Illegals “Earned the Right” to Citizenship

Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security spoke at the U.S. Conference of Mayors saying the millions of illegal immigrants into this country have “earned the right to be citizens.”  I want to know just how they’ve earned it?

These people are already citizens of other countries, this isn’t their country, not their homeland, they owe no allegiance, nor bear any loyalty to this country.  Instead they have crept over our borders, or overstayed their visas in order to live off the largesse of the American people.  Welfare and social programs that don’t check too deeply into whom they are pay money to people with no right to it as criminals.  But because they broke into the country as children or have lived here for twenty years somehow Secretary Johnson, which is just another name for a dick, thinks, believes with all his bleeding liberal scheming heart, that these people should be citizens.  Mostly so they can vote Democrat I imagine.

The man is the Secretary of the Homeland security, which frankly is just a smidge from a police state type force, and he should be keeping or at least interested in keeping illegals out of our country and securing the borders from all kinds of threats, but instead he and by extension his department have opted for the “toe the party line” partisanship that seems to be required of anyone in government anymore.

Bastiat was not wrong when he said in The Law: “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! (emphasis mine)

Is this not exactly what the Secretary of Homeland Security is proposing?  I mean, there is only one definition of illegal, to break a law, commit a FEDERAL crime by entering, living in, working, stealing social security numbers, and receiving welfare, child tax credits, and etc, immigrant is there not?  And instead of working on serious reform, real justice, not that fake “social justice” bull$hit, and an actual solution he wants to add these 11 million people as citizens. The law as defined by the founders never intended for our borders to be a sieve for the rest of the world.  The law was not there to provide everyone with a sob story, or a hardship with a handout for life.  This is not law, is not justice, it is the perversion of our system and our very way of life.  American exceptionalism, American ingenuity, and hard labor have been replaced with the welfare system.  That system is not only being strained by the millions of Americans that have just quit doing anything, but also by the millions of immigrants with their anchor babies and their stolen identities that have decided America is an easy mark for a handout.  We should not be rewarding these people under any stretch of the imagination.

It would be like if I broke into someones house unknowingly over their vacation then when they returned told them I had the right to live there, no borders and all that crap.  Borders are just property rights that have been given international recognition, so if someone breaks into your property are you not allowed under the law to either send them away or punish them?  Yes, yes you are.

Do not be confused by false arguments, ad hominem attacks, emotional appeals, or any other kind of specious thinking.  There is right and there is wrong and rewarding people for breaking federal law does not fall under the former, not in the slightest, and we should tell the government so.

Homeland Security Secretary: Illegals Have ‘Earned Right to be Citizens’ | CNS News.

Bastiat and the Law : Part III

I know it has been so long since I posted anything on this you might have thought I had forgotten.  No, not really, just with the election, life, and everything else going on, it just hasn’t been one of my top priorities.  If you need a quick review on parts I and II go ahead, then we can get into this part.  You can get them here : Part I. and Part II.

Okay, excellent.  We will move right on to the next section The Complete Perversion of the Law.

Would anyone be able to successfully argue without resulting to double speak and cheap tricks (not the band) to show the law has not been perverted in America over the last several hundred years?  I think not.  But what Frederic is pointing out in this section is that the law has been used in opposition to what is was supposed to be protecting.  Those who make or execute the law have used it to not protect the rights of all, but to remove rights from others to protect greater others.  It has made the taking of things a protected item rather than the defense of such a right.  He let us know two things have caused this greed and false philanthropy, and by false philanthropy he really means the welfare state or entitlements.  Now it starts to get interesting.

He touches on the Fatal Tendency of Mankind in  his next section before moving to the meat.  In it he states that man, to a man, would rather live off the work of others than do that work himself.  He is not condemning, merely stating a fact.  Man wants the most gain with the smallest amount of pain.  It is the reason star athletes dope…to get ahead without the work, or the reason people conduct insider trading, or take a shortcut, maximize gain, minimize output.  Very simple, very true, and very dangerous.  He expands this thought in his next section.

Property and Plunder

Man can live two ways, the fruits of his own hard labor which is the origin of property or seizing the property of others, engaging in plunder.  Guess which one is easier.  He tells us that plunder, thievery as it were, will only stop when it becomes more dangerous and has less of a payout than does working for your own things.  Law is what is supposed to encourage this, but law is made by men, and men want to avoid pain.  Circular thinking here maybe?  Not so much, but here comes the thought…the person that now make the law, the legislator, uses it to take independence, property, and liberty from some and deliver it to either the legislator directly or those who can give the legislator more power, allowing him to take more from a larger group of people and give it away which gives him more power and so on and so forth.  Basically, those in charge are using the law as a shield to keep themselves in power, regardless of the wreckage it causes or how twisted it becomes getting and keeping them and those like them in charge.

Really, that is what our politicians have done.  They divide the money and provide the pork to their districts, having first taken it from the people at large to deliver it to a smaller section of people under the guise of “common good” or “societal good”, “economic recovery”, etc.  This is nothing new.  Passage of the Tax Amendment in the early twentieth century, the more liberal application of eminent domain, etc.  Think about how the law has stopped protecting you and has been used to instead protect those who say they are looking out for your best interests.  Is there any other reason other than the laws in place that keep incumbents in office most of the time, well the laws that favor them and voter apathy.  I may touch on that here soon to.

Frederic Bastiat and The Law: Part II

He knows what he is talking about.

In Part one I introduced Frederic Bastiat and gave you a little background information on him and his writings.  You can review that here: Part I .  You’re good? Okay, glad you got that all reviewed and are ready to start tackling the source and do some deep thinking analysis here.  Today we’ll cover the first three sections.  don’t worry, Bastiat broke the pamphlet down into over seventy sections, I think the longest one was only four paragraphs.  Most of the others are one or two paragraphs.  Here we go

Section One: Life Is a Gift from God

Well, it is 1850. It’s not hard to see what Bastiat is pointing out. He is using the same argument that the founding fathers used when they wrote the declaration. God gives life and entrusted us with the means to protect it. It is the individuality, liberty, and property argument. He points out that these things existed before law.

Section Two: What is Law?

Simple law in itself is the collective organization of the defense of these rights mentioned in section one.
If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
But he also points out that the law cannot be used to destroy the same of another person or group of people.
Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Any such action would just not be lawful. Quite simple yes?

Section Three: A Just and Enduring Government

So we move on after establishing what our rights are and how the common defense of these rights in the basis for the law and that the law cannot used to circumvent or destroy these rights. A government organized under these premises would naturally then be a stable, limited, and non oppressive government that would be able to endure because of what it was providing to the people. Then he makes the most profound statement of the presence of the government in regards to our personal liberties and how we apply ourselves in our country.
When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost.

So wait, I guess “you didn’t build that” does not apply.  huh? who knew right.  The government’s job is to simply provide safety, nothing more and nothing less.  That protection would allow us the freedom to succeed or fail on our own, no bailouts, no welfare, no safety net, jut a good work ethic and the same opportunity as everyone else. So the state stays out if people’s business and all are allowed to thrive, but when the state gets into the job of helping everyone out we create an increased burden on the responsibilities of the government and then legislative dissent.

Interesting stuff this Bastiat guy is writing in just the first three paragraphs really.  He points out succinctly in a few hundred words the point that many morons can never get to.  the whole purpose of the government is to enforce the law and the goal of the law is the protection of individual rights: life, liberty, and property. Something to think about for this week.

Source Here.

Frederic Bastiat and The Law: A Multiple Part Series

The Law, under appreciated, under read.

Good morning dear readers.  I was having a conversation with another individual and was throwing around the idea of a multiple part series given out once a week.  The other person thought that would be a brilliant idea since this is stuff I know about.  So I thought what could I use to fill this space, be something I really know about, and be something you could find relevant.  I mean let us face it.  If I were to launch a multiple part series on the major and minor varieties of some coin that I was interested in researching I would lose most, if not all of you very quickly.  I get that, my hobby isn’t for everyone.  However, I think I may have found something that will fit into that niche.  His name is Frederic Bastiat and he wrote The Law. But first a bit about Bastiat.

Frederic Bastiat was born a Frenchman in 1801 and he passed on in 1850 just two years after the revolution of 1848.  During his life he  was a classic liberal theorist, just like we are, an economist, and a political figure, a member of the French Assembly.  He was also a political author, writing about political theory.  His most famous work is arguably The Law, published in 1850 mere months before his death.  He was aware that he was dying of tuberculosis while he was penning The Law.  The Law isn’t even a book, it is a pamphlet.  At a mere 50 pages in length it is a treatise on how the law facilitates a free society.  Interestingly enough Bastiat was influenced by John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government while writing The Law.  What you might not know is that work by Locke, published anonymously in 1689 was the basis for the rationale the colonists used to throw off the yoke of British oppression during the Revolutionary period in the colonies, which would very neatly tie The Law into our own system and make it relevant.  Add to that the fact that Bastiat in turn influenced Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson and you have the makings of a very, very important work by Bastiat that often gets overlooked because of its miniscule length when studying the classic authors.

Now, I know that the pamphlet is written by a Frenchman during a transitive time in the United States own history, but that doesn’t mean The Law isn’t relevant to us.  The Law as it turns out is more relevant than it ever has been and describes the way in which our own country is devolving.  I want to break it down, chapter by chapter for you and analyze it to make it better understood just how it applies and what is happening in our country and how a little pamphlet relates to that. We will start with just the introduction this week as I do not want to end up writing three thousand word essays that you will take one look at and say, TL;DR.  I got that one from my kid, and by that I mean one of my infant co-workers.  Where do they come up with that anyways?  Oh, back on topic.  Here for your pleasure, analysis is the beginning of the Law.

The Law

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Source Here.