: how do we convert these numbers to rates so that we can compare illegal aliens and non-citizens to other groups, such as U.S. citizens or inhabitants? We have to look at how the GAO determined those estimates.

“To determine the type of offenses for which criminal aliens were convicted, we analyzed data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on federal convictions of criminal aliens from fiscal years 2003 through 2009 and conviction data from five states – Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas – from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.”

So now we have an apples and oranges problem. The federal data cover seven years and all non-citizens. The state and local data cover four years and illegal aliens only (and only those reported via SCAAP).

Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.

By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.

Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.

Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.

And I believe these are low-end estimates. For one, murder is almost always handled at the state and local level, not the federal level. So the GAO’s homicide data are skewed toward the state and local data, which cover fewer years (four) and a smaller population (illegals only). The Washington Post states that “Federal prisoners made up 10 percent of the total incarcerated populations in the United States in 2013.”

OK, let’s assume that 90% of the crimes listed by the GAO (other than immigration itself) were committed by SCAAP persons in state and local institutions. That would mean illegal aliens committed 22,558 murders over four years. That is a rate of 5,639 per year, or over 15 per day. (For reference, Rep. Steve King reported a figure of 12 per day. A sheriffs’ association is reported to estimate it at 25 per day. I don’t know how reliable these values are, but they are not totally out of line with the GAO’s data.)

That would give a murder rate for illegal aliens of 52 per 100,000 (5,639 in a population of 10.8 million) – about 10 times that of U.S. citizens.

Here are the numbers of crimes per day committed by illegal aliens in just a few crime categories, based on those GAO numbers and the 90% figure for SCAAP persons over four years.

  • Kidnappings:  9
  • Murders:         15
  • Sex offenses:   43
  • Burglaries:       71
  • Assaults:         131

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest these numbers are under-reported if anything.  And what of catch and release?  Do those statistics count I wonder?  It probably depends on the city and state reporting the crime.  Something tells me the illegal stats tallied in San Francisco are done in such a way to make it appear less worse than it really is.

We need to win the war of ideas and we cannot continue to sit by and listen and not speak up when the NPCs chirp these statements as if they are concrete fact.  This is one of those lines they like to repeat constantly, along with “diversity is our strength” and “we’ve always been a nation of immigrants”.  Do not be afraid to call them out on this.  There’s a good chance a lot of other people in the conversation quietly agree or you may just turn them onto an idea they hadn’t considered or heard before.

 

Migrants from caravan suing President Trump…yes really

They’re the gift that keeps on giving.  Twelve migrants, half of them children, are suing President Trump, the department of Homeland Security, and others for allegedly violating their constitutional rights.  You read that correctly.  Did you know that invaders migrants from other countries that aren’t even on our soil, nor have ever been on our soil, can sue us for their (US) constitutional rights?  I was kind of under the impression our Constitution was for us and our country.  Silly me.  Via Fox News:

Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The suit, which was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said it is widely known that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis.” The lawsuit also claims that the plaintiffs’ right to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Declaratory Judgement Act were being infringed upon.

The Central American migrant caravan now numbers approximately 4,000 people, down from a high of 7,200.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s claim that he will prevent the caravan from entering the U.S. It claims that the president cannot stop asylum-seekers by employing the military — when they have a fair claim. The suit criticized the president’s alleged attempt at stoking “fear and hysteria” by claiming that criminals and gang members have joined the caravan.

The suit cited a Trump interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where the president laid out plans to build tent cities to house migrants. The suit questioned the functionality of such a project, and asked if these living quarters would qualify under the Flores Agreement of 1997. The agreement protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.

Migrants

So at what point is it okay to declare one an invader rather than a “refugee” seeking asylum?  When can we actually defend our border?  If we’re not even allowed to stop anyone before they get into our country and they can sue us to claim they belong here and there’s nothing we can do about it, how is it even possible to defend our border?

This lawsuit is obviously BS.  International law dictates that if you declare yourself a refugee you are to seek asylum at the first country you enter into away from the homeland you claim is violating your human rights.  That country would have been Mexico.  Mexico offered asylum and they said no.  This SHOULD be an open and closed case.  But I’m sure it will not be.  Somebody will obstruct.  No doubt the end goal will be to delay long enough, I believe it’s 20 days now(?), before we are legally obligated to release them.  It is a total sham.

It’s interesting how this alleged poor group of migrants is able to round up a lawyer during their sojourn to America to sue before they even get there.  It’s almost like they’re having outside help or something.  Oh what’s this?  A staffer working for Beto O’Rourke was caught on tape admitting they used campaign money to fund the migrant caravan?  Nice work Beto.  That’s really showing your undying commitment and putting your constituents in Texas first.

