Guest Post by Jim Kunstler
The sanctuary city movement, and all its baggage, terminates in one troublesome idea: that the USA should have open borders and that anyone from a foreign land who manages to get here by whatever means is home-free-all. The most recent Democratic nominee for president said just the other day that she dreamed of open borders. The much-abused word dream has been at the center of our discourse about immigration, a purposefully sentimental manipulation of language for a culture struggling to ascertain the boundaries of reality in an era of universal wishful thinking.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Anyone who listens to National Public Radio, for instance, may notice the care they take to keep the boundary as fuzzy as possible vis-à-vis the status of people here from other lands. “Undocumented” has been the favorite trope, a dodge that implies that the people in question are victims of a clerical error — someone over in the Document Division forgot to hand them the right paperwork. Or else, all they are simply labeled “immigrants,” leaving out the question of whether they are in the country legally or not. Do not suppose it is mere sloppiness.
Lately, there is the matter of census-takers asking the people they interview — theoretically everybody who resides in the US — whether they are citizens or not. It would seem to be within the legitimate interests of demographic statisticians to ask that question, but it has ignited a firestorm of opposition. All manner of casuistry has been applied by that opposition to rationalize why we wouldn’t want to know whether people here are citizens or not. It all seems to come down to a cynical political calculation that the voter rolls can be eventually padded in favor of the Democratic Party (of which I remain an unhappy registered member, in order to vote in the New York state primary election).
The sanctuary city movement seems to me the most mendacious element of the story, a nakedly emotional appeal against the rule of law. The attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, lately threatened to fine corporations there that share employee information with federal agents. There has not been such arrant flouting of federal law by state officials since Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama crying “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” in June, 1963 — and we all know how that ended.
I’m among those who would like to see the immigration laws honestly enforced. In fact, I would also like to see the 1965 immigration law reformed to admit far fewer people from any land into this country. We have economic and cultural interests to protect, and they would seem to be self-evident.
So why has there been no move by the federal authorities to impose sovereign federal law over figures like Mr. Becerra, or Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who went through the barrio there Paul Revere style warning that the ICE agents were coming? Well, one big reason is the marijuana situation. Nine states have legalized cannabis for recreational use (i.e. for getting high), and 29 have legalized it for medical purposes. This includes all of the states on the “Left Coast.” All of them are flouting federal law in doing that. But imagine the political uproar if the feds tried to step in at this point and quash the cannabis trade. In the early adapters, like Colorado, California, and Washington State, the trade has blossomed into multi-million dollar corporate enterprise, with significant tax revenue.
So, much as I object to the dishonest practices around immigration, I don’t see how the federal government can take principled action against them without first addressing its attitude to the marijuana situation. Of course, that could be easily disposed of by congress adopting a simple law to the effect that the cultivation and sale of cannabis shall be regulated by the states. The craven members of congress apparently don’t even dare to raise the issue of resolving this conundrum, and the thought may have never even entered the mighty golden brain-pan of our president — not to mention The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox-News, or any of the other media organs of public debate. Well, maybe the time has come for that discussion.
The author is missing the point. The federal government has NO AUTHORITY to ban ANY substance. On the other hand, immigration control IS a federal government function.
Two different situations, entirely
If Congress previously passed a law against any substance, then the Authority is in place to uphold that law.
Opinions whether or not Congress had the right to pass the law is immaterial – if a law is on the books.
Correct. It pretty specifically states in the earliest versions of our governmental law that the Federal Government sets immigration policy.
“No Authority” is exactly right. The “simple law” that Kunstler asks for already exists: the 10th amendment to the Constitution. The one everybody forgets about when it’s convenient.
I also disagree that California is somehow required to fall to their knees and obey every directive from Washington, no matter how much they disagree. What is the point of being a State? Kunstler seems to think the States are just administrative districts for the Feral government. I personally don’t agree with California in this instance, but I certainly believe they have every right and authority to function as a sovereign State.
They are a State withing the United States and under the restriction of the Federal government as such in all things that the Federal government has delegated powers to regulate, they are not an independent nation.
Immigration and interstate commerce are under Federal jurisdiction, not California jurisdiction.
Immigration is absolutely under Feral jurisdiction – I never said otherwise. But that doesn’t mean the Feds can compel State officials and employees to assist them or cooperate. Your implied assertion that they can agrees with the basis of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which was intended to compel State and local officials to return escaped slaves to their “rightful owners”. Many States (quite rightly) decided they had no duty to comply.
