In Shunning 'Illegals,' do We also Shun Constitution?

Here's a pitch for the 'illegal' immigrant that might someday receive attention, maybe even making them legal.

This argument sits there in the Constitution, patiently waiting.

Pick up that venerable document, if you will, and go down to the 14th Amendment, which was enacted at the end of the Civil War, and which brought citizenship to those freed by the war.

Doesn't that last part of the amendment say no state shall deprive any person in its jurisdiction of equal protection under the laws? That means any person living in that state. Any. All you need to qualify, is to live there. It doesn't break it down into those who have been invited and those who haven't.

Strictly reading the words, for what they say and what they're worth, wouldn't that give undocumented residents the right to remain?

Then, right before that part of the 14th Amendment, there's the part that says no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process. Deporting folks is (surely), depriving them of liberty. If you disagree, you are going to have to argue that as long as they get due process, they can still be deported. But, I will reply that that is not enough. Due process is for those accused of having done harm to society. Simply living and breathing on American soil is not a harmful thing. Existing on American soil is not a harm. In fact, "existing" falls under the perimeters of "life" when the 14th Amendment mentions life, liberty and property.

Back up to what comes right before that in the 14th Amendment. Read how it says no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. You might argue that it says "citizens" and they are not citizens. I would reply, Just what was a citizen back then, in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified? I think of all the emigrants out of England and Scandinavia about that time, of how so many of them made their way to Utah, and I don't remember hearing any stories of how they were detained for immigration questions, or considered undocumented or illegal. Seems they became "citizens" quite automatically.

If that is what the writers of the 14th Amendment had in mind, why make it different now?

There's one part of the 14th Amendment left, the first part. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." I'd say everyone who lives here is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. So, if you are subject to our laws by living here, that and a little more should be all it takes to consider you a citizen.

And, what is that "little more"? It is that you must be born here or naturalized. Back then, what did it take to be naturalized? In the beginning of our nation, naturalization required not much more than living here for a few years. You weren't stopped at the border, but rather you came in freely and it was your staying a few years that was the qualifier for being termed a citizen. Was that still the process in 1868?

It was.

So, it does seem the writers of the 14th Amendment had in mind that everyone who lives on American soil should be allowed to remain, and should be considered citizens within years of arriving.

That would include those who we call illegals and who we accuse of not respecting by our laws when they come here illegally. Maybe, instead of accusing them of not living by our laws, we should consider that it is us who are not living by the law. Perhaps it is us who ignore the highest law, even the Constitution.

I'm Going to Have to Disagree With Myself

I think I must disagree with myself (which is another way of saying, change my opinion), and agree instead with an unidentified Channel 4 personality.

Months ago, I blogged against the current caucus system, arguing that it amounts to little more than getting all dressed up and going to a meeting in the name of participating in the democratic process, only to accomplish little more once we get there than surrendering to political activists our right to vote at the next step in the process.

Let him (or her) go on to the convention and cast my vote? No, thank you, I said. I can cast my own vote, if you don't mind.

Why not invite everyone to the convention, teleconferencing it to fit everyone in? I wondered.

Monday, while filing to run for office, I had a discussion with a Channel 4 personality. (Someone there told me he was on Channel 4, but I didn't ask his name). He argued that my system would take away people's ability to discuss things neighbor-to-neighbor. Instead of going to an everyone-come state convention, he wanted us to return to more community-oriented caucuses. He didn't like throwing precincts together, into mega caucuses.

Well, after attending this week's caucuses (I went to those of both the Democrats and Republicans as an observer, not voting), I find I must agree with the man from Channel 4. The Republican caucuses were precious. They divided into precincts. Mine drew but about 20, but one was packed with 79 (yes, that was a single precinct). With so many being at the same school, just in different rooms, I wandered into more than a half dozen. They were precious, simply said, because people were discussing issues and congressional candidates candidly, but civilly. I didn't run into a single heated, barbed debate. It was simply beautiful to see people learning about the process, about the candidates, and discussing it all.

Tell me, what other meeting is there where neighbors discuss politics? We might want to change some things -- maybe still going to a everyone-comes state convention -- but, whatever we do do, we do not want to lose these community caucuses.

They are too precious. As the Channel 4 man said, the meetings should not be so large that people cannot express themselves. Take this away, and we lose a gem.

Bush, Santorum, Hatch Played Leads Roles in Victory

Supposing the life of the unborn to be one of the great remaining fights for justice in America, pat George W. Bush on the back for what he did in 2003.

Oh, and bless Rick Santorum, too. He was the chief Senate sponsor. And, bless Orrin Hatch. He was a key proponent. Bush simply signed it into law after both houses of Congress approved it.

The law banned what is known as partial-birth abortion. Read on, if you would know what "partial-birth abortion" is. For when you learn, you likely will agree such a thing, indeed, needed to be ended.

With the signing of this law, no longer would America allow a child to be pulled part way out of the womb, then, while the head was the only part of the baby's body not "born" (still in the womb), the head was pierced with scissors and the brain then sucked out.

Just bring the baby out part of the way? But, since the head is still in, that part is not born, so it should be legal to kill that part? Such logic.

The Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 with a ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, which means next month will mark the fifth anniversary.

Bring Transparency Right to the Bill, Itself

Let's move the our concern for conflict interest and campaign contributions  to where it will have the greatest impact -- to when the legislation is filed.

Having candidates disclose their conflicts at the time they file for office is okay. But I don't know that I have ever heard of such disclosures leading to anything. I've neither heard of them warding off a legislator working for the cause of those he has conflicts with, nor am I remembering any such disclosures leading to an office holder being "busted," shall we say, for any conflict of interest he or she has had.

Campaign contributions? Occasionally, there are news stories about their ties to political favors, but for the most part, no.

Now, we can see that conflicts of interest can be a bad thing, and special interest money a bad thing. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the laws calling for disclosure of them.

So, why not move the disclosures right up close, right to the point of impact, right to the bills themselves? Why not have legislators disclose as they file each bill which lobbyists lobbied for the legislation, and who out of those who gave them money are going to benefit from the legislation?

Why not? If we are concerned about the money and influence affecting our legislation -- and we ought to be -- why not bring the transparency right to the point where it can do the most good.

Disclosures at Time Bills Made Would be Barrel of Fun

In Utah, as you file for a state office, you disclose your conflicts of interest. Then, periodically throughout the campaign, you file disclosures revealing who is donating and how much they are donating.

Ever wonder what would happen if we moved the whole "transparency" process right to the point of the legislators introducing legislation? I just wonder what would happen if legislators were required to say which campaign contributors would be affected by the proposed legislation? And, which lobbyists approached them about the legislation?


This could be a barrel of fun.

Thoughts on Caucuses as Caucases Approach

1. Don't know that I've ever, in my time in Utah, seen the caucuses so well promoted, what with the radio promos the Republican Party is doing and all.

2. The timing of this year's caucuses, in the future, might could be considered. If those attending the meetings were to want to encourage candidates to run, it would be better that the meetings were a little earlier. As is, the filing deadline is two days after the Democratic Party caucuses and the day (and in the evening after the elections offices have closed) of the Republican caucuses.

Rather than holding the meetings earlier, so those attending could encourage fellow citizens to file as candidates, the other option is to hold them late enough that all the candidates could attend. With the filing deadline being after the caucuses, it is possible some might decide to run after the meetings and thus not even be considered in the caucus discussions.

3. Would be interesting to know the impact the caucuses will have on party affiliations. About half of Utah's voters are not affiliated with any party. Though they do not need to affiliate to attend the meetings, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, does ask them to join in order to become convention delegates. I heard the party chairman, Thomas Wright, say on KSL that you need to become a party member to vote on who is sent to convention as delegates. He noted you will be able to register as a Republican right at the meeting, it would be interesting to know if there will be a shift of registered voters from independent to Republican resulting from the caucuses. I might call up and get party membership totals the day before the caucuses and then a few days after the meetings, to see if there was much of a shift.

Seven Months After Debt Ceiling Agreement, We Get This

'K. Let's say it's seven months after President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. You haven't forgotten that, have you? You know, all that talk, all that political wrangling, all the hope that government was finally getting serious about reining in its spending.

Well, how are we doing, seven months later? Surely, we're not running the debt up quite as fast as we were. Right?

Wrong. Read this: Govt. sets record deficit in February - Washington Times.

Seven months after about as much attention was showered on the deficit as has even been showered on it, we have a new one-month record, $229 billion for February. Februaries are not good for the nation's budget, the previous record being $223 billion in February 2011.

I think to say the explanation is that the debt ceiling only limits our ability to pay our bills, not whether we will run up the bills in the first place. The real place to limit the budget is when it is set each year, not when it comes time to pay the bills for things already purchased.

But, I think that is only a partial answer. The Budget Control Act may have authorized the paying of bills, but it did also control spending. In fact, it has been reported that it cut spending more than it raised the debt ceiling.

At any rate, it would be nice if a few Congressmen would show up on the chamber floor Monday morning, waving the news story, and demanding that we immediately revisit the budget and curb current spending.

We now have a record 41 consecutive months of deficit spending. That has got to stop. The previous record was but 11 straight months.

You don't preserve the future by wasting the present. If we are going to turn the deficit around in some future year, we should not be spending at record levels now. The word "stop" has to be put in present tense.