Never forget this entire sham and coordinated invasion is entirely being funded by far left groups and being manipulated by politicians.  They do not care about these people.  All they want is their votes.  Third world populations overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The Judicial System in 2018

As we wait for the results of the 7th Kavanaugh investigation it gives time to reflect on the proceedings and the future implications going forward.  Without a doubt this has forever marred future Supreme Court Justice nominations.  Not surprisingly, only when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice is it ever this divided on party lines.  Once again the double standard reveals itself.  Consider for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably the most extreme and liberal Supreme Court Justice ever and nominated by Bill Clinton, was voted in 96-3.  Only when a Republican nominates a justice is it ever this painful and close.  You can make arguments both ways regarding Garland but the decision seemed pretty reasonable given the timing of it.

A larger thought as the country becomes ever more divided and diverse.  Would you still want to be judged by a jury of your peers in 2018?  Consider the case of Kavanaugh.  He was accused without any evidence from a woman who can’t even remember the year that she claims this happened.  And yet, half of the country is completely okay with this kangaroo court fiasco.  Would you really feel comfortable with them if you were on the stand for a rape accusation and there was zero evidence whatsoever against you?  Could you be that confident that they’d rule in your favor when we know that half the country makes the bulk of their decisions purely based on feelings and not facts?

Or how about a case where a person of color is on stand for a crime where there is a lot of evidence supporting the accusation.  Would it be that far fetched to see a jury of mostly people of color vote on racial lines and claim something ridiculous like institutional racism for validation of letting him or her off?  Or even just a run of the mill immigration case.  Where half the country doesn’t even want laws or borders I wouldn’t be confident they’d judge the case dispassionately and purely rationally.

Diversity here, as pretty much everywhere else, is not our strength.  We’ve seen this even with those who are supposedly held to a higher standard.  How many judges of color made ridiculous decisions, usually politically motivated, which is supposed to NEVER happen?  President Trump was entirely justified in his travel ban in 2017.  Obama did a similar ban in office with little resistance.  How many times was Trump’s ban shut down on absolutely ridiculous grounds?  They held the country hostage on political motivations in decisions they should never have had the power to make in the first place.

As the country becomes more diverse these are serious issues that need to be addressed.  I honestly don’t know how to proceed going forward if we’re to continue diversifying our country into extinction.  I do not have an answer for how to fix this in those conditions.  I’m skeptical it can be fixed under those conditions.

Santa Barbara to ban….plastic straws

In a move to make California coastal elites feel good about themselves the city of Santa Barbara is moving to ban plastic straws, with JAIL TIME as a potential sentence for repeat offenders.  Via Fox News:

A California coastal city has become the latest municipality to ban plastic straws, enacting what is potentially the strictest plastic prohibition in the country.

Santa Barbara earlier this month passed the ordinance authorizing hefty fines and even a possible jail sentence for violators who dole out plastic straws at restaurants, bars and other food establishments.

According to the ordinance, violators on their first offense will be given a written warning notice. But the second time a purveyor of plastic straws defies the ban is when the heavy hand of the law could clamp down.

In that case, the ordinance cites penalties from the city’s municipal code for a “fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months.”

In comparison, Seattle, which in the beginning of July became the first major city in the U.S. to ban plastic straws, only fines businesses $250 per offense.

Not that I’d expect anything less from the Communists running this state.  This isn’t the first time California has passed stupid plastic rules.  In 2014, California voted to add a 10 cent fee for every plastic bag purchased in stores.  For various reasons it didn’t go into effect until years later in some cities.  It went into effect in 2016 in San Diego and due to this homeless people began defecating in the streets rather than into what used to be free plastic bags.  This led to a hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego.  Quite the virtue signal backfire.

Further down in the article:

On Tuesday, the board of supervisors in California’s second-largest city, San Francisco, gave unanimous approval to a measure banning plastic straws alongside carryout containers and wrappers treated with fluorinated chemicals.

Supervisor Katy Tang called the negative environmental impact of single-use plastics astronomical.

“San Francisco has been a pioneer of environmental change, and it’s time for us to find alternatives to the plastic that is choking our marine ecosystems and littering our streets,” she said in a statement.

The legislation requires a second approval, which is expected next week, and the ban would go into effect July 1, 2019, along with a new requirement to make napkins, utensils and other to-go accessories available only upon request, unless a self-serve station is available where people can take what they need.

California has a lot of problems.  Plastic straws is not one of them.  It’s hard not to chuckle at San Francisco being “a pioneer of environmental change” given their massive shit problem at the moment.  Probably not the environmental change they’re dreaming about.

Incorrect interpretation of Birthright Citizenship?

Brian Lonergan at American Thinker has written a great post about how we’ve misinterpreted the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, specifically of illegals and those coming over in what is being deemed as birth tourism.  An excerpt from Mr Lonergan’s post:

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution.  This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the “anchor baby” phenomenon.  With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth.  In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States.  The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe.  The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship.  The Court’s decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.  This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not “reside” here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Immigration law in general needs to be reviewed and revamped.  The system simply cannot continue in its current form if we’re to survive as a country.  The spirit of too many of our laws is no longer respected, and loopholes have been abused such that programs that were initially created to help those in dire need are now seen as the prize for getting to America.  We cannot survive as a welfare state with our current immigration policies.  One has to go.  Ideally both.