By “interstate commerce”, you are no doubt referring to Gonzalez vs Raich, wherein the Supreme Court decided that growing weed for personal use completely within the confines of your home state constitutes interstate commerce. So, according to you, this gives the Feds Constitutional authority to regulate weed. What the hell was the 18th amendment for, then? Why go to all the trouble to pass an amendment you don’t need? On this basis, I suppose you could say that somebody who enjoys reloading rounds for his .300 Weatherby in his garage is engaging in interstate commerce of firearms and should have to have the same licenses, permits, insurance, etc. as, say, Remington Arms. Since Supreme Court is always right about everything, you no doubt also agree with NFIB v Sebelius, where the Supreme Court essentially rewrote Obamacare from the bench to make sure it was “legal”.
Is there anything at all that you believe the Feds shouldn’t be able to do?
The Federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate trade between the States, and that is an all encompassing unrestricted authority. It has additional authorities under its Constitutional taxation powers.
Kunstler has my agreement (that should carry a lot of weight).
Hey kokoda, way off topic, but how’s your deck boards? They still warped?
They weren’t warped. The only problem was the boards lost their color within 2 years. Even though my dark grey boards had turned a very, very light color, I was OK with it.
However, I ruined one 20 FT long board. Replaced it with a new one but after 2 years, it Did NOT fade. The company changed their mfg process and now the color is OK for 30 years.
So, I now have a deck with one dark board in the middle.
First-World problems, I think they call this.
I can’t believe you put all of TBP through your dumb bullshit over one stupid board. Now your telling me their product is OK? What is it with white people that have to have one color, what about diversity?
From the Democrats’ point of view, it is far easier to flout federal immigration law than to actually change it. Basically, Obama paid lip service to enforcing the border, with a wink and a nod to his supporters. If in the next election the Democrats added a plank to their platform demanding completely open borders, they would get killed at the polls. They are already in trouble with the white working class, which has never seem immigration in a positive light. Better for Democrats to to do nothing and ignore the the law after they get elected. It’s a closer call, but the same applies to marijuana laws.
Here we see examples of the endless arguments about what should be as opposed to what IS.
Should drug regulation be left to the States, except as far as importation to the US is concerned? Yes.
Is immigration a Federal power? Maybe. Article 1 Section 8 says “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”.
The mess we have today lets the Fed’s do as they damn well please, and the states knuckle under to keep the Federal payoffs flowing. States without balls, Fed’s without shame.
I believe Kokoda’s deck boards are stil deplorable.
[img
[/img]
Robert (QSLV)
gave me a laff !!!
At least the color is uniform ..
No outliers there.
The one argument that is always played is that it is “not possible” to enforce certain laws, like the illegal immigrants.
Then why do we need a government? They make the laws and they are supposed to enforce them. If they can’t do the thing they are supposed to do what use have we for their existence?
I can’t think of any.
They alleviate our burden of too much money.
Greetings,
I feel that way about public education. Why do we need it when it isn’t able to do the thing it is supposed to do?
It’s a fantastic place for children to learn how to deal with the bureaucrats and dullards that they will face daily for the rest of their lives. It’s a mental gladiator academy for an intelligent kid who has parents capable of debriefing them daily and providing an actual education outside of school. They build up social callouses and learn how to navigate their way through a culture without having to be a participant in that culture. It’s a lot of work and they often hate it, but when they hit adulthood it pays off in spades.
YMMV.
In reply to hardscrabble farmer,
Why do we do we need a government ?
To receive their graft from their Corporate donors, national AND trans-national alike, who in actuality DO write the supposed laws to be, or not, as it is in many cases, ‘enforced’.
This purtains to both legislators on the left, and the right.
How many companies, or corp(es) of any worth are sanctioned big-time (crippling fines or shutdowns) for hiring illegals ?? .. I’ll tell you how many ……. ! Z • E • R • O !
Winners them .. vs. Losers you and I
IANAL but states were controlling the sale of alcohol long before the Feds passed Prohibition and long after it was repealed. Isn’t the relevant federal statute about a marijuana ‘tax’not an absolute prohibition on its sale? As I dimly recall from old hippie era articles on the topic the sale of marijuana wasn’t illegal it just required the payment of a Federal tax of $100 per ounce which was a lot back in the days of $10 per ounce pot. Now paying the tax didn’t get you in the clear because the states had their own laws on marijuana just as they do on booze.
In any event the control of immigration is not part of any modern FDA or Federal tax code but an essential part of national security. The IRS or DoJ can swoop down and impose deliquent taxes on marijuana producers anytime they want and not prosecute simple possession without causing a constitutional crisis just as the IRS doesn’t audit someone because they had a garage sale and didn’t declare that income.
we need to have Japan numbers on immigration both legally and illegally.
Enough laws exist, and enough executive power exists, to deal with illegal immigrants, without the addition of more laws. The president could order immediate enforcement of those laws, and the influx of immigrants would cease immediately. Plus those leaving voluntarily would accelerate dramatically. Evicting millions would take a lot of effort, but could be done if it was made a priority.