The Market Ticker ®
Commentary on The Capital Markets - Category [Federal Government]
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"; those get you blocked as a spammer), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2025-01-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 482 references
[Comments enabled]  

Pretty simple Amendment by text (only Sections 1 and 5 bear on this):

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now let's look at the actual history of this act.  First Senator Howard, one of the authorsat the time of its debate and passage:

 

So the Senator explicitly stated that the intent excluded those born to foreigners -- aliens -- along with those born to Ambassadors, Consulate officials and similar.

You'd think that would be the end of it.  But it isn't, because we don't read history anymore.  The logic here is quite-clear; a person born to parents who are not Americans are in fact subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.  It belies reason to believe that one is subject to the jurisdiction simply by being present without lineage or other attachment -- I am not subject to the jurisdiction of Canada should I travel there, but I am still required to follow their laws.

Or am I?

Well, that got examined in Wong Kim Ark (United States .v. Wong Kim Ark March 28, 1898) by the Supreme Court.

He was born to parents of Chinese descent who at the time were here legally with permanent residence but due to the laws of the time could not be naturalized.  He traveled with them to China at age 21 and on attempted return to the United States was denied entry as a non-citizen.

Here are the admitted facts by both sides of the case:

'That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento street, in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, and that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer.

'That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.

'That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.

'That during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.

'That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States.

'That in the year 1890 the said Wong Kim Ark departed for China, upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto on July 26, 1890, on the steampship Gaelic, and was permitted to enter the United States by the collector of customs, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.

'That, after his said return, the said Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until the year 1894, when he again departed for China upon a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto in the month of August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States.

'That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.'

The court held that, under the 14th Amendment, he was a citizen

Note the distinctions.

  • His parents were both domiciled residents.  Under the law of the time they could not be naturalized and while they had not renounced their Chinese citizenship (which would not have been recognized as generally nations will not allow you to be "stateless") they were lawful permanent residents in the United States at all times relevant including prior to Wong's conception and birth.

  • Neither his parents or he committed any act of offense against the United States that would exclude any of them upon legal grounds from said presence in the United States.

Note the actual decision and holding cites history prior to America:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

and....

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: "British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the crown.

There are several other examples cited, all along the same premise and all reaching the same conclusion.

Here is the problem: A person here unlawfully is by definition not within obedience or allegiance to the government as their presence here is not legal in the first instance.  In other words by their own deliberate acts they claim to be beyond the jurisdiction of the United States!

They are exactly equivalent in law to an invading army member who has crossed into the nation in violation of the border with intent to break the laws of the nation.  Such a person is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that a tourist or other lawful entrant is since by their own hand they have acted to deny the right of the government to exert jurisdiction over them and thus DENY said jurisdiction exists.

A lawful permanent resident, on the other hand, has accepted jurisdiction over their person.

Thus the Constitutional Amendment 14 and law stood and Congress recognized this fact (Section 5 power) in 1924 when it passed the Indian Citizenship Act which granted citizenship to those Native Americans who formerly did not have a right to it despite being born on American soil because their parents were in fact "not bound" to the jurisdiction of America as the Tribes had sovereign status.  That they were born on American soil was insufficient under Wong Kim Ark until that act was passed.

Under Wong Kim Ark a person born in America to lawful permanent residents, even thought they are not citizens, is a citizen by birth.  I've argued such a person is not a natural born citizen and thus ineligible to be President (or Vice-President) but there is no other impairment of any sort.  Such a person can hold any elected or appointed office except the Presidency and Vice-Presidency.  For those two offices, and only those two, both your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth and there is nothing you can do later on to change that.

But a person born to someone who is not here lawfully -- that is, said person is an illegal alien whether their presence and said birth is by subterfuge, force, overstay of otherwise-lawful admission or otherwise is born to someone who has explicitly and intentionally, by their actions, rejected the jurisdiction of the United States over their person and thus, under the original intent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment as decided in Wong Kim Ark is not a citizen of the United States.

And yes, this prohibition also extends to "birth tourism" where the person falsely, in any material respect, declared their status of pregnancy and/or intent upon entry to the United States or where admission is for purposes of employment, tourism, study or otherwise.  Unless said admission specifically contemplated the potential (or fact, as the case may be if you're already pregnant) of childbearing such a child, born to someone without lawful permanent residence status and not a citizen themselves, is not a citizen.

