Obama to Announce Immigration Reform

Obama to Announce Immigration Reform

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

November 20, 2014

“I’m president of the United States, not emperor of the United States.” – Barack Hussein Obama, February 14, 2013

Who is he trying to convince – we the people or himself?

“I cannot ignore the laws… I can’t suspend deportations,” – still the words of Obama, oft repeated to the toll of at least 25 times on national television, regarding the sweeping immigration reform he is presumably going to announce tonight.

Obama is going to ignore the will of the people, the overwhelming majority of whom oppose any form of amnesty for illegal aliens, and legalize upwards of five million illegals in the United States. This is the same will of the people who have ousted nearly 70 Democratic members of Congress during Obama’s tenure in the White House, most recently on the November 4^th midterm elections with the issues of the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare, and illegal immigration at the forefront of the voter’s minds.

This is a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions. So said both Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a solid conservative, and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, an avowed liberal. Obama is “defying the law and he is defying the Constitution,” said Cruz on Fox News Wednesday night.

Obama has no legal authority to grant legal status to people in the United States illegally, said Texas governor-elect Greg Abbott (R), currently the state’s attorney general. Abbott further cited two sections of the United States Constitution prohibiting Obama’s desires – Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 3.

I can see two parts of Article I, Section 8 that would apply to both barring illegals from entering this country and prohibiting any president from legalizing them. “The Congress shall have Power to…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…,” not the president.

“The Congress shall have Power to… provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…” In this part, the insurrection is actually coming from Obama himself, demonstrative of his violations of the Constitution, and the invaders are the illegals, who have no legal right to be present in the United States.

Article II, Section 3, referring to the executive, avers that “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”

Clearly, it is the job of the United States Congress to pass the laws and for the president, all presidents, to enforce those laws, not unilaterally defy those laws for which he does not particularly care. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers employed a co-equal, three branch system of government with no branch outranking the others. This was clear when we learned it in grade school, it should certainly be clear to Obama, who supposedly taught Constitutional Law.

Therein lies the double-edged sword. If the separation of powers as designed by the Founders is not clear to Obama, he is too stupid to be president, although that has not stopped others who preceded him. If it is clear, then Obama is willfully guilty of violating the Constitution in both theory and practice, for which there is a remedy – impeachment, as outlined in Article II, Section 4. “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

“It is illegal for Obama to make illegals legal,” said Fox News fixture Judge Andrew Napolitano, also citing the impeachment power of Congress as part of the system of checks and balances designed by the Founders to ensure no one branch exerts more power than is prescribed by the Constitution. The document is in place for a reason – actually numerous reasons.

Obama has no legal authority to grant illegals any rights. It is the tyrannical despot who oversteps the boundaries of the law as outlined by the governing document, in this case the United States Constitution, in place long before Obama assumed the mantle of leadership, and G-d willing, long after he departs the office he currently occupies.

It is up to the Congress to deny the Chief Executive overreaching authority, in this case, granting legal status to illegals. Congress must rein in this Chief Executive and demonstrate the validity of the co-equal branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. Should Obama be allowed to succeed in overreaching, an irreversible precedent could be established forever altering the balance of powers between the three branches and set the United States down a path from which it separated itself from Great Britain in the first place in 1776. (See also the Declaration of Independence.)

This is not an attack on Obama the man, but on Obama the duly elected Chief Executive with the responsibility to act as such as outlined in the Constitution.

It is high time those people in this country illegally be denied the perks and incentives that more often than not, brought them here in the first place. The billions of dollars’ worth of so-called entitlements must be cut off to the point of discouraging illegals from remaining in the United States and future miscreants from arriving here sans legal permission. This also includes amending the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution – the part granting citizenship to any and all persons born on American soil. This was designed to bestow citizenship on freed slaves. The anchor baby system of allowing the children of illegals to be automatic citizens should be halted. Those who are in the United States illegally should not be rewarded for their unlawful behavior.

This is not an emotional case, but one of the rule of law. There are laws in place that are not being followed by the illegal aliens, and they need to be penalized for their behavior – behavior they chose willingly. By the same design, Obama also needs to be held accountable for his actions – legal and illegal. If he chooses the course of action many Americans are expecting, the Congress must do its job – media be damned. The fourth estate has carried Obama’s water since he emerged on the national scene in 2004, and there will be shrieks of racism should impeachment hearings be conducted, but once again, this is about the rule of law, and not emotion.

The Congress must have the spine needed to do its job should Obama behave as expected.  Do not allow a trench to be dug too deeply it sets a precedent that permanently shifts power to one person in a manner that lead to the American Revolution, for a second one could render the United States indistinguishable from itself. The state of the world is ill-prepared and too fragile to swallow such a turn of events.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

What Part of Illegal Don't They Get?

What Part of Illegal Don’t They Get?
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 27, 2013

Here’s an obvious, yet little mentioned irony: we the people elect our fellow citizens to be lawmakers, yet once they reach the vaunted halls of Congress, they become lawbreakers.

This is not hyperbole. With the new illegal immigration amnesty bill passing the Senate, and 14 Republicans complicit in the law-breaking supported by the full force of the Democrats – they will send the bill that will grant a path to citizenship to roughly 20 million illegals who have invaded our borders to the House. Don’t let the government lull you into a false sense of security by thinking the number of illegals is “only” 11 million.

Lest we forget the disaster that was the 1986 amnesty under former President Ronald Reagan, still one of my three political heroes, granting a “mere” three million illegal aliens rights and eventual citizenship. That never did stem the tide of illegals invading the United States, because a sieve-like border will remain as such until it is CLOSED.

Where are the priorities of the elected officials, elected to protect and defend the United States and its borders? The passage of another weak-kneed amnesty bill will further wreck the fabric of this nation, driving it further from the image portrayed and presented by the Founding Fathers.

The answer is that both major political parties are fecklessly in the pockets of either the Hispanics or the business lobby. For the most part, the GOP sees cheap labor while Democrats see upwards of 20 million additional voters joining their ranks, further indebting the United States as more and more indigents suck from the teat that is government. More people on Medicaid, paid for by the taxpayers; more people living in Section 8 housing, paid for by the taxpayers; more students crowding into the already failing public school system, paid for by the taxpayers; more people on welfare and food stamps, paid for by the taxpayers. With a $17 trillion dollar debt, the US citizenry can ill afford to legalize millions of more people to be on the dole and the precipice of poverty.

But who suffers most with the legalization of those who broke the law illegally entering the United States? Those already on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder – historically blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics. Amazingly, these constituencies vote in lock-step for the Democrats without realizing if the Democrats get their way, these low-income workers will have to fight even harder for jobs, thus relegating them to the government plantation for yet another generation.

Instead of rewarding illegals with entitlements, stop cutting veterans’ benefits. Give those men and women their due – they gave their all and then some to defend our rights and freedoms. They deserve more than they already get in terms of respect for their government, their Commander in Chief and less hassle getting the medical aid they need for physical and mental ailments as well as the ability to pay in-state tuition in any state they wish for serving all citizens in all 50 states.

I subscribe to the Tom Tancredo philosophy on illegal immigration – deportation. Simple concept, virtually impossible to enact and enforce, which I recognize. (Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, served honorably in Congress, prior to running for and being defeated for governor of the Centennial State. He entered several primaries for president in 2008.) Barring that, a plan for self-deportation must be put in place. Deny all illegal invaders ANY government entitlement and/or benefit. Just shut them down. Unless they can prove they are here in the United States legally, they get nothing. If they get nothing, they will either leave, or worse yet, turn to crime to survive. Many illegals have already turned to crime – beyond the act of illegally crossing the border – and still have the privilege of remaining in this country.

For those who will label me a racist for wanting to deport or deny, I don’t care. I don’t care because I am not a racist for wanting the rule of law to be followed and enforced. Police and ICE agents around the country are being ordered to look the other way, and that is wrong and criminal. I also don’t care, because I did not ask those here illegally to come here in the first place.

Yes, many people come here because of repressive regimes in their homelands – so did the Pilgrims. But there are laws in this country, and they must be followed. Yes, the children of those illegal aliens did not choose to come here, and we are a nation with a heart; sometimes too big of a heart for our own good, and this is one of those times.

But the time to shut off the spigot is now. The time to enforce the laws is now. The time to seal the borders is now. Build the fence – now, high, and far, and yes, even electric. There are severe penalties for those who are caught sneaking into other countries – even Mexico, which has a southern border sealed like a drum – as it should be – in all countries.

Once the border fences are built, and the borders are genuinely secured, only then should applications for legal immigration be accepted – including from those here illegally. Those here illegally would need to self-deport to their country of origin, apply with the caveat of admitting their illegal status with fines and penalties and under the provision they may never earn citizenship or voting rights, but instead a legal status to permit them to work and pay taxes as new legal residents. They will also be denied entitlements as part of their penalty.

Any illegal alien caught after that time will be automatically photographed, fingerprinted, put in a database, and deported with no future allowance of reentry in the United States.

No student visas will be granted to anyone from a country voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations. Any student granted the privilege of a student visa will be photographed (already required) and fingerprinted so they can be tracked as they are guests in this country. Overstay your guest privileges and deportation with no change of return will be imposed. Any questions? See September 11, 2001.

Students already here illegally, whether by their own volition or their parents’ illegal actions, should never be allowed to pay in-state tuition, nor qualify for scholarship funds. The DREAM Act is a nightmare that will cost the taxpaying citizens more money they should not have to pay.

No application for immigration will be granted to anyone from a country voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations. Clearly these are countries not supportive of the United States and their citizens should be denied privileges in this country. No law says the US must grant entrance to anyone, let alone someone from an unfriendly country. Any questions? See September 11, 2001.

Any immigration application accepted will be done so on a probationary basis of three to five years. Commit a crime, go to jail, and then go back to your country of origin with no chance of return. Immigration to the United States is a privilege, not a right.

During the height of the eastern and southern European immigration to the United States from the 1880s to 1920, immigrants were expected to have sponsors, promise of employment, and be cleared upon entry with a clean bill of health. There is no reason why those rules can’t once again be imposed.

In those days, new immigrants worked because there was no promise of welfare, food stamps or government assistance. If they needed help, they procured it from family, friends, or faith-based organizations such as a church or synagogue. New immigrants took pride in learning English and turning the United States into a melting pot.

Today it is just the opposite. There is no melting pot, not demands to have jobs, learn English, or not turn to government assistance. Today, the United States is becoming more and more balkanized with ethnic groups clinging to their home countries and attempting to turn their neighborhoods into modern day shtetls.

That is simply unacceptable. Come to the United States legally and with the promise of making this country a better place. If not, do not come to the United States to turn this country into the cesspools you abandoned without attempting to make them better places. If you come to the United States and burn our flag and salute that of another nation, you are in the wrong country.

Not only is this bill irresponsible, but to suggest that a 1,190-page behemoth, laden with more lard than a pig farm, be read in 72 hours by the members, is also irresponsible.

As for those members of Congress – both houses – heed these messages or you will find yourselves out of jobs – Democrat and Republican alike.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Senate Committee Surrenders America

Senate Committee Surrenders America

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 28, 2013

This is no longer the United States of America as it was left to us by the Founding Fathers. As will be demonstrated this is not to be some paranoid rant and screed.

We have a government that has violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution by going on a gun banning rampage which will lead to the slippery slope of firearm confiscation.

Sadly the American people are complicit in this violation by believing the government has their best interest at heart and are able to protect and defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic. This simply is not true.

Why is it perfectly permissible for Barack Obama’s children to be protected by armed security, but the rest of the nation’s children are subject to attending school in gun free zones and at the mercy of murderers? Every school should be protected by trained, armed guards. Are students less important than the banks and jewelry stores that have armed security on the premises?

It should not be up to the government to limit how one protects oneself or their family or property. If a reader chooses not to own a firearm, that is his or her business. If people choose to own a gun or guns, that is also his or her business as far as the Second Amendment to the Constitution allows.

But, as more and more schools decide that civics, social studies, history, and government are less and less important, a growing ignorant society will kowtow to an increasingly tyrannical government that decides the Constitution is mere paper and not the guiding law and principles of a nation founded as a democratic-republic, but something to be sloughed off and ignored.

And while the ability to defend oneself, one’s family, and one’s property is severely waning, the danger to the American people is rising exponentially with the soon to be granted amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens, thanks to a bi-partisan effort in the US Senate and so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform. (Make no mistake, the 11 million illegals figure being trotted out by the Senate and the so-called mainstream media is pure folly and fiction.)

By late spring, early summer, according to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), an immigration bill will be ready for Obama’s signature granting lawbreakers amnesty, a path to citizenship. and thus a reward for their illegal behavior.

This cannot be stressed more vociferously and stringently enough: illegals are in the United States because they broke the law and it matters not what other parts of this legislation are presented, any bill granting even one illegal amnesty, a path to citizenship, ever, should be voted down. To support such legislation will unleash a torrent of support to replace any House or Senate member who betrays the American people – regardless of political affiliation.

Even one carrot is too many when the sticks clearly have not been employed. For me to criticize former President Ronald Reagan, one of my three political heroes, is blasphemous at best. Yet, under Reagan in 1986, he granted amnesty to three million illegals without any stopgaps to secure the borders or prevent the floodgates from opening that ultimately left the US in its current predicament.

Ironically, and mostly hypocritically Sen. John McCain (RINO-AZ) said “We are a nation of laws and immigrants.” It is pure hypocrisy to grant any illegal amnesty and a path to citizenship. If the United States is indeed a nation of laws, immigration laws should be enforced and all illegals deported to their country of origin with the caveat that they not be allowed to return unless in a  legal manner.

A database should be established identifying and monitoring the movements and activities of all illegals. For those who suggest they will be treated like criminals, that’s correct. Yes, this is a hard line on the issue of illegal immigration, while supporting legal immigration of those future residents demonstrating they are deserving of the label American citizen.

The proposed legislation calls for first securing the borders, said Schumer. Fine – pass that as a separate bill, and then let’s talk about the illegals who have invaded the borders of the US. Too often securing the border has merely been given lip service in an effort to placate the GOP, who now, by participating in this bipartisan dog and pony show are complicit in surrendering the country to the lawless and those who would still prefer the Mexican flag to Old Glory as roughly 80 percent of the illegals in this country have slithered from south of the border.

That McCain and his fellow Arizonan, freshman Sen. Jeff Flake (R), a solid fiscal conservative while in the House, would be two of the eight senators on this committee is disturbing knowing the havoc being wrecked on the border by home invaders and drug smugglers.

With illegals already privy to seats in public school classrooms, free lunches and breakfasts for students, food stamps, free medical care and hospitalization all at taxpayer expense, citizenship will only force them to pay for such privileges. They must be disincentivized from coming in the first place and urged to self-deport for those already here by granting them nothing.

Sure, the committee of eight said that illegals would be forced to pay fines, back taxes, learn English, and move to the back of the line before being considered for citizenship, the same committee already included a caveat for workers being able to continue working in the US legally while going through the process.

Back taxes? Based upon what paperwork? Are illegals being issued W-2 forms? If so, under what Social Security number? Sounds like fraud. How will such penalties be assessed?

Learn English? To whose satisfaction? Will there be a test like a literacy test so many people objected to during the Jim Crow era? Make no mistake, learning English is a great idea, as all government documents should be printed in English and English only. It should be a prerequisite for voting and graduating from any school in this country.

Regardless of what penalties are attached to such legislation, anything that puts any illegal alien on a path to American citizenship is simply a reward for being a scofflaw and miscreant. Even those students brought to the United States too young to object or remain in their home country should not be granted carte blanche to citizenship without penalty to the parents who brought them here.

Any legislation MUST include a modification of the 14^th Amendment that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil – even the child of an illegal alien. Once again, this rewards illegal behavior by invading the United States in order to give birth in this country for the purposes of making them citizens. This was not the purpose of that amendment – ratified in 1868 dedicated to ensuring citizenship for former slaves.

Schumer wants illegals to not fear deportation if they emerge from the shadows. It should be quite the contrary – illegals should fear deportation, as they have broken the law of the country they supposedly wish to join.

Becoming an American citizen is not about financial gain, living in a non-English speaking enclave, and raising the flag of Mexico or some other nation of ones origin. In fact, it should be just the opposite. Taking the oath of citizenship should be done with pride in one’s new, chosen country – in English, ready to defend the United States and remain fiercely loyal to their adopted nation.

And where in this proposed legislation is there a demand for Mexico’s cooperation on the border. That country demonstrates its own hypocrisy by having a sieve for a northern border, yet, its southern border with Guatemala is tight as a drum with harsh penalties for those who breech it. There is no disincentive for Mexico to keep all its people at bay because those who invade the United States no longer are Mexico’s financial problem.

Brit Hume of Fox News summed it contritely, saying, “Has the Republican Party softened on immigration? You bet.” McCain, a RINO at best is a prime example, as is Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), also not a true conservative. On the other hand, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a conservative and Hispanic who has eyes on the White House, is also a part of this committee and clearly this is an attempt to curry favor with the ever growing Hispanic voting population who cast their ballots roughly 70-30 for Obama in 2012.

Hispanic-Americans should not be supportive of such legislation. Many Hispanics immigrated to the United States and did so the legal way, which in some cases took longer than it may for an illegal to be placed on a pathway to citizenship under this faulty legislation. The Hispanics who legally obtained citizenship should be insulted and offended that lawbreakers would be given advantages not afforded to those who followed the rule of law.

In addition to the aforementioned senators, the committee also includes Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) – each representing states with large Hispanic populations.

While Comprehensive Immigration Reform clearly leans left and Republicans who support it will benefit at the ballot box, it is the responsibility of House and Senate members alike, regardless of party to do what is right versus what is politically expedient.

Visit www.house.gov and www.senate.gov, locate and contact your representatives to sternly and politely voice objection to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. It is vital that this legislation not become law and we the people must play a role in preventing its passage. It is long overdue for this country to behave like the United States once again before it is unrecognizable and too late for its salvation.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Supremes Weaken National Security in AZ Case

Supremes Weaken National Security in AZ Case
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 26, 2012

In a severe blow to states’ rights and sovereignty, the Supreme Court has effectively tied the hands of the State of Arizona from enforcing SB 1070 – the illegal immigration law officially entitled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Arizona interfered with Congressional authority over the borders of the United States. Yet, the Grand Canyon State passed legislation in the best interest of its citizens and legal residents. Congress, and by extension, the federal government as a whole, has either refused to do its job or has done so in such a poor manner as to necessitate Arizona to do for themselves what the feds have not or would not.

Porous borders, too few border patrol agents, and a feckless Justice Department unwilling to do its job of halting illegal immigration, made it incumbent upon the states, whether Arizona, via SB 1070, or any other legislative acts, to do what the federal government refuses to do.

Yet, the Supreme Court, in cherry-picking where the federal government’s responsibilities lie and do not lie, has long accepted the existence, and uncooperative behavior of, sanctuary cities that would juxtapose the ruling it handed down on June 25. No city declaring itself a sanctuary should be entitled a single dollar of federal funding. For those who think that punishment is Draconian, that is the severity of the scourge of illegal immigration deleterious to the security of the United States.

And yet, “We will not be issuing detainers on people unless they meet our priorities,” was a statement from the Barack Hussein Obama administration. Those priorities are to turn a blind eye on any illegal who has not committed a crime, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. BEING IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY IS A CRIME! As the former Arizona governor, Napolitano should understand the challenges faced in that state and the region as a whole.

“There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona… predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected…. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” asked Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in writing his minority opinion.

The frightening answer is YES, the states are indeed at the mercy of the federal executive – a federal executive who has balked at every opportunity to close loopholes providing illegals with free and unfettered medical care, food stamps, education for their children and citizenship for children born in the United States, thanks to a weak interpretation of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A “patchwork of state laws is not a solution – it’s part of the problem,” said Obama in defending the indefensible – continuing to support sanctuary cities and the striking down of three of the four main provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070. Obama expressed his opposition even prior to Governor Jan Brewer (R) boldly signing the bill into law in 2010. Obama has, for political purposes, opposed efforts to combat illegal immigration.

Obama’s pandering to the Hispanic community, which is not monolithic, is actually insulting all Hispanic-Americans who immigrated to the United States legally. It insults them on two levels: that their legal immigration is meaningless and that just because the illegals in question are predominantly Hispanic, their legal brethren would welcome them with open arms.

“The government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” wrote Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion. “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation,” continued Kennedy for Chief Justice John Roberts, along with associate justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in a five to three decision. Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from this case having served as Solicitor General during the litigation stages. (www.wsj.com)

Three of the four components of SB 1070 were struck down:

Section Three, defeated six to two with Associate Justice Samuel Alito joining the aforementioned majority, would have declared it a state crime if immigrants failed to register with the federal government or failed to carry a required registration card.

Quite frankly, if all legal residents and citizens were required to carry a photo ID, be it a drivers’ license, which cannot legally be obtained by illegals, or another official federal ID, there would be fewer problems and would also eliminate the voter ID issue.

In the case of sections Five-C and Six, Alito joined the minority of associate justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the five to three decisions.

Section Five-C would have made it a crime for an illegal alien to solicit work if not authorized to work in the United States. A jail sentence would have accompanied that crime.

Denying the legality of this section of SB 1070 puts the onus completely on the shoulders of the employers, who, according to federal law, are punishable for hiring illegals. The only saving grace for employers would be if illegals used forged documentation or perjured themselves in an effort to garner employment.

Striking this portion of SB 1070 is practically a free pass for foreigners to continue invading the United States in hopes of finding employment, thus defrauding the country they claim to wish to join. Such a violation should be countered with deportation and inclusion on a data base which lists all such violators. Should the violation be repeated, jail time should be the next penalty with a concomitant reduction in aid to the miscreant’s country of origin.

Section Six would have granted state and local law enforcement the right to arrest immigrants in some cases without a warrant. Granted, there are times when an arrest without a warrant is imperative, but it should apply to immigrants and natives alike equally.

The majority “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” Scalia opined in the minority. (www.wsj.com)

It can’t get simpler than that. In other words, what part of illegal does the executive branch of the federal government not understand? What part of illegal do justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, and Sotomayor not understand? One does not need a law degree or teach constitutional law to comprehend this basic concept.

What was upheld by the High Court was Section Two-B: maintaining state and local law enforcements’ authority to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped under suspicion of committing another crime. This provision, known as status-check, is rather weak, as it does not include any authority to hold illegals without federal permission.

In spite of the weakness of the upheld portion of SB 1070, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio offered his spin on the partial victory. “It shows cops can ask someone if they’re here illegally when you stop them for another crime,” said the sheriff known for his dogged determination to fight illegal immigration. (www.wsj.com)

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid prohibition. The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a provision… If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State,” wrote Scalia in his minority opinion.

Scalia, as per his usual, presents so eloquent an opinion; it is baffling how it was not supported by the five justices in the majority. Only those with an agenda similar to that of Obama could possibly object, and they did, in effect endangering the security of the United States.

With the potential retirements of swing voter Kennedy and reliable conservative Scalia during the next presidential term, all the more reason for the defeat of Obama and the election of Mitt Romney. Romney may not be the darling of the conservatives, but he will presumably make more intelligent Supreme Court appointments than Obama.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Obama Opens Front Door for Illegals

Obama Opens Front Door for Illegals
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 15, 2012

Another disgraceful decision by the insipid Obama administration is to be implemented immediately. In a continuing attempt to redistribute wealth and hamstring legal residents and American citizens, amnesty-lite is being awarded to upwards of 800,000 illegals who are lawbreakers simply by their mere presence in the United States.

Young illegals - defined as under age 30, will no longer be deported, but instead be given work permits - because the unemployment figures are so damn low - provided they meet certain criteria: in the US for five years prior to age 16, graduated from a US high school or earned a GED, or served in the military, and having no criminal record.

FYI – stepping one foot on American soil MAKES an illegal a criminal. This is an executive order, unilaterally issued by Obama, bypassing Congress and violating the separation of powers once again. The dictator in chief has spoken. We cannot oust the unctuous Obama fast enough. This must be overturned on January 20, 2013 for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the republic and for the sake of our economic survival.

This only opens the flood gates further. How stupid is this latest scheme just based on the recent announcement that the newest graduates are facing unemployment above 30 percent? This only rewards bad behavior, whether the "young" person's or their criminal parents. That the announcement is coming from the Department of Homeland Security also does not bode well as this is a national security issue.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said we are a nation of laws when announcing Obama’s latest edict. If that is true, why are lawbreakers being given rights? This most certainly is a political move made by an obsequious administration pandering to a constituency that should oppose this directive with vim and vigor. It absolutely IS amnesty and a slippery slope toward citizenship and suffrage rights. Clearly this violated the rule of law and sets a poor precedent.

For those who support this deplorable decision on the grounds that children should not be punished for the wrongs committed by their parents, consider the concept of “fruit from the poisonous tree.” When a search is deemed illegal by a judge in court, all evidence collected as a result of said search is considered exculpatory and thrown out, not to be considered by a jury when rendering their verdict. Such evidence is deemed “fruit of the poisonous tree.” As such, so should the children of parents who are in the United States illegally. The parents broke the law coming to this country illegally and bringing their children makes them just as illegal, all of whom have no right to remain.

One possible solution to mitigate the concern by those objecting to Obama’s thoughtless decision would be if the aforementioned 800,000 illegals are permitted to remain in the United States, they must register with the government – federal and state as being in the country illegally, not be granted citizenship or enfranchisement rights and any criminal act is a one way ticket back to their country of origin.

Additionally, the parents of these illegals would be required to self-deport in exchange for allowing their children to remain in the United States. Should the parents return to the United States, their children would be deported along with their miscreant parents.

For those who might consider such a plan draconian, law breaking is not to be rewarded and those who violate the statutes of the United States or the several states should be subject to strict punishment to hopefully deter other potential scofflaws to follow in the footsteps of their fellow illegal travelers.

That rumbling under the ground is the sound of the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves like Chanukah dreidls. May G-d save the republic, because mere mortals don't seem to have a chance in hell of doing so.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN