Elitist Republicans and the reason they fail America

Perusing through the NRO Corner this morning I found that Mr. Krikorian had posted about a meeting he had attended an immigration debate held by FrontPage Magazine. Now just on the quick read through on the 'pro' side of the immigrant debate to have illegals put into a 'regular' status we have Linda Chavez and she has one very interesting part of her view which I will highlight:

The bigger problem is that a guest worker program should be only one component of an immigration overhaul. We also need more legal permanent residents if we are to satisfy our labor needs, on the order of about 1.5 million a year when our economy is creating 1.5 to 2 million new jobs each year as it is now. And these should be new persons, not just those already here adjusting their status, which is the current practice. I have no problem with a point system based on our economic needs in determining who gets in—with the caveat that we need not only more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians but also more people who can fill jobs that require little education but can’t be outsourced to another country or done away with by automation. What sense does it make to encourage Americans with 13 years of schooling (on average) to take these jobs—even if an employer could afford to pay wages to such workers to entice them into the jobs? And if any of the critics actually spent time with employers who have seen their industries transformed by immigrant workers, they would learn that having employees who are eager for these jobs-- not resentful as most American high school dropouts are that they’re stuck doing difficult, often dangerous and dirty, work, even at $20 an hour-- they would understand why employers are so eager to hire immigrants. It is worth remembering that the labor force participation rate of illegal alien men from Mexico is 94 %, while the comparable rate for native-born white men is 46% and the rate for blacks is 40%, and many of those not in the work force are in school or entangled in the criminal justice system. These men are largely unemployable.

You know, when folks complain about Republicans making elitist arguments, this is what they mean. So here's the deal: if you actually educate someone through high school it makes NO SENSE to have them take low skills jobs, and if drop-outs took them then they RESENT it. Well, isn't that a lovely view? Yes, American children are, apparently, over-educated *and* want high skill, high wage jobs when they don't have the skills to get the job. So they are resentful! Excuse me for saying so, but THAT is not a well functioning society that encourages that attitude in children: drop out and feel that you should get a high wage job.

The idea of 'universal education' was to get adults who learned civics and their role within society as citizens and the expectation of THEM within society. If those dropping out feel that they should have a privilege to high wage jobs with no skills, then this Nation has a far deeper problem way beyond illegal aliens taking jobs.

Now lets take a look at the labor force participation rate, as seen from Wikipedia:

The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). In the West during the latter half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace. In the United States, the labor force participation rate rose from approximately 59% in 1948 to 66% in 2005, with participation among women rising from 32% to 59% and participation among men declining from 87% to 73%. Conversely, the labor force participation rate can decrease when the rate of growth of the population outweighs that of the employed and unemployed together. The labor force participation rate is a key component in long term economic growth, almost as important as productivity.

This is a form of cohort analysis, to see about how a cohort, usually a group of individuals having similar characteristics like all of those born in a given year, performs on various criteria. An example of this is longevity of the cohort, so that when a given cohort passes a set survival amount, it can be said to be in decline with only a minority survivorship. Insurance companies love this stuff with actuarial tables for selling life insurance. Here Ms. Chavez is looking to use the overall participation of a given sub-cohort (illegal aliens from Mexico) and compare that to the overall white and black male participation rate for their cohorts (whites and blacks). She is saying, if I read this right, that of all illegal alien males from Mexico 94% participate from their cohort, while in the overall US cohort, the sub-cohorts of white and black males are 46% and 40% repsectively. She is also ignoring the participation rate of women in the US and the overall labor force participation rate for the Nation which is *rising* as seen from 1948-2005. What she also does *not* address is that within these cohorts are steep demographic differences: children, elderly, retirees, and those in otherwise non-labor roles are included in the overall population analysis, while for the illegal aliens from Mexico who are primarily childless, male, and non-retirees, the participation rate is much higher.

Well of course it is!

They are not here permanently, do not have families here, are not children, have not reached retirement age or are elderly. They have a high participation rate HERE because they are NOT part of our society. Apparently this is news to Ms. Chavez. The moment you make them LEGAL those rates will DECREASE as dependents, children, retirees and non-working mothers show up in the pool. It is only high because these individuals lack all attachments and overhead to society that they can get such a high participation rate. And once those children become Americans they won't want to do these jobs EITHER.

Perhaps it is time to pay a bit more for undesirable jobs or to not look down upon those that take manual work that is 'dangerous'. Apparently Ms. Chavez has never seen an episode of 'Dirty Jobs' on the Discovery Channel. I have not seen loads of illegal aliens lining up for coal mining, cess pit cleaning, sewer cleaning, or working to make charcoal. There are loads of dirty, dangerous and down right disgusting jobs that do NOT have high pay and people are still found to do them without looking for illegal aliens.

Then there is Clint Bolick who puts forth this lovely inanity:

Building a wall on our southern border will not halt the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigrants want the something we have: freedom and opportunity. People who would risk their lives to come to our nation---like our forefathers and mothers---are not easily deterred. Conservatives usually understand the laws of supply and demand. Our immigration laws have not been overhauled in more than 20 years. Millions of people want to come here, and employers hunger for them. Why don’t opponents of comprehensive reform---who love to say they are not anti-immigration but only anti-illegal immigration---ever propose approaches that lift the number of immigrants who can lawfully enter from Latin American countries? Until that issue is addressed---until those who enter illegally because there is no hope for legal immigration perceive a meaningful change---true border enforcement is a pipe dream.

To which the answer is: we don't know as NO ONE has tried to put a wall there. But the areas that used to be high traffic ones that have *fences* have seen a dramatic decrease in border crossings AND crime. These illegals may want freedom and opportunity, but that only comes with respecting the law. They are not respecting the law and actually degrading it which puts those same freedoms and opportunities at risk for everyone. As for proposing to lift the limits on Latin American countries, how about a counter-offer: raise the limits to all of those Nations that have been Friends and Allies in war and peace? Why make it regional and *not* conditional that people must come from Nations that respect and are friendly to the US and help us out when we need it, and we do the same for them? How about Nations recently out from under Communist repression for decades? How about Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Georgia? How about long time Friends and Allies like: the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea?

Those should work out just as well and give us stronger ties with Nations that have supported us and not those that look to exploit the US economy by coming here illegally. Probably even better as people from those Nations tend to respect the rule of law and understand the responsibilities of being a citizen.

No wonders we have a problem with illegal aliens in the US.

We are teaching our children to HATE work.

Tell you what, lets stop over-educating our children, teach them to respect all forms of work, that getting good paying jobs requires decent education and work attitude and, if you drop out of that path to success, you tend to get stuck with low paying, low skill jobs. Apparently we are teaching our children just the opposite of these things and we are paying for THAT with illegal aliens.

Of course if you say *that* then you really are out of tune with the elitist atmosphere of the education establishment of the US and, apparently, the two political parties.

It is sounding more and more if we need a Nationalist party - a political party that actually supports the Nation and not ideological objectives. The goals of having a law abiding citizen that actually understands and adheres to the responsibilities of *being* a citizen. Not ones of citizen as sum of their 'associations' or as 'economic unit', but as individuals to respected as such and to have expectations of them for the Nation.

I would support a party like that.

Too bad we don't have one like that in America these days.

An Intemperate Immigration Policy

The following is draconian in the extreme, but gets the point across. Do excuse any offense given, but I love my Nation first and we must have the right to HAVE a Nation unhindered by others before any other right can be upheld. Such was put forth by Jefferson and Franklin and the signers of the Declaration. Such is put forth by our Constitution as a statement of what We the People are to do so as to have a Nation. I will have no business, municipality or foreign individual set the Immigration Policy of this Nation, for that is what is happening and I do not like it in the extreme.

Thus my apologies for intemperate view. But I take offense at what is being done to this Nation we hold as a People, together.

Introduction
As given in the US Constitution, the People of the United States have granted to Congress the following powers: Article I, Section 8 (in part):

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Section 9 (in part):

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The States may not utilize such powers, especially those granted in: Article I, Section 10 (in part):

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

To Execute these powers the President is granted power to do so in: Article II, Section 3 (in part):

"; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

The Judicial is granted power of sole oversight and adjudication in: Article III, Section 2 (in part):

";--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

As all companies, corporations, organizations or other groups duly operating in the United States by grant of Law falls into all of these restrictions, including all subsidiaries of foreign companies, corporations or other groups, all such must operate under these Powers granted by the People to the Congress. All US Citizens, Nationals and those who have entered the United States by those Laws set by Congress are also bound by the US Constitution within the United States without exception.

Any corporation, group, organization or individual that passes any bill, law, contract, agreement or in any way sets to not abide by the Laws of the Land are found to be breaking the covenant between the People and their government and the powers they have assigned to it.

From the date of this passage, all corporations, groups, organizations or individuals that have passed bills, laws, contracts, agreements or is in any way not abiding by these Laws put forth by Congress, administered by the Executive and overseen by the Federal Courts, shall be found to be operating outside the confines of the agreement of the United States Constitution.

Part I
All businesses, corporations, organizations, or other duly constituted group within the confines of the United States found guilty within these statutes covering these powers, of knowingly and willfully breaking with them by their actions, and in non-adherence with these Laws in any event, shall have those things closed and sold at auction and all intellectual property made over to the Public Domain. Such sales shall pay off all debts of those organizations with any excess going to the National Treasury. Any parent group is disbarred from said auctions. If parent company is found to be in violation, and subsidiaries are not, then they are considered to be new entities under these provisions, but are disbarred from participating in said auctions.

There are no exceptions for religious institutions of any sort for any reason as this Law addresses adherence to the US Constitution and sets forth no religion before any other in this regard.

All individuals found guilty within these statutes covering these powers, who have knowingly and willfully broken such Laws, shall suffer penalty of a minimum of 10 years imprisonment and shall not exceed 25 years per each count.

Part II
Any and all municipalities, counties, cities, towns, or States found in violation of these statues covering these powers is declared in secession from the Union. All Federal aid, oversight and help will be immediately discontinued. Such governments that sponsor such shall be abolished and temporary military government installed.

Those found to have voted for passage of such things found in violation of the United States Constitution shall be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole if they give themselves up willingly and in a peaceful manner. Those that do not willingly give themselves up shall be tried for Treason.

Citizens within such areas are to swear Oath to the United States Constitution and agree to that in writing. Such Citizens will be subject to loss of their franchise rights for life. Minors are granted their franchise upon reaching Majority.

Part III
All individuals from foreign Nations who have entered the United States illegally or who have overstayed their visas or who have otherwise sought refuge without consent of the government of the United States have two weeks to leave. Those that are in poverty may petition to be given one-way tickets to their Nation of Citizenship up to two weeks from passage of this bill.

Thereafter, those still found to be in the United States, save those suffering dire health needs or incapacity, when found shall be tried and sentenced according to the Laws of the United States as set forth by Congress. All fines and prison sentences for any and all crimes committed within the United States are tripled. After such trial and detainment such individuals will be deported.

Those that are too ill or incapacitated to move shall be cared for until they can be transported, or other means found to take them to their Nation of Citizenship. All costs for such care will be billed to that Nation, if the US has regular relations with it.

For those Nations that the US has branded as "Rogue", "Outlaw" or "working with Terrorists", such individuals may apply for asylum. After thorough background check, not to exceed two years in length, and with no problems to their record, they are to be granted 'landed immigrant' status.

Part IV
To be born a Citizen of the United States a child must have at least one parent who is a Citizen of the United States.

Part V
NORTHCOM is to be given full control over border security and integrate that set of security controls with the Borders Services. The Border Services, ICE and other organizations will only need to track down anyone in the Nation illegally and serve at the ports of entry to the United States which shall be the ONLY designated entry points for the Nation. NORTHCOM will ensure that the borders are fully and finally secured for all land based approaches and for sea/air space via the High Seas regulation power granted to Congress.

Additionally a zone of lethal force is included for securing such border areas, and any Citizen who has property that is impacted by such shall be paid full value for their land. This zone shall be 100 feet in depth starting from the border at minimum and a maximum of 300 feet in rugged terrain or other offset to otherwise cover such terrain in unpopulated areas. This zone fully covers the border from sub-surface to the edge of the atmosphere and is within the control of NORTHCOM.

All Civilian transport needing to pass this zone shall do so through approved methods worked out with the Dept. of Transportation and NORTHCOM.

Any water needs shall be identified at the *start* of the project and pumping and sanitation ability integrated with the border protections.


Thus ends the proposal.

Notice that it singles out NO nationality, race, ethnic group and is blind towards religious affiliation.

Notice that this uses the actual powers granted from We the People to the Federal Government.

As Congress has the power and responsibility to fund such things, and in that World War II saw 50% of GDP devoted to creation of war material, it is expected that is something of an immediate upper limit on funding needs and that, in actuality, something much smaller can be done. I place a permanent border security set-up at around $5 billion, or the cost of the superstructure of a nuclear aircraft carrier *before* it is outfitted and finished. Concrete and steel rebar is *cheap* and so are sensors and they offer a combined effectiveness that allows for remote observation with a lessened need for physical patrols. Throw in some close-in weapon's systems for active interdiction and you get something that really does give folks a second thought about crossing the border. Even at $50 billion it would be a good 10 year project... and cost far less than trying to save the sinking City of New Orleans.

After 21 years of doing nothing, then saying that nothing has been done and using *that* as an excuse for the absolute incompetence of ALL INVOLVED since 1986 and is reprehensible as it puts forth that Congress does not value its job, protecting the Nation or actually honoring its committments to We the People. As a Nation we actually have no idea of what WILL WORK as NOTHING has been proposed nor tried by Congress.

Those proposing that NOTHING WILL WORK must demonstrate exactly all the things that have been tried and then either find a way forward to something that works OR to then put forth that the United States is not only undefendable but not worth defending. Right now, compared to 'entitlements', a miniscule portion of the budget is given to actually securing the Nation. "Open Borders" means we have NO National identity worth having and that we then expose ourselves to every thug, terrorist and bureaucrat to harass us, remove our rights or just plain kill us as individuals if we speak up against things that go wrong in the Nation. If you really *want* a borderless world, then why don't you start at some of the really horrific areas that could benefit from an influx of freedom? North Korea would be a prime place. Iran is in need of that. Venezuela looks to be in need, too. As does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Vietnam... you might get killed going to those places and supporting such things.

Or just get arrested and thrown in jail.

Like in Mexico.

Perhaps if the rest of the world was freer, then proposing for a Free People to put their freedom and liberty to make a good life at risk might gain some traction. But the rest of this sorry planet's so-called sentient population doesn't seem to be up to that task. A bit of education might help them. Perhaps, instead of protesting *for* open borders those wanting such could head to these other Nations and *teach* them the basics of freedom and liberty, instead? That would help your fellow man quite some bit.

And the Nation, come to think of it.

Until that lovely future time when all of mankind is Free with personal Liberty to prosper and invest the fruits of their labors as they see fit, this Nation will need to safeguard ITS Liberties and Freedoms. And abide by the Laws we hold in Common so as to *have* a Nation. And if you don't like that and propose that this Nation is in some way so incredibly horrid that it is not worth having, may I point you to those other Nations I mentioned and ask you what would happen if you tried to espouse such things in those places?

And then answer: why do you want to give THEM free entry to destroy the Liberty and Freedoms we currently have?

For that is *exactly* what those proposing "open borders" seek.

Upholding the Nation and its 'classical liberal' roots

Today we hear of an immigration bill in the Senate that looks to 'legalize' a large swath of those currently here illegally. These individuals have sometimes come here for jobs, some for criminal activity and some for terrorism. They have moved over the porous border of the United States because Congress has refused to exercise its Authority to safeguard the Nation and put up comprehensive border security, protection and processing at legitimate ports of entry into the United States along not only the land borders but to the actual ports of entry, which see an influx of illegals via unaccountable shipping. I have gone over the full view of this in this article on terrorism, but the basics are also being violated by mere illegal presence.

Those that come for mere jobs are then said to be in need of humanitarian outlook or 'classical liberal' outlook. And yet it was 'classical liberal' outlook that did NOT put into the hands of foreigners the Right to come to this Nation illegally. In point of fact those 'classical liberals' put the Nation State as foundation for Rights and the Sanctity and Sovereignty of the Nation over the Rights of foreigners. This was done so that Nations could decide who was and who was *not* fit to join them. It is a classical, liberal view of autonomous Nation State that must be allowed to operate with Sovereignty and not have that put at peril by foreign forces.

Those that wish to assert 'classical liberalism' are not asserting 18th, 19th or even early 20th century liberalism. It is not 'classical' as the very means of its purview was set via Treaty and the Rights of individuals are overseen by their own Nation State and other Nations may deal with them as they please when they act without regards to the Treaty involved. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly and unequivocally states that in:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Those are Rights within their Sovereign Nation of which paramount is to have a Sovereign Outlook which does allow a Nation to restrict who can and cannot enter that Nation so that individuals *within* that Nation have a community free of interference from outside forces. Again those are Rights *inside* their Nation, not externally save those covered by Treaty and what Foreign Governments afford those that come to their Nation Legally. This Treaty even goes further and tells us what an individual may NOT do:

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

By crossing borders contrary to the Laws of Nations, contrary to Treaties signed, and Contrary to the Will of the People of the United States, those that come here put Our Sovereignty at peril and Our Right to have a society at risk.

Those that wish to put forth some humanitarian or social or individual 'right' for individuals to violate the Laws of Nations put forth by their People and see them violated are NOT acting in accordance with that view of 'classical liberalism'. And by supporting that mere companies and foreign Nationals have some 'right' to work in a Nation in which they are not willing to get legally processed into are then putting forth something wholly alien to ANY form of 'liberalism' of ANY age. I go over that fully in this article and I cite, in particular, John Fonte on the problem of conservativism and the Transnational Right. Those wishing to assert the 'classical liberal' view may find this bit of interest in their SUPPORT by the Wall Street Journal as cited by Fonte on illegal aliens:

"Our own view is that a philosophy of 'free markets and free people' includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting their labor, which is a basic human right."

As Fonte looks at this so I will paraphrase what the effect of that is and what the outcome of passing some sort of 'amnesty' or 'regularization process' IS:

Thus, the Journal is telling us that immigration for employment purposes is “a basic human right.” It is not simply a policy preference but is elevated to the realm of a universal principle. On the crucial democratic question: who decides American immigration policy? The answer is clear enough. American immigration policy is decided by autonomous individuals who are foreign citizens in places like Mexico, Pakistan and Ireland. These decisions are made without the consent of the governed. Policy is not decided by ordinary American citizens in Ohio or Oklahoma. Nor on principle, the Journal editors tell us, should this policy be decided by the elected representatives of the American people in Congress assembled. Clearly, this is a post-democratic, post-constitutional principle advocated by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

And that bit about consent of the governed is the critical part as it is the BASIS for 'liberalism'. If you support illegal aliens to take jobs in the United States contrary to the Laws of Congress then you are NOT supporting the ideal of Sovereign Nation State that has autonomy and freedom from outside forces and may, indeed, regulate who can and cannot enter their Nation. A whole group of 'classical liberals' got together and WROTE the US Constitution and the following is their view of who gets to decide immigration policy for the United States in Article I, Section 8 we find the following passages on this:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[..]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

And then in Section 9 Congress gets this:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

After that there are the prohibitions upon the States and lesser governments within the States in Section 10, here in full:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Then comes the Presidential powers in this area in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Then the Judiciary via the Supreme Court gets these powers in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Yes, there are some over-arching things that these 'classical liberals' then put into Article IV:

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[..]

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Now where, exactly, are these 'other' values that are purported to be here giving foreigners and mere companies the power to set immigration policy for themselves and the Nation? Where are these 'classical liberal' values upheld by the Laws of Nations which are the Sole Sovereigns to protect their People?

Where, exactly, in this 'classical liberal' view is MY right to have and hold a Nation in common with my fellow countrymen and NOT have that violated by foreigners? For that is a basic and 'classical liberal' value! Running back to the Declaration of Independence will not help you as Thomas Jefferson, not considered very conservative by any standard, wrote this with the editing help of Ben Franklin who is, likewise, not considered to be a conservative by any modern standard:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Jefferson and Franklin are quite blunt and to the point here. To secure Rights government is instituted with the consent of the governed. And when government seeks to reduce these Rights through action or inaction it devolves towards Despotism. This does, indeed, mean that the Rights of the People to have commonality and government that is RESPECTED is paramount to ensure these self-same Rights of Man. That is what the Universal Declaration *upholds*.

I do not find it within any document of the Federal Government that the Rights of the People of the United States should be usurped and decided by foreigners and mere companies that are creations of man and legal constructs.

Where are these 'classical liberal' values that state this?

Any such value which does not adhere to the Nation State framework and the Sovereignty of a People to have a Nation State that upholds their Nation and protects them, is looking to destroy the entire basis FOR the Rights of Man.

I did not vote *for* that.

And when Congress does that thing it is diminishing Our Right as a People to have Common Government with the Consent of the Governed. Because that Right is one of the foremost 'classical liberal' values ever put forth for creating fair and just government amongst men. That proposal to allow others who have no authority delegated to them by the People to do as they will with respect to those things that are held in Common by the People are putting forth that the Nation State has NO MEANING.

If the Nation State has meaning then it is respected and upheld, even when you, as an individual, do not like what it does. Within the United States you have great input into what can be done, but the very basic compact amongst the Citizens to have Sovereignty over themselves dates back to 1776. It was clearly stated then, clearly enacted by the Constitution and clearly upheld since then by multiple rulings of the US Supreme Court.

Those that propose that there is something *above* the Nation had better damned well find out where We the People have SAID THAT. For the Sovereignty of the Nation is held in common by all and may NOT be broken due to sufferings of others who blatantly break with Treaties and the Law of Nations to have Sovereignty unimpeded by outsiders. Those that break with Treaties are no longer seen as being UNDER THEM. They have violated the agreements between Nations and can no longer appeal to anything but the *mercy* of Nations, not to any inherent Rights as they have BROKEN with the foundation of those Rights.

When something else is proposed as being 'more universal' do look to what the 'classical liberal' Jefferson warned of about the decay of government into Despotism. That is exactly what that is a call for: to start the Despotism of non-accountable actors to create rules of the Nation without the consent of the governed.

We fought a War over that.

The Revolutionary War.

Perhaps that is what those pushing for this seek: encroaching Despotism to incite war so as to extinguish Freedom and have it dictated by others.

I don't find that to be 'classical liberal' but do find it to be classically Barbaric.

Divestiture for Iran and stopping terrorists

Recently I've been made aware of the project to have the State of California divest public retirement funds that have investments in foreign companies with ties to Iran. Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R - El Cojone) has page on that and it is an important step forward in slowly removing the American Public's funds from those companies that have no compunction in working with regimes that support terrorism and not abiding by their Treaty agreements. The State of Missouri is also doing this and it is a vital role in marginalizing the capability of companies to gain US funds with which to give aid and succor to a regime that subjugates its own people, fields Foreign Legions of terrorists in many Nations and seeks to destabilize its neighbors.

The US Dept. of State has issued a federal warning against some companies that actually do business with Iran and Syria, both WMD proliferation regimes. One of these is the Aerospace Logistics Services (Mexico). There is quite a long listing of other companies around the globe helping Iran and Syria, but it would be a good idea to pay particular attention to one right on the southern border of the US. Two other companies are on the Excluded Parties List forbidden to gain any federal money from the US, these due to their connections with the Narcotics Trade:

Name -- MULTISERVICIOS DEL NOROESTE DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V.

Address(es) --
Address Tijuana, Baja California, MX


Name STRONG LINK DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V.

Address(es) --
Address Flores Magon 8013, Esquina Ninos Heroes, Zona Central, Tijuana , Baja California, MX

It might be a good idea for the States to NOT invest in these companies, either, so as to help out the Union a bit.

That said there is another problem that needs to be addressed about Iran: infiltration into the United States.

This from an AP report (so buyer beware), as no better source can be found, via the Sierra Times on a cafe owner in Mexico, Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, report dated 04 JUL 2005:

Smuggler pipelines channel illegal immigrants into U.S. from nations with terror ties

Associated Press

TIJUANA, Mexico -- The men flocked to the cafe under the sign with the cedar tree, symbol of their Mideast home. Here, in this alien border land, it was the beacon that led to an Arab "brother" who would help them complete their journey from Lebanon into America.

They would come, sometimes dozens a month over a three-year period, to find Salim Boughader Mucharrafille -- the cafe owner who drove a Mercedes and catered to some of Tijuana's more affluent denizens, including workers at the U.S. consulate only a short stroll away. His American customers were unaware that the savvy boss of La Libanesa cafe ran a less reputable business on the side.

Until his arrest in December 2002, Boughader smuggled about 200 Lebanese compatriots into the United States, including sympathizers of Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. One client, Boughader said, worked for a Hezbollah-owned television network, which glorifies suicide bombers and is itself on an American terror watch list.

[..]

A report released by the Sept. 11 commission staff last year examining how terrorists travel the world cited Boughader as the only "human smuggler with suspected links to terrorists" convicted to date in the United States.

But he is not unique.

After Boughader was locked up, other smugglers operating in Lebanon, Mexico and the United States continued to help Hezbollah-affiliated migrants in their effort to illicitly enter from Tijuana, a U.S. immigration investigator said in Mexican court documents obtained by the AP.

Another smuggling network that is controlled by Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebel group -- a U.S.-designated terror organization -- tried sneaking four Tigers over the California-Mexico border en route to Canada not long after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigator Steven Schultz said. The four were caught along with 17 other Sri Lankans, all posing as Mexicans, attempting to enter ports at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa.

An AP investigation found these are just some of the many pipelines in Central and South America, Mexico and Canada that have illegally channeled thousands of people into the United States from so-called "special-interest" countries -- those identified by the U.S. government as sponsors or supporters of terrorism.

Even when caught, illegal immigrants from those countries and other nations are sometimes released while awaiting deportation hearings, then miss those court dates, according to the AP's investigation, which also documented deep concerns about security threats along the lightly patrolled, 4,000-mile U.S.-Canada border.

The AP reviewed hundreds of pages of court indictments, affidavits, congressional testimony and government reports, and conducted dozens of interviews in Mexico and the United States to determine how migrants from countries with terrorist ties were brought illegally to America -- and how the smugglers they hired operated throughout the world.

[..]

Lebanese carpenter Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, smuggled in over the California border, admitted spending part of his time in the United States raising money to send back to his country to support Hezbollah -- at least $40,000, according to an FBI affidavit. Kourani, court records said, told the FBI that his brother is the group's chief of military security in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah is widely admired as a resistance force.

U.S. homeland security officials maintain they know of no cases of al-Qaida operatives using smuggling operations to enter the United States via traditional routes over the northern or southern boundaries, though they have warned that recent intelligence suggests the terror group is eyeing the borders as a way in.

At least one al-Qaida-linked man smuggled himself over the border. Nabil al-Marabh, a now-deported Syrian citizen once No. 27 on the FBI's list of terror suspects and accused by Canadian authorities of having connections to Osama bin Laden's network, was caught sneaking from Canada into New York in the back of a tractor-trailer in June 2001 with a fake Canadian passport.

"Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry," Jim Loy, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, told a congressional committee in February. Further, he said, "entrenched human smuggling networks and corruption in areas beyond our borders can be exploited by terrorist organizations."

[..]

The Boughader case and others show just how easy it would be -- even now, nearly four years after Sept. 11.

Just weeks ago, a federal grand jury in Phoenix indicted an Iranian tailor on charges of attempting to bring illegal immigrants from his native country over the Arizona-Mexico border.

"Today they could be smuggling people, tomorrow weapons," said John Torres, deputy assistant director for smuggling and public safety investigations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. "The vulnerability there is a criminal or terrorist organization could take advantage of that existing infrastructure."

What the records reveal is a labyrinth of networks, which use established routes frequented for years by migrants of many nationalities.

Smugglers employ recruiters and facilitators in such "special-interest" countries as Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan. One immigrant, in testimony against a now-convicted smuggler, described a "market of passports" in northern Iraq where individuals could illegally purchase documents to aid travel to America.

These smugglers use staging areas and transportation coordinators in such places as Quito, Ecuador; Lima, Peru; Cali, Colombia; and Guatemala City. They pay foot guides, drivers and stash-house operators in Mexico and the United States.

They have moved people by plane -- into suburban Washington, D.C., Florida, California. And they have crossed clients in vehicles or on foot into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and over the Canadian border, then helped deliver them to destinations across America.

They have partnered with other smugglers transporting Mexican or Central American migrants, sometimes swapping clients and transferring immigrants from "special-interest" countries and other migrants in the same loads.

"This is really a word-of-mouth business," said Laura Ingersoll, an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who has prosecuted at least a half-dozen smugglers who moved illegal immigrants from Egypt and Iraq into the United States.

[..]

"A Mafia," is how one of Boughader's clients, Roland Nassib Maksoud, once described the business.

Maksoud, a liquor distributor, traveled from Lebanon to Mexico on a legal visa in late 2000, he told investigators, according to Mexican court documents. In Mexico, he said, he met two compatriots who passed along the name of a restaurateur in Tijuana who smuggled Lebanese into the United States. They had gotten the name, Boughader, from a Beirut vendor who charged them $2,000 each for their visas to Mexico.

[..]

Other people-couriers use altered passports to fly clients to the United States. One of them, convicted smuggler Mohammed Hussein Assadi, schooled his Iraqi customers to carry nothing identifying them as Arab while traveling. He advised one migrant to shave his mustache, another to dye her hair blonde, still another to get a "European" haircut, U.S. court records showed.

Central and South America are popular transit points because of their proximity to the United States and the relative ease with which migrants from countries with terrorist ties can obtain tourist visas there -- either legally or through bribery. Assadi, an Iranian, worked from Ecuador, sometimes using the alias Antonio Roosevelt Choez Arreaga. He spoke Spanish in addition to Farsi and Arabic.

Bribery is another common tool for the organizations.

[..]

In May, the former director of immigration in Honduras was arrested, accused of selling hundreds of Honduran passports to migrants from Lebanon, China, Cuba and Colombia -- possibly to aid their entry into the United States. The investigation continues.

Maximiano Ramos, a former Los Angeles supervisor with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, admitted taking $12,500 to smuggle immigrants from the Philippines, home of the al-Qaida-linked militant group Abu Sayyaf. From 1996 to 2002, at least 40 migrants were diverted from connecting flights at Los Angeles International Airport and escorted out by security guards while Ramos was on duty.

Linda Sesi, an assistant ombudsman for the city of Detroit, is awaiting trial on charges of conspiring with four others to smuggle more than 200 migrants from Iraq, Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries into the United States from 2001 up until her arrest last September. The defendants allegedly charged clients more than $6,000 for tourist visas to South America and then, using falsified documents, flew them to Dulles airport outside Washington, D.C.

Some, including prosecutor Ingersoll, discount human smuggling as "a risky road" not likely to be traveled by terror operatives. But a former Sept. 11 commission counsel, Janice Kephart, said smuggling already is a chosen transportation mode for such groups.

Intelligence suggests that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups, according to the Sept. 11 commission's terrorist travel report Kephart helped write. Prior to Sept. 11, al-Qaida employed smugglers to get jihad recruits into Afghanistan for training, the report said.

Terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, "use human smugglers and document forgers to a great extent," Kephart said. "They know their value. It only makes sense that they would transfer that to infiltrate the United States."

[..]

Kourani, who helped raise donations for Hezbollah, entered the United States via the Lebanon-Tijuana pipeline, paying $3,000 in Beirut to get a Mexican visa, according to federal court documents. On Feb. 4, 2001, he and another man were smuggled into California in the hidden compartment of a vehicle.

Last month, Kourani was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist group. His lawyer, William Swor, said Kourani is not a member of Hezbollah and hasn't spoken in years with the brother who has a leadership role in the group. Prosecutors alleged the brother directed Kourani's U.S. activities.

ICE spokesman Manny Van Pelt refused to confirm that Boughader smuggled Kourani. Boughader himself couldn't specifically recall Mahmoud Kourani, though he noted he moved a number of people with the last name "Kourani" who were from Mahmoud Kourani's hometown of Yater, Lebanon, a longtime Hezbollah outpost.

Boughader acknowledged transporting a Lebanese man who worked at al-Manar, a global satellite television network owned and operated by Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department added al-Manar to its Terror Exclusion List in 2004, meaning anyone associated with the station may be refused entry or deported from the United States.

"For us, Hezbollah are not terrorists," said Boughader, a Mexican of Lebanese descent, echoing the feelings of most Lebanese. "I regret that what I was doing is against the law, but I don't regret what I did to help people."

That is only the LEAD-IN to the article, a few excerpts to get the idea of what is in store. But notice the Transnational Terrorism and melding of International Organized Crime. I have some news for the 'open borders' folks: it is an invitation to terrorism. Hezbollah is funded and run by Iran and Syria, executes politicians it disagrees with all the way up to the highest level of government, stages illegitimate attacks upon Sovereign Nations and fosters terrorism abroad. The actual people in Lebanon who have Hezbollah hanging around no longer want them, but the Lebanese Armed Forces are too pathetic to expel them and the UN 'peace keeping' force gives cover to them.

After the dust-up with Israel last summer, Hezbollah really cannot be considered the following, even WITH having seats in parliament: Peaceful, Legitimate, Purely Political. They are as 'peaceful' and 'legitimate' as the Wiemar Era Communists or National Socialists in Germany, and can use force to coerce people to vote and vote for them. Their purpose is NOT to defend Lebanon, or else they would have melted away when Israel LEFT. They did just the opposite under the blind eye of the UN and built up stores of equipment and weapons, and then fully utilized the hospitals they had built as supply bases, ammo dumps and even to help their wounded. That is *not* a civilian utilization of a hospital and wholly illegitimate under the Geneva Conventions.

On the ground in Texas we get this from a Cybercast News Service report, interviewing a local Sheriff on 21 AUG 2006:

Texas Sheriffs Say Terrorists Entering US from Mexico
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
August 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs' Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.

Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called "coyotes" - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S.

Although many of the non-Mexican illegal aliens are fluent in Spanish, Gonzalez said they speak with an accent that is not native.

"It's clear these people are coming in for reasons other than employment," Gonzalez said.

[..]

Some of the more high profile pieces of evidence pointing to terrorist infiltration of the U.S. have been uncovered in Jim Hogg County, Texas, which experiences a high volume of smuggling activity, according to local law enforcement.

"We see patches on jackets from countries where we know al Qaeda to be active," Gonzalez explained.

The patches appear to be military badges with Arabic lettering. One patch in particular, discovered this past December, caught the attention of federal homeland security officials, according to Gonzalez and local officials familiar with the investigation.

Sheriff Wayne Jernigan of Valverde County, Texas, told members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in March about one patch that read "midnight mission" and displayed an airplane flying over a building heading towards a tower. Translators with DHS have said some of the various phrases and slogans on the items could mean "martyr," "way to eternal life," or "way to immortality."

Gonzalez told the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation in July that the terrorists are getting smarter.

"To avoid apprehension, we feel many of these terrorists attempt to blend in with persons of Hispanic origin when entering the country." Gonzalez stated. "We feel that terrorists are already here and continue to enter our country on a daily basis."

Sheriff Arvin West of Hudspeth County, Texas, told Cybercast News Service that he believes some Mexican soldiers are operating in concert with the drug cartels to aid the terrorists.

"There's no doubt in my mind," he said, "although the Mexican government and our government adamantly deny it."

[..]

Local authorities are particularly concerned about illegal aliens arriving from Special Interest Countries (SICs) where a radical version of Islam is known to flourish. Perry's office cites Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and Bangladesh among those countries. A Tancredo spokesperson said the list also includes Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

[..]

The border security report delivered by Perry's office focuses attention on the "Triborder region" of Latin America, which spans an area between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

"The Triborder Region is a focal point of Islamic extremism," the report states. "Al Qaeda leadership plans to use criminal alien smuggling organizations to bring terrorist operatives across the border into the U.S."

In that lovely, pre-1920 era of open immigration to the US, the 'open borders' crowd forgets one very important thing that WAS done: quarantine. That is why Ellis Island is an important site, as it formed as a stop-over to protect against infectious diseases. Part of the deal with NAFTA is *not* to allow Mexico to export its unemployment problem North but to deal with it at home. Now this lax attitude has seen the local 'coyotes' hooking up with the International Organized Crime syndicates, Human Trafficking Syndicates *and* Transnational Terrorist groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Even in the most blithe of 'open borders' miasma, that must be a major sticking point unless they actually *do* want to be associated with Organized Crime, International Human Traffickers and Terrorist organizations.

Also note the increasing influence in South America where Islam is being spread from the Arab ex-pat communities. Soon you will have people that look Hispanic, have Hispanic names and are affiliated with Hezbollah, al Qaeda and Hamas. Those are *not* good people and if the border is left wide open they will just walk across it even if there IS some euphonious 'guest worker program'. Mind you we still have unemployed Citizens in the US, so the actual *need* for 'guest workers' when we have perfectly respectable folks looking for jobs is in very large question.

From Davick Services this extract from the House Committee on Homeland Security - Interim Report on the situation can be found. One of the pages of the report contains an overview of just this problem:

A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY - Interim Report

Vulnerability to Terrorist Infiltration

The number of aliens other than Mexican (“OTMs”) illegally crossing the border has grown at an alarming rate over the past several years. Based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics there were 30,147 OTMs apprehended in FY2003, 44,614 in FY2004, 165,178 in FY2005, and 108,025 in FY2006. Most of them were apprehended along the U.S. Southwest border.

The sheer increase of OTMs coming across the border makes it more difficult for Border Patrol agents to readily identify and process each, thereby increasing the chances that a potential terrorist could slip through the system. Moreover, there is no concrete mechanism for determining how many OTMs evade apprehensions and successfully enter the country illegally.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pays particular attention to OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol who originate from thirty-five nations designated as “special interest” countries. According to Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar, special interest countries have been “designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”

[..]

From FY2001 to March 2005, 88 percent of Special Interest Alien apprehensions for both the Southwest and Northern borders occurred in Texas. During that same period, 75 percent of Special Interest Alien apprehensions on the Southwest border occurred in the Laredo, McAllen, and Del Rio Sectors. Since September 11, 2001 to the present hundreds of illegal aliens from special interest countries (such as Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Cuba, Brazil, Ecuador, China, Russia, Yemen, Albania, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan) were apprehended within the South Texas region alone.

The data indicates that each year hundreds of illegal aliens from countries known to harbor terrorists or promote terrorism are routinely encountered and apprehended attempting to enter the U.S. illegally between Ports of Entry. Just recently, U.S. intelligence officials report that seven Iraqis were found in Brownsville, Texas in June 2006. In August 2006, an Afghani man was found swimming across the Rio Grande River in Hidalgo, Texas; as recently as October 2006, seven Chinese were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas.

[..]

On January 28, 2006, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar was asked by a reporter from KGNS television station in Laredo, Texas, about the outcome of the investigation of the jacket. Chief Aguilar responded that the patches were not from al Qa’ida but from countries in which al Qa’ida was known to operate.

According to ICE testimony, on September 8, 2004, ICE agents arrested Neeran Zaia and Basima Sesi. The human smuggling organization headed by Zaia specialized in smuggling Iraqi, Jordanian, and Syrian Nationals and was responsible for the movement of more than 200 aliens throughout the investigation The investigation was initiated when a confidential informant familiar with the organization reported ongoing smuggling activities by Zaia, who had been previously convicted of alien smuggling. Investigative efforts revealed that the aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America. Once in these staging areas, the conspirators would arrange to smuggle the aliens from these sites into the U.S. or its territories.

Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered to the United States across our Southwest border. On March 1, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hezbollah. Kourani is an illegal alien who had been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border after bribing a Mexican consular official in Beirut for a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a Middle Eastern traveling partner then paid coyotes in Mexico to guide them into the United States. Kourani established residence among the Lebanese expatriate community in Dearborn, Michigan and began soliciting funds for Hezbollah terrorists back home in Lebanon. He is the brother of the Hezbollah chief of military operations in southern Lebanon.

[..]

Statements made by high-ranking Mexican officials prior to and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks indicate that one or more Islamic terrorist organizations has sought to establish a presence in Mexico. In May 2001, former Mexican National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, reported, that “Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.”

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller has confirmed in testimony “that there are individuals from countries with known al-Qa’ida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants.

These examples highlight the dangerous intersection between traditional transnational criminal activities, such as human and drug smuggling, and more ominous threats to national security. Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez summed it up this way: “I dare to say that at any given time, daytime or nighttime, one can get on a boat and traverse back and forth between Texas and Mexico and not get caught. If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time, one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in 2 to 3 terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected. Chances of apprehension are very slim.

Furthermore, according to senior U.S. military and intelligence officials, Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists.

General James Hill, commander of U.S. Southern Command, has warned the United States faces a growing risk from both Middle Eastern terrorists relocating to Latin America and terror groups originating in the region. General Hill said groups such as Hezbollah had established bases in Latin America. These groups are taking advantage of smuggling hotspots, such as the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, and Venezuela’s Margarita Island, to channel funds to terrorist groups around the world.

Venezuela is providing support—including identity documents—that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups, say some U.S. officials. The Venezuelan government has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Columbia, and Middle Eastern nations that host foreign terrorist organizations. The U.S. officials believe that the Venezuelan government is issuing the documents to people who should not be getting them and that some of these cedulas could be subsequently used to obtain Venezuelan passports and even American visas, which could allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States. Recently, several Pakistanis were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexican border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents.

[..]

Given all that is happening in Chavez’s Venezuela, some American officials regret that terrorism is seen chiefly as a Middle East problem and that the United States needs to look looking to protect its southern flank. A U.S. intelligence official expressed concern that “Counterterrorism issues are not being aggressively pursued in this hemisphere.” Another intelligence official stated terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay are not being interrogated about connections to Latin America. The bottom line, when it comes to terrorism so close to U.S. shores, says the official, “We don’t even know what we don’t know.”

Islamic radical groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiya Al Gamat are all active in Latin America. These groups generate funds through money laundering, drug trafficking, and arms deals, making millions of dollars every year via their multiple illicit activities. These cells reach back to the Middle East and extend to this hemisphere the sophisticated global support structure of international terrorism. While threats to our nation from international terrorism are well known, lesser known threats spawned by narcoterrorism reach deeply into this country.

That is why Hugo Chavez is *not* a direct military threat via National Armed Forces but IS a distinct threat and haven for terrorism, also serving as a touchstone for FARC, from Columbia. The illegal drugs you buy today may help kill an American Soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, not indirectly but DIRECTLY. I am neither here nor there on the concept of illegal drugs, but when anyone purchases things illicitly they should recognize that it is not harm to themselves that matters, but the aid and support to that organization that they are buying from.

Suddenly, to get anywhere on terrorism about Iran, one must also hold NAFTA companies accountable and NAFTA signatories. But when you do *that* you also have to recognize the problem facing the US about its National Sovereignty being violated by illegal aliens. Saying that they are 'just here for work' does not obviate the fact that while most *are* there are some that are *not* and who have some connection to organizations practicing asymmetrical warfare. Asymmetrical warfare *against* the United States. Those that come here illegally actually *do* have human rights, but the rights of the Nation that they are violating supersede those. The internal Sovereignty Rights of the US make it a Nation that can sign up to the very treaties that allow for international human rights. Our Right as a People to have a secure Nation come before that of anyone here illegally who must obey the Laws of Nations first.

International lawlessness does, indeed, begin with individuals. Seeking to put non-Nationals above the Right of a Nation State to internal autonomy and Right to decide who does and who does not enter the Nation and *how* erodes the concept of Nation State. Terrorists break with the Laws of Nations and with the Treaties on human rights by conscious decision. Similarly those taking conscious decision to break the Laws of Nations and Treaties on the regards to their Rights within their Nation, means that entering another Nation without legal authority to do so puts them at the mercy of that Nation and outside of the framework of the Treaties which they have also broken. Their human rights end at the Nation's borders. Theirs and Ours.

We forget that there are civilized limits to this at our collective peril, both as a People of the United States but also within the larger community of Nations. It is those very agreements made that allow us to have civilized interaction between Nations so that fair and just means to solve problems together can be performed. When people decide to break the Sovereignty of Nations and step from those Treaties, they put themselves in danger. Terrorists do it to erode the will of People to have a Nation. Illegal aliens do it to erode the economy they head to and put in danger the well being of that Nation by participating outside the bounds of law.

Not only the internal law of the Nation.

But the Right of a People to HAVE a Sovereign Nation without outside interference that is not agreed upon.

Because that is the most basic of human rights. So that we may come together and have something greater for ourselves and have it *respected* by other peoples. Anything less is anarchy ripe for a warlord or tyrant to impose will by force of arms.

Please, do divest from companies working with Iran.

All of them.

Including ones from Mexico.

Because they are not helping the situation one bit in securing the Nation nor upholding their end of NAFTA. Or of being a good neighbor to the US. That goes for their companies and the Nation as a whole.

I am not against immigration by any means. Legal and lawful immigration to help reinforce the Nation is always helpful.

Open borders and letting anyone in is asking for trouble and, apparently, it is already here. That lovely day and age is over now, just like the pre-1920's immigration era. Times change and it is better to support the laws and have a Nation, than to let it be eaten away until there are no basis for having a Nation. And the rights it affords to its legal Citizens.