AWCheney’s Forum On Immigration

A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY?

By way of introduction, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a statesman, and I aspire to be neither; I am an average American citizen who grew up on a Kansas farm, managed to get through college and retired as an Air Force Officer. Seventeen years later, I retired again, this time from a major Defense Contractor here in the Washington DC area. So, with that, it’s clear – I have no special credentials, I’m just the typical American citizen. However, I am convinced that our government is failing us and we must act, and we must act now.

As citizens and voters in a representative democracy, we have a responsibility to become informed of issues which face our country. Rarely will we find a candidate who represents our every view, and thus we must make compromises, and when the time comes, we have the responsibility to vote for those candidates whom we believe will best represent our views in the conduct of official government business. One hundred Senators, 435 Representatives, one President and nine Supreme Court Justices. Those 545 human beings represent you and they represent me. But do they really? Do they truly represent us or do they rely upon an ego-based infusion of super-human intelligence resulting from victory on election day to represent this country?

Some of us send our Congressmen E-Mails, letters, and even call them on the phone to express our views, but when was the last time that a seated politician came to your door, called you on the phone, or sent you a survey to ascertain your view on a particular issue pending in the House or the Senate? Their campaign workers call, asking for money, but to ask for your opinion and advice on issues? Rarely. I always thought our politicians were supposed to work for us and by that, I mean, represent us, ascertain and represent the major opinion. I don’t need them to wave as convertible-chauffered celebrities during the 4th of July parade nor do I need them to show up at a community improvement work-day for a glad-hand photo-op in a business suit. No, I don’t want them to be reclusive either, but I see them as workers, not as movie star or the athlete-like celebrities. The ego trip associated with political success often leads to the conviction that by virtue of being theirs, their vote on issues is automatically the best for us commoners. If they do not know the view of their constituents, how can they represent their constituents? They don’t, they represent their own view.

There is no single issue facing our country where the failure of politicians to learn and represent is more glaring than in the area of immigration and the enforcement of our federal immigration laws. Continue reading

Advertisements

July 31, 2008 6:29 pm Posted by | Op-Ed | , , , , | 19 Comments

North American Union, Part 4: The Canadians

Although the vast majority of our own government and mainstream media persist in denying, and actually ridiculing, the strong evidence that a North American Union is in the future of our nation, the issue is quite openly, and seriously, being discussed, opposed, and promoted in Canada. Our neighbors to the north have been much more persistent in looking at the ramifications of the ties between NAFTA , the North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) toward the ultimate development of that North American Union.

Particularly since the Montebello (Canada) meeting of the SPP between Bush, Harper, and Calderon, large numbers of the members of the opposition parties, as well as an enormous number of Canadian citizens all across the country, have taken an active stand against the policies and the conspiratorial nature of the negotiations potentially leading to the establishment of a NAU in which they have absolutely no desire to participate. Unfortunately, it is also leading to a good bit of anti-American (U.S.) sentiment among people with whom we have gotten on exceptionally well for the greater part of our history.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2284.shtml

“It won’t work. For one thing, the Canadian people will never accept that Canada become a colony of the United States, and the current minority government of Stephen Harper could pay dearly politically if it continues pushing in that direction. Canadians do not want their armed forces and their foreign policy to be de facto merged with those of imperial America. Moreover, they do not want their natural resources to be placed under U.S. control and exploited nearly completely by large American corporations, which have little regard for Canada’s sovereignty and little concern for the welfare of Canadians. Also, they do not want the Canadian dollar ditched in favor of a less and less attractive U.S. dollar, as some have suggested.”


Continue reading

July 22, 2008 1:23 am Posted by | North American Union | , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Open Discussion

I’ve put out a great deal of information over the past three weeks…and I’m having some computer difficulties again with my technical expert currently unavailable. It occurred to me that this might be a good time for readers to catch up on all this information (most of which ties together), and perhaps use it to do some of their own research, then come back here and do some brainstorming. Call it an open thread, open discussion, or whatever…it could prove interesting.

[UPDATE: I had intended to get a new post out today (actually, I should say “yesterday”), however, circumstances made that impossible. I hope to have one out, properly researched, by end of day (the 21st). This open discussion is definitely not getting a lot of interest, probably because everyone is looking for new information which takes a LOT of time to put together, so I also needed a break. By the way, if anyone has any suggestions for future posts I’m quite open to them.]

July 18, 2008 7:11 pm Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

North American Union, Part 3: The Amero

Given the recent developments in our economic situation in the United States, and the resulting increasing interest in this particular post, I felt that it might be appropriate for me to move it to the “top of the heap,” so to speak, with some minor additions. It contains some very relevant information to our current situation.

In the North American Union, parts 1 and 2, we briefly examined the systematic path toward socio-economic convergence of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico through various treaties, trilateral organizations and projects, much like the beginnings of the European Union. The “Open Borders” posts and the “Social Security Totalization Treaty” post also have very distinct relationships to this issue. What should be noticeable throughout, particularly in the “Totalization” and “EU” postings, is that convergence is very dependent upon a state of parity between the three nations…and financial parity is a key element.

One of the mistakes that the European Unionists made originally was not positioning themselves to impose a single monetary system throughout the EU. Not all EU nations have adopted the Euro as their sole currency which means, of course, that they have not yet fully invested themselves in the centralized banking and financial functions of the Union. Great Britain happens to be one of those countries. That is one of the matters that the Treaty of Lisbon is designed to correct. It is very likely that the architects of a possible North American Union have learned from their mistakes.

As we witnessed in the aftermath of “9/11,” an atmosphere of fear is a necessary element in the willingness of the American people to concede their liberty in the name of security for such anomalous concessions to government intrusion into our lives, and the abrogation of many of our individual rights, as was imposed upon us through the Patriot Act and the creation of Homeland Security. Fear is an equally necessary element to create an atmosphere whereby the American people would permit our government to thoroughly abdicate the very economic principles which made this country such an economic power in the previous century.

Continue reading

July 16, 2008 10:17 pm Posted by | North American Union | , , | 6 Comments

New World Order?

One of the commenters on the previous thread (EU), Red Dawn, posed an interesting question:

Question,

So if there is the Eu and possible NAU, what is to say that it is not in the name of a ONE world order? (talking about conspiracy theories)Or am I missing something? What other reasoning would there be?

Comment by Red Dawn | July 14, 2008 6:56 pm

So I decided to go to YouTube and see what I could find there…out of the “horses’ mouths.”

Continue reading

July 15, 2008 6:11 am Posted by | North American Union | , , , , , , | 6 Comments

European Union: The Future of the Americas?

Just as the potentially serious financial ramifications of the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico have been glossed over by our Administration and ignored by the media, the question of the possible creation of a North American Union is actually ridiculed by both our government leadership and the vast majority of the mainstream media (see the videos on the post North American Union, Part 2 as an example). It seems inconceivable to virtually all of our citizenry that such incredible conspiracies could exist without people knowing about it. Well, if our leadership manages to pull all of this off, it won’t be the first time such a thing has happened elsewhere in the world.

According to Wikipedia, “On 1 November 1993, under the third Delors Commission, the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on the European Union) became effective, creating the European Union with its pillar system including foreign and home affairs alongside the European Community,” but that is not the end of the story, and it most certainly is not the beginning.

 

The preceding video is an incredible documentary, “The Real Face of the European Union,” that was filmed in 2004 and which includes considerable information on the background of the formation of the European Union, as well as considerable information on the actual British experience with the EU up to that time. I HIGHLY recommend that everyone take the time to view it in its entirety!

Some examples of what you will learn about the EU from this documentary, other than the centralized justice system, cost, and corruption, are such things as the reality of the consequences of the centralized banking system (including the “one size fits all” monetary and financial systems); the “harmonizing” of legislation without benefit of voter input; the European Rapid Reaction Force, utilizing Britain’s own armed forces to keep member states, including those of the UK, in line; and how the very core of democracy has been subverted at the very seat of democracy. It’s important that you take those 43 minutes to watch this.

Continue reading

July 14, 2008 3:08 am Posted by | North American Union | , , , , , | 7 Comments

Social Security Totalization Treaty With Mexico

[UPDATE:  This posting has continued to attract attention, with commenters providing some excellent updated information.  For this reason I have decided to move it to the top of the blog, with my thanks to those individuals who have given it continued relevancy.]

Well, better late than never. I got my computer back from the shop a bit later than I anticipated, but I finally have my act together and am ready to get this out, as promised. I’m afraid that there are no videos this time, but there is volumes of research that I had to wade through to put this post together…and I hope you will all find it at least somewhat enlightening.

Most of you have probably not heard much about the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico or, if you have, most likely you are not fully aware of the nature of it…nor its consequences. In fact, Social Security Totalization Treaties have been around since 1977 and have already been signed with 21 other nations:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/

The presumption in these bilateral treaties is that they are mutually beneficial to the workers of both nations, however, that particular benefit is rather questionable in the case of Totalization with Mexico:

http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/WorkingMexicoChapter10.pdf

“The social security problems in Mexico can be listed briefly: limited coverage in terms of the working population and in relation to the total population in spite of the existence of a law and an institution close to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary. The public systems of social security currently include 50% of the total population and 30% of the economically active population. A historic deficit of health care and maternity insurance hovered over the work risk insurance and retirement funds for almost 50 years. It is on this deficit that the government based part of its argument to justify the privatization of the pension scheme.”

In addition, Mexican Visa and Immigration laws are far more strict than they are in this country, making it highly unlikely that a comparable number of American citizens would be participating in the system, and wages are, of course, considerably lower for the average worker. The alleged “savings” for the “American worker and employer” are also unclear, as I was unable to find the actual text of the Agreement. I suspect that it leans a little heavier on the side of the employer.

The Social Security Trust Fund of the United States has also been the subject of debate for many years because of the dwindling funds available, to the point that benefits have, on occasion, been cut rather than increased to address inflationary factors, much less accruing cost of living increases. Many of our retirees in this country are faced with the monthly choice of whether to buy food or their necessary medical prescriptions. As a matter of fact, estimated dates of trust fund exhaustion change often…and seldom for the better. Now we have another “fly in the ointment.”

Continue reading

July 11, 2008 11:42 pm Posted by | Mexico | , , , , | 31 Comments

Identity Theft

Identity theft in American society has reached epidemic proportions. No one believes for one moment that it is ONLY illegal aliens who participate in this devastating crime, but the fact is that thousands upon thousands of them do exactly that. In fact, unless an illegal alien can find work for cash under the table on a regular basis, those actually employed regularly must have illegal documentation…because they don’t qualify for legal:

Although one’s first reaction might be one of sympathy, consider that this is in no way a victimless crime…the key word here being crime. Those people coming into this country illegally do so with intent to defraud our system with malice aforethought, so they are no less guilty than the American citizen who decides to go out and sell drugs, or mug someone, or break into a home to feed his family, perhaps even out of desperation…they have chosen to commit a crime and must be held accountable. Where is the sympathy for the victim in all this, and why should there be a double standard?

The following links are to videos of a cross section of such victims, and very enlightening:

Here we see that our soldiers overseas, and their families, can be particularly vulnerable to this potentially devastating crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxkTrZR_T4

What of those who steal a stranger’s identity and then proceed to commit another crime? One of the compelling reasons to identify illegal aliens who commit a crime (i.e. 287g program) is because, if released on bond, they are more often than not lost in the wind, assuming another identity. But what happens to those whose identity they have assumed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUVSJIeDLg

We are asked to sympathize with the illegal aliens who come here, yet so many of them seem to have absolutely no desire to become upstanding members of our community. Having stolen an identity, it’s so easy for them to ignore any responsibility for their actions…at what cost to others?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fznCth75EsA

Continue reading

July 9, 2008 4:45 am Posted by | Illegal Immigration | , , , | 8 Comments

Border Security…NOW!

Although the task of physically closing the border would seem to be insurmountable, what about those U.S. security fears following 9-11 which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the Patriot Act? We sacrificed many of our freedoms to have those fears alleviated (which I thought was a bad idea from the get-go…just ask my husband about my tirades at the time)? What about that incredible power over our lives that we willingly turned over to so few people in our government on the promise that they would give us that security in exchange for the liberty we were abrogating? Well, here’s what’s happening with at least part of that promise:

This is part 2 of a 4 part series that aired in December of 2007…well worth your time to watch. The links to parts 1, 3, and 4 are as follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3PpaY-Gx5Q&feature=related Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ZdJqOkxfg&feature=related Part III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZuFChoINI&feature=related Part IV

We most often speak of our porous Southern border in terms of multitudes of illegal unskilled workers, gangs, and drugs being smuggled into our country…but how about those folks?

Continue reading

July 7, 2008 7:10 am Posted by | Illegal Immigration | , , , , , | 18 Comments

Thomas Jefferson and the Immigration Debate

Thomas Jefferson has oft been cited by the proponents of lax immigration policy as a champion of their cause, quoting this passage from the Declaration of Independence:

“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.”

A history of the background of this passage can be found in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups in the section entitled “Immigration: History of U.S. Policy, ” subsection “The Open Door Era, 1776-1881,” page 488:

“The rejection by the British government of colonial demands for a more open immigration policy to attract newcomers was one of the many grievances that led colonists to take up arms against the British in 1775. The Declaration of Independence attacked the King and the Privy Council for endeavoring “to prevent the population of these states” by refusing to recognize general naturalization acts passed by colonial assemblies and by restricting westward settlement in the Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774.”

This naturalization effort was very much a part of the effort of the colonies toward expansion with new immigrant groups at the forefront opening new territories. The British government was naturally loathe to have their colonies expanded to unmanageable proportions until such time as their control was firmly re-established in those colonies already existing, where that power was already beginning to slip. With the enormous amount of unexplored territory, and potential lands and resources available to present and future colonists, it was a logical next step, and one over which the British feared losing their control.

What is forgotten in this debate is that Thomas Jefferson was also NOT favorably disposed toward unbridled immigration or of immigrants unwilling to assimilate:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1280.htm

“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.” –Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

“Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

Continue reading

July 5, 2008 1:53 am Posted by | Illegal Immigration, Immigration | , | 15 Comments