Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Immigration and Nationality Act Executive Summary

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. 

By controlling the visa process, the federal government can achieve the goals of its immigration policies.  There are two types of visas: immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visas. The government primarily issues nonimmigrant visas to tourists and temporary business visitors.

Immigrant visas, on the other hand, permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and eventually to apply for citizenship. Aliens with immigrant visas can also work in the United States. Congress limits the quantity of immigrant visas, which numbered 675,000 in 1995. Many immigrant visas remain subject to per-country caps.

Upon ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, all children born within the United States received citizenship at birth.  

In 1921 Congress passed the Emergency Immigration Act, creating national immigration quotas, which gave way to the Immigration Act of 1924, capping the number of permissible immigrants from each country in a manner proportional to the number already living within the United States.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an "alien" as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. 

Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit. 

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States.  The IIRIRA eliminated the term "entry," replacing it with "admission."

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS. Within the Department, three different agencies - U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) - now handle the duties formerly held by the INS. 

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants.  Under the Refugee Act, the term "[[wex:refugee|refugee]]" refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions.  Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group.   As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer. [Now, who thought up this egregious limitation?]

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear. 

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year. 

Deportation proceedings refer to the official removal of an alien from the United States and provide for causes for deportation.

The U.S. government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens admitted under the INA that commit an aggravated felony within the United States after being admitted.  An alien's failure to register a change of address renders the alien deportable, unless the failure resulted from an excusable circumstance or mistake.  If the government determines that a particular alien gained entry into the country through the use of a falsified document or otherwise fraudulent means, the government has the grounds to deport.  

Other common grounds for deportation include the following: aiding or encouraging another alien to enter the country illegally; engaging in marriage fraud to gain U.S. admission; participating in an activity that threatens the U.S.'s national security; voting unlawfully; and failing to update the government with a residential address every three months, regardless of whether the address has changed.

If the government brings a proceeding for deportation because of fraud or falsification, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that alleged falsification or fraud occurred and that the falsification or fraud proved material to the granting of admission to the alien. 

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Principles of Jefferson

About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;

peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none;

the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies;

the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;

a jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;

absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;

a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;

Principles of Jefferson: the militia is EVERY able-bodied man between the ages of 18-55. He provided NO exceptions!

the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;

economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;

encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;

the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason;

freedom of religion;

freedom of the press;

freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected — these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

Jefferson promised to govern as he felt the Founders intended, based on decentralized government & trust in the people to make the right decisions for themselves. He favored a more literal interpretation of the Constitution and thought that governmental powers shouldn’t be so far-reaching. These are the Principles of Jefferson and these are my principles and why I am a Jeffersonian Democrat. Many continue to ask me what a Jeffersonian Democrat is - read and understand please. I always have been and I always will be a Jeffersonian Democrat.

See also, Jefferson’s Platform:

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Congress Bought and Paid For?

OK, here goes. A little background first. I served two governors on staff--extended staff in the only executive agency of the Office of Governor. I served the second governor as personal, senior staff and ran a state agency, all of which was over a 10 year period. Secondly, I served as personal, special assistant to a Member of Congress who served on the all-powerful House Appropriations Committee. Thirdly, I served in the capacity of government relations for a period of 13 years in Washington, DC--that would be as a "Lobbyist" and manager of lobbyists. All total, I have 25 years of service at the seat of state government, federal government and have spent time in the White House, "lobbying" if you will. The above is from someone who has no such background and has missed the problem 100%. This "bought" Congress was elected by those who took the time to vote and even more importantly, those who sat home instead on their dead collective ass.When you see polling on how effective Congress is, you see a number of about 15% and it has been that way for decades. However, when you see the same pollster, asking those same polled, how they rate their individual Congressman, they poll at about 75%. We love our own Congressman but hate Congress. If Congress is comprised of idiots and "bought" individuals, just try to keep in mind who elected them. The person in the WH and the persons in Congress were elected, largely by idiots, about 50% of whom are bought and paid for, i.e. "Free Stuff". Of the other 50%, they are largely comprised of uneducated individuals who have no earthly clue what it is they would like the WH or Congress to do. In my 25 years of service, I have never seen any legislator, governor, congressman or president bought by anyone, certainly not by corporate interests anyway. Corporate participation is a brand new phenomenon. No one in office presently was elected under this new scheme. Nor have any of you who are reading this now. Number 1: GO VOTE OR STFU. Number 2: Educate yourself and vote for what is best for your locale, state, country, not what lines your own pockets, speaking of "bought and paid for." The gentleman you see in the clip above has absolutely no clue. I would take that to its logical conclusion. Any MSNBC "Contributor" is clueless as well. Thank God the Supreme Court is not elected!

Thursday, September 11, 2014

What Would Harry S Truman do ...

That Peaceful Religion

Just one more example of their contribution to America...

WTC and Windows on the World

I have spent days in the former WTC; in both my Oklahoma industrial development days, as well as a lobbyist in New York. A number of times, I stayed in the Westin Hotel in one of the towers. I also attended a number of functions in Windows on the World [Pictured below], as well as sitting down in that restaurant. I resent and will never forget that it became a hole in the ground, although this is an impressive memorial. I will neither forget nor forgive until the forces of evil that caused this are erased from history and memory.

If allah and G-d are one in the same, then consider me an atheist.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Where Did Paul Go?

One of the great mysteries of the early Christian Era [C.E.] is where did Paul, “the Apostle”, go. That follows one of the other great mysteries of the time—Why was he called an “Apostle” and by whose authority, independently verified other than by Paul’s own stipulation.

The “Acts of the Apostles”, purportedly authored by Luke, a scribe of Paul, begs the question of the final disposition of Paul. Paul, after a long evangelistic mission abroad, has AGAIN been summoned to Jerusalem by James [The Just] and the irate hierarchy [The Disciples, as named by Christ and are independently verified, by and amongst themselves] for preaching a false message. This summons was the final of many known summons of Paul for taking license with the actual sayings of Christ--Christ was clear in his reinforcing the Law.

Sensing trouble, Paul’s followers admonished him not to answer the summons. Paul however, relents and appears. Meeting with James and other members of the leadership, Paul is again castigated for laxity in his observation of the Law. Acts does not record Paul’s response [Most likely excised] to these charges but it would appear from what follows that he perjures himself, denying the accusations, which his own Letters reveal to have been justified. See 1 Corinthians 9:19-27.

Paul then submits to a compromise – a 7-day “purification” procedure. Despite his “self-purification”, Paul continues to inspire enmity in those “zealous for the Law” and a few days later, Paul is attacked in the Temple. “This, they proclaim, is the man who preaches to everyone everywhere against the Law” [Acts 21:28]. The ensuing riot is no minor disturbance:

“This roused the whole city: people came running from all sides; they seized Paul and dragged him out of the Temple, and the gates were closed behind them. They would have killed him if a report had not reached the tribune of the cohort that there was rioting all over Jerusalem [Acts 21: 30-31].”

The cohort is called out, 600 men [Roman soldiers], and Paul is rescued. Having rescued Paul, he is arrested and marched off to prison, asking permission to make an exculpatory speech. Inexplicably, he is allowed make his case, serving only to further incense those in attendance. Paul is then carried off for torture and/ or interrogation.  Paul is then removed, under escort, out of Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he invokes his right, as a Roman citizen, to make a personal appeal to the emperor. It is in his exculpatory speech that he admits to his leading role in the stoning to death of Stephen, a named Disciple of Christ by Jesus himself.
It is in Caesarea that he spends time, in a congenial and intimate fashion, with the Roman procurator, Antonius Felix and his brother-in-law, Herod Agrippa II and the King’s sister, later the mistress of Titus, the Roman commander who will destroy Jerusalem and eventually become Emperor. In addition, Acts 13:1 refers to one of Paul’s companions in Antioch as Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch and in Romans 16:1, Paul speaks of a companion named, Herodian.

What is most striking of all however is that, following his sojourn in luxury at Caesarea, he mysteriously and utterly disappears from the stage of history? The Acts of the Apostles ends abruptly without any further word on Paul. In fact, there is no further record in any writing, canonization writings or non-canonized writings, regarding Paul. Number one, it is simply not plausible that Acts would end in such a manner. Number two, for someone who is singularly responsible for establishing what I call the Pauline Church to disappear without any further trace is just not possible. Did the Acts end like the Gospel of Mark, with part of it excised and a new and different ending spuriously added?

Another great question that might be posited here is why was Paul called on the carpet by James, who was in fact one of the 12 named Disciples? That answer is clearly laid out, in the words of Christ just before his departure, in the Gospel of Thomas, saying # 12: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just.” This was in response to a query by the Disciples while in their audience prior to the Crucifixion. Paul was clearly proselytizing a false and unauthorized message and was called on the carpet by none other than the afore-named successor and brother of Christ, James the Just. James was the recognized head of the new church in Jerusalem until he personally suffered a great attack in AD 62.

In finality, where did Paul go and what did he do after his mysterious disappearance from the face of the earth? A better question might be posited: Who was this Paul? Or, by what/ whose authority was he proselytizing ANY message on behalf of the Christ? He was a Roman citizen, unlike the Disciples. He was a very wealthy man, unlike the Disciples. He was well known to the Herodian line, which brought down the early church, the Temple and finally, the battle and mass suicide at Masada, certainly unlike the Disciples.
Why was it that the letters and other writings, attributed to Paul, were canonized and books attributed to actual Disciples were pronounced “heretical” and were omitted from the canonization? That to me is the central question--and, by what/whose authority? No living person, at the time of the canonization had the authority to decide for anyone, what was the inspired Word of God and what was not. Absolutely, NO ONE!

Pursuant to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the 52 texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, it is clear the canonization was a farce and a fraud. These recently discovered texts are in the actual language of the inhabitants of the Holy Land, not the Greek translations, but in Old Hebrew, Coptic and Aramaic, the language of Christ and the Disciples. Fortunately, these texts, hidden from mankind for two millennia, had not been edited, adulterated, or tampered with by any “heretical” hand. They are the pure inspired Words we were meant to be given in perpetuity.

The 52 texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, although found in 1947, were only recently removed from the clutches of the church and made public. They have been translated and are now available to anyone who wishes to study them, as it should be. It is up to us, as Christians, to discern that, which is the inspired Word of God, not men in a “smoke-filled” room, dedicated to some contrived dogma, having nothing to do with the Word of God. It is especially egregious to declare “heretical” the Gospel of Thomas, which contains 114 quotes from Jesus Christ. I have as much authority to decide for myself, what is the truth of the matter and what may be “heretical”, no one else.

It is clear to me that the real fate of Paul was excised from the written Word, in time for the canonization. It is also clear that he had been castigated, exposed, shunned, discredited and removed by those who were authorized, as the Disciples of Christ, led by James the Just.