This is clear, simply by the reading of the record, and thus the Trump order is in conformance with it rather than attempting to redefine it.  Note that Trump's order actually is narrower than Wong Kim Ark and original debate on the 14th Amendment allows in that only one of the two natural parents need be lawful permanent residents or a citizen and further, although the order could reasonably retroactively declare this requirement to be the case Trump has deliberately not done so.

Further, the ACLU's "test plaintiff" has no standing because she has no right to be here and generally you cannot, in our legal system which is predicated on common law, bring a civil case where the events leading to your complaint exist as a result of your fraudulent act.  But for her illegal presence the events would not exist and her unlawful action in fact created the circumstance under which she now (as the ACLU's "client") complains.  This demands an immediate dismissal however it is reasonable for the Supremes to take the case anyway because it then sets precedent and puts a stop to this crap on a summary and permanent, absent a further Constitutional Amendment, basis.

I give decent odds the Supreme Court agrees this is entirely within the remit of the 14th Amendment and precedent set by prior Supreme Court decisions since, specifically Wong Kim Ark.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2025-01-23 06:50 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 506 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's not the 14th Amendment targeted one, although that's important -- and is a closer question in terms of whether it will stand up (the ACLU and others have already challenged it although I'd argue the ACLU's "putative plaintiff", which you must have of course, lacks standing and thus their suit should be immediately dismissed.)

No, its this E/O: ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY

The E/O begins:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans.  As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans. 

This is key.  The Civil Rights Act is in fact color, race, religion and other "characteristic" neutral.  It not only creates no privilege it explicitly denies privilege based on any particularized category, and the Executive is in fact required to enforce said law.

It then goes much further and:

(ii)   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:
(A)  Promoting “diversity”;
(B)  Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and
(C)  Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
(iii)  In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.

Contract with the government either directly or via subcontracts and vendors?  All "DEI", racial/religious/whatever preference and "set aside" provisions must immediately cease or you are in violation and subject to having those contracts terminated for cause as compliance is deemed by that order to be material to the government's payment obligations.  Further, the next section also goes on to require certification of compliance which makes a false certification a federal criminal offense and now the issue is no longer about contract loss -- it then comes with the risk of prison time that can be imposed upon the directors, officers and anyone else falsely-certifying (or failing to investigate as to the truth) that they in fact are in compliance.

And lest anyone think this will be "slow rolled", well, Trump took care of that too:

(b)  To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.  The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:
(i)    Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction;
(ii)   The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;
(iii)  A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.  As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;

The larger you are, and thus the more impact you've had on Americans through the practice of these unlawful acts, the more likely you are to be tagged for said enforcement.

This is precisely the correct way to target enforcement: It not only sends the strongest message but in addition it helps the largest number of people at once per action taken.

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Oh, Harvard thought they were singled out eh and other institutions thought they'd gotten away with it?  Nope.  Comply with that Supreme Court decision within your institution or lose federal funding of all sorts including federally guaranteed student loans and all grant programs.

All the E/O based "overrides" were in fact unlawful as they stood, in that the an Executive Order cannot override a Statute.  However, they did give corporations and educational institutions quite a bit of cover when it came to such policies as they made quite clear that the DOJ, OMB and other Executive elements would not bring investigations and charges, nor terminate contracts for violations as those policies were what the Administration wanted despite them being blatantly illegal under long-standing Statute.

That has now all been ripped up and thrown in the trash where it belongs.

Oh by the way, for those who think the H-1b issue doesn't intersect with this you're wrong.  It intersects bigly because in point of fact that law does not permit advantaging people on the basis of said status yet firms do it all the time through various deceptive means including false certifications that they have not laid anyone off.  It is obviously prima-facie evidence that in fact those statutory requirements to not discriminate against Americans were violated when you have an American forced to train an H-1b replacement -- and yet we know that has and does occur on a regular basis.

Those who sit in board rooms, whether corporate or educational, may need a new pair of underwear right about now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2025-01-22 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 446 references
[Comments enabled]  

Chief and I had a nice debate Tuesday morning on Stocks-n-Jocks related to Trump's and Biden's pardon flurry.

There are those who have argued that the offenses of January 6th are "unreasonable" to pardon and that Trump's pardon and commutations for persons prosecuted due to January 6th 2020's actions are outrageous.

That assertion is false.

The issuance of a pardon imputes guilt and acceptance of one, which is voluntary, confesses guilt (Burdick .v. United States, 1915.)  The reason you must voluntarily accept a pardon is that once pardoned you cannot assert 5th Amendment protections as the risk of criminal sanction has been removed.  Thus you must accept it voluntarily in that you are giving up Constitutional Rights, but in doing so you also confess to the truth of the offense(s) in question.

There is no means to expunge a federal offense.  Once convicted the only way to remove it from your record is to prevail on appeal in which case the offense itself is voided.  Many states have a process for expungement, which is a formal and legal removal of a conviction; no such thing exists for federal crimes.

A pardon does not erase an offense -- that is, the offense of "parading" or whatever have you that a person was convicted of from Jan 6 is not "gone", however, it is undisputed, because Biden pardoned all of the Jan 6 committee members, that the government and members of Congress obstructed justice which was used to deny said persons a fair trial.  That issuance of the pardon by Joe Biden imputed said guilt and the acceptance thereof confessed to same by the committee members.

That doesn't make the actions of those who paraded (or stole and destroyed, for that matter) into "not occurred."  They did take those actions, and they were charged or convicted as the case may be.  But the trials were not fair as justice was obstructed so whether the original sentences were reasonable (or whether, for example, probation or a modest fine under misdemeanor penalties was a more-appropriate penalty in the case of someone who's crime was mere presence in the Capitol building) was never lawfully and fairly adjudicated.

Trump's pardons and commutations thus might objectively be considered "wrong" except for Biden's action on the way out of office, in which he pardoned obstruction of justice, witness tampering and willful destruction of evidence by persons who led to those prosecutions, all of which were part and parcel of the original charges and trials and due to the acceptance of Biden's pardons by those committee members is in fact a confession of guilt to those federal offenses.

As a direct result Biden's preemptive pardons make the Jan 6 pardons by Trump not only objectively reasonable they became, at the moment Biden issued them, mandatory.

One can't believe justice should be served on an even-handed basis and yet a prosecutor who deliberately destroys evidence gets to keep the penalties imposed on those adjudicated guilty under that circumstance after the persons who destroyed the evidence and committed obstruction of said discovery confess to their offenses -- and prior to Trump signing those pardons they did!

PS: Don't believe for a second I've ignored the plethora of other E/Os and related actions, including the "AI" thing.  All in good time; there certainly is no shortage of material to report and opine upon now!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-02-13 14:50 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 449 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's simply no other way to express this....

 

These numbers are for only three months, so for the full year multiply by four.

Again, the total "social insurance and retirement" tax grab is $274 billion.  Social Security is a 12.3% tax (up to the cap) and Medicare is 2.9% (no cap.)  The split is thus roughly-speaking ~19% Medicare, the rest (81%) Social Security.

If you want to get down into the detailed numbers they don't "quite" add there because there is both spending and tax revenue that gets bucketed in each from the various line items.  But it's not off by much; the "line item" (without the bucketing) comes up as 74/26 -- not materially different.

81% of $274 billion is $222 billion.  Social Security spent $251 billion.  That's a ~29 billion shortfall.  Not good but there are a lot of Treasuries held against that requirement, and by 2026 the budget impact as a percentage starts to fall because the boomers start to die, statistically speaking.  In other words Social Security had a ~12% shortfall over the first three months, indistinguishable from my last look (12% .vs. 13%.)  This is easily fixable on a forward basis without much economic pain.

Medicare, on the other hand, spent $153 billion but took in just $52 billion.  That's a shortfall of 66%; that is, two thirds of it is unfunded.  You would have to more than triple the Medicare Tax Rate in order to bring it to parity.

That's an "improvement" over the nearly 75% deficit in the first month but we are in fact talking about bleeding out in two minutes rather than three; the outcome does not change.

Add to that "Health" (Medicaid, mostly) and it's much worse; now you take in $52 billion but pay out nearly $300 billion.

Note that the deficit thus far is $319 billion.  If you were to get rid of the deficit between Medicare and Medicaid .vs. tax receipts you would almost close the deficit to zero.  If you also increased the FICA tax rate by 13% (to just under 7% for "each half"), increased the income cap where it stops being collected or some combination that wounds up in the same place as well the deficit would be effectively zero.

$319 billion over three months equals roughly $1,300 billion, or close to $1.3 trillion in deficit for the entire fiscal year.  The only good news is that April is usually a strongly positive month (as a result of taxes being due) but either way the deficit is almost-certain to be in the neighborhood of $1.1 trillion this year.

You cannot fix this with either taxation or cost-shifting. It is mathematically impossible to do so.

For example you'd have to nearly double the individual income tax rate on everyone, including the middle class; to close the gap by increasing the corporate tax rate you would have to raise it by more than an insane and utterly impossible 600%.  Any claim that we can solve this by making people pay "their fair share" is a flat-out lie.

You cannot get there by "cutting spending" on other than these programs either; if you cut all "other spending" to zero along with transportation and education you'd only cover 30% of the deficit.  Cutting military spending to zero (which is obviously impossible) wouldn't get there either.

There is only one way to solve this problem and that is to collapse Medicare and Health spending by 80%.  You can only resolve the problem by collapsing the medical and health insurance monopoliesforcing everyone to publish a price for everything and charge everyone the same price, where said price must be handed out before service is provided, along with telling everyone involved that for any and all conditions in which a lifestyle change will remove the need for treatment government will pay zero unless the person in question makes that change.

The trend is not improving and it is not "The Next Generation" that will have to deal with this.

This has to stop right damn now or it will blow up before we get through the next Presidential term -- and no, you cannot tax your way out of it either.  The people in Washington DC -- Congress and the President -- must be held personally and politically responsible for their refusal to deal with the only way to put a stop to it, which is to destroy the medical monopolists using existing, 100+ year old law, and to do it right damn now.

And if they refuse we the people must enforce our demand for them to do so.  They will refuse, I remind you, unless forced by the people -- and there are peaceful and lawful means to do exactly that (e.g. a general strike.)

Nothing less than the literal existence of this nation as a Constitutional Republic is at stake.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-01-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 146 references
[Comments enabled]  

Yes, we need a wall.  Why?  Because bad people sneak in without one.

They do with one too, but it's harder and thus there are fewer attempts, and even fewer successes.  That's good, not bad.

You have to want more illegal invaders to refuse physical barriers.  Just as locking your car or house does not make it impossible to steal from either, it increases the difficulty and thus makes it less-likely.  $5 billion in the context of the federal budget is just over one tenth of one percent of spending.  Any gain in security is worth that amount of money.

But if you want to stop the insanity generally you have to force Congress to keep the promise it made when Reagan gave amnesty to illegals: You must stop the handouts.

Reagan was promised wide-scale immigration reform to end the enticement to come illegally, on a permanent basis, in return for amnesty for illegals already here.  He gave Congress the amnesty.  He never got the elimination of the enticements and it was the Democrats that didn't give it to him.

This is the same political party refusing now and it does not matter that most of those reps and senators are no longer serving; the party itself is the same.

Trump therefore should demand, before any further negotiation, that the past promise be fulfilled.

It's not that hard to do:

  • 100% E-Verify, under criminal felony penalty for failures to do so and business seizure for a second offense.  No exceptions.  This is trivially enforceable; employers already have to file 941s to report withholding taxes.  Add one field for each employee that must contain the E-Verify control number on each report.  Change the law so that non-reporting or false reporting on a 941 is a felony criminal offense with a statutory penalty of $5,000 per employee, per month not reported or falsified and that all directors, officers and employees involved in producing said false report are subject to a year in prison, consecutively, for each employee not reported.   This instantly ends employment capability for illegal invaders.

  • No welfare or other government program of any kind that is in whole or part funded by the Federal Government (specifically: Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps, WIC, S-CHIP, Education, etc) may be provided to any household unless all residing there are verified US Citizens or permanent residents.  Require prosecution for lies on said forms verifying eligibility and require that any such lie is a felony.

  • No medical treatment without proof of payment is required of any facility except as pure charity care to any person who is not a lawful permanent resident or citizen.  All such care amounts, if provided without payment, must be publicly disclosed no less often than quarterly in aggregate along with the total amount of actual collected payments for services by all medical facilities (in other words if they're going to try to make you pay for it under the table they have to disclose it.)

  • No remittances may be sent out out of the country without positive identification and proof of lawful residency or citizenship from the person doing the sending.  Period.

  • No birthright citizenship.  Come here and crap out a baby, it's a citizen of whatever nation you are but isn't an American citizen.  You must be a citizen to confer citizenship at birth.  Period.

  • Unlawful entry must be defined as a criminal felony and permanent bar to future entry for any reason.  If you wish to claim asylum, come to the border and lawfully request it.  If you wish to visit, come to the border and lawfully request entry.  If you cheat from this day forward no matter how or why you are permanently barred from ever entering the United States.

  • Those nations which border ours must be held responsible for any person who is on their soil and makes an attempt at unlawful entry, or who is turned away or deferred during an asylum request until their case is heard.  If you are our neighbor and call yourself "friend" and "trading partner" then start acting like one.  If someone illegally enters from your nation you have a responsibility to take them back when we catch them.  If someone comes into your nation with the purpose of requesting asylum in our nation and you allow them to do that's fine, but that person's safety and place to live is on you until their claim is adjudicated.  What you do from there and whether you let the people in to make said claims in the first place is your business.  Any nation that refuses, even once, to take back an illegal invader caught after unlawful entry from their nation, or a person with a deferred or refused asylum request that presents at our shared border has all trade and border crossing closed until it accepts back the person or persons it allowed to attempt to invade our nation from their land.

For those already here who, the claim is, we should "take care of" (e.g. Dreamers, etc)

  • If you came here as a child and are now an adult you must have graduated High School and demonstrate proficiency at a minimum standardized testing level in all applicable subject matter, including the English language, to qualify for further deferment.  While there are some "Dreamers" who are college students or even graduates at this point virtually all covered by this program are now adults.  ROUGHLY HALF have failed to graduate High School, demonstrate functional literacy in English or both.  These are not "Dreamers", they are public charges and must not be given anything beyond the theft they've already accumulated.  That one in ten -- or one in 100 -- is a high-achieving college graduate or student does not in any way extend to those who are either slugs or thugs.

  • If you came here as a child and still are one you must complete your education and become proficient in English. Drop out or get kicked out and you both lose your eligibility and are immediately deported.

  • You must have an executed Affidavit of Responsibility as for any other legal immigrant by an existing citizen who is responsible for you.  In other words you must have a citizen sponsor who both can and will take financial responsibility to prevent you from being a public charge.  This is required of legal immigrants and it damn well needs to be required here too.

  • You must not have a criminal record of any sort more-serious than a routine traffic violation.  Any conviction for an offense against the public peace including robbery, DUI, drug dealing, shoplifting and of course more-serious criminal activity, whether by conviction or plea, is an automatic disqualifying event, without exception.

  • You must document that you have either received all of your support from your sponsor or have lawfully worked and paid taxes in full.  This includes educational, medical and other government-funded expenses; if you received public education you or your sponsor must repay the fully-laden per-pupil cost of same.  If you received medical care under Medicaid or similar you must reimburse the full amount spent on your care by the government.  If you worked under the table you must demonstrate that you personally paid all the taxes otherwise due including both halves of FICA.  If you haven't done so up until now as a result of intentional conduct (e.g. working for cash under the table) you may be excused from criminal liability for your intentional conduct but you must report and pay all such tax arrears anyway, including interest and penalties as with any other intentional underpayment and you must begin to do so immediately and on an agreed payment plan without exception, or your sponsor must do so, until it is all paid off.

  • Assuming the above is met you may have a provisional green card however you still go to the back of the line and are subject to all of the above until your turn comes up in our normal, legal immigration proceeding.  Once your turn does come up you may have full permanent residency and ultimately apply for naturalization as may any other lawful permanent resident.

That's the minimum opening requirement.

If we do not shut off the welfare state for illegal invaders we will never solve the problem.

Leave the government shut down until this is passed first.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)