FISA Stinks – More Than a Spectacle

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #releasethememo #FISA #Nunes

For the past week or more I’ve been distracted by this strange, FISA-centric spectacle. It was distracting because this closed-door, hidden-away thing called FISA was being brought into the light of day kicking and screaming. FISA, a cloaked phantom that once roamed in the depths of the deep-state, was going to be unmasked for examination and condemnation.

In short order, the gilded memo arrives and is immediately taken up as fodder for conjecture creators and idea hustlers. The memo is nearly ideal for such an exercise. It names individuals. It provides full and usable alleges of wrongdoing. It pulls back the curtain and provides a basis for public investigation. It’s a gem!

Then there was nothing. The memo became nothing more than a summary; a piece of written work proving nothing. The spectacle was over. – Except for this one, pesky little thing…right…there: how was The Washington Post made aware of the contents of a Top Secret document prior to its declassification?

Think about it!

Prior/On 1 Feb 2018, someone with knowledge of the classified FISA-memo provided information to The Washington Post prior to declassification.

On 1 Feb 2018, The Washington Post reported that “a controversial congressional memo” was going to allege “that the FBI, when obtaining a surveillance warrant, relied in some part on a dossier of allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump that was underwritten by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.”[1]

On 2 Feb 2018, President Trump declassified the memo from TOP SECRET to UNCLASSIFIED. [2]^,[3]

Something stinks!

Now consider what The Washington Post reported:

·         The FBI obtained a surveillance warrant against a person using a dossier (a file or database) of allegations against then-candidate Trump. – Stop! How did the FBI obtain a warrant against a target (not Trump) using information that was derogatory towards Trump?

·         That dossier was funded and bankrolled by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. – Stop! How did the FBI counter the financial and ideological bias present in the dossier with other facts? And, what were those facts?

The smell is compounding!

Preparation of the Battlespace – Factions Posture

For a period of several days the news media facilitated the drawing of battle lines: wrongdoing with evidence vs. ignoring of facts; fear FISA abuse vs. intention to smear; duty to report vs. duty to fairness; the ends justify the means vs. the means were unjustified to start.

2 Feb 2018 – The memo is declassified by President Trump.

Republican voices wanted us to agree that “officials and crucial institutions” abused FISA authorities and intentionally misled the FISA court (FISC) for political purposes;[4] that “damning” evidence exists; and that making the public aware fulfills “an obligation to the American people.” [5] [6]

Democrat voices wanted us to agree that the memo is incomplete and a “shameful effort to discredit” the FBI and DOJ; that the memo is intended to distract from the Mueller probe;[7] that the memo is an astounding and shocking ignoring of facts and reality.[8]

CNN voices wanted us to agree that the renewal of FISA orders was just. The line of reasoning was that the renewals were just because a FISC judge determined prior surveillