Sunday, February 19, 2017
Left Was Not Concerned On Obama's Deportation Efforts
Would that leftists were as harmless as stopped clocks: while the latter is correct twice daily, American Progressives are wrong even when they’re right.
Consider their hypocritical hysteria over Donald Trump’s prohibiting immigration from Moslem countries. Oh, the froth, frenzy and fury! We might assume from Progressives’ pique that previous administrations had opened America’s “golden door” wider than Hitlary’s pant-suited behind. Indeed, Trump’s ban has so disturbed our homegrown commies that they actually worry about its dangers for persecuted Christians—“Orthodox Christians,” no less. When was the last time any Marxist wasted concern on believers rather than mocking us as illiterate hillbillies and bigots?
About half of Obummer’s victims were Mexican. And yet, predictably, Progressives uttered nary a moan when their poster-boy “discriminated” against our southern neighbors, however loudly they shriek when a faux Republican excludes Moslems. Which renders this latest tantrum as unprincipled as all their others since only hatred for Trump motivates it. But why? Whence the venom for a man who shares their perverted positions on many issues?
Nonetheless, she’s right (albeit for the wrong reason). The Constitution does not empower Trump — or any president, or any part of the federal government — to prohibit — or to promote, or to monitor, or to police in any way — any immigration — or emigration, or movement of any kind. Search the Constitution through, and you’ll find only one very limited federal authority associated with migration: Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 4 allows the Congress — not the Executive — to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” And that’s it.
Of course, naturalization is merely the process for becoming a citizen, for which the Constitution allows Congress to set the parameters. Legislators may determine, for example, how many years an immigrant must reside in the ol’ Homeland before states can draft him for jury duty.
Freedom to come and go without hindrance blessed the country until the late 19th century. As Paul Johnson noted in A History of the American People, “In the five years up to 1820, some 100,000 people arrived in America without having to show a single bit of paper” 1 or jumping through a single bureaucratic hoop.
That liberty died in the 1870s when Chinese laborers willing to work for low wages were laying railroad track across the western prairies. But why should newcomers profit from diligence and hard work when God gave shirking Americans the Supreme Court? And true to nativists’ hopes, the Court invented a novel power for the central government: a previously unexpected “interest” in determining who would comprise the country — and who wouldn’t.
Astoundingly, then, Pelosi and her fellow Progressives are correct: Trump’s ban is unconstitutional. But so is the entire regulatory and bureaucratic apparatus pertaining to immigration that the Feds — whether Dimocrats or Rethuglicans — have enshrined over the last 150 years.
And once again, Progressives are right for the wrong reason: “Lawyers and civil-rights organizations have argued that … [Trump’s] ban violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment by ‘explicitly disapproving of one religion and implicitly preferring others.’” Baloney. The Feds can’t even approach that point because they have no jurisdiction over immigrants at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Ergo, their approval or disapproval of immigrants’ religion is entirely irrelevant.
Meanwhile, as the injustice system mulls Trump’s ban, “courts are more likely to focus on whether there is ‘an adequate factual basis for singling out these specific countries as distinct sources of risk…’”
Ha! If we’re after “distinct sources of risk,” the most menacing of all is right here at home: Washington, D.C.
— Becky Akers
 Paul Johnson, “A History of the American People” (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), p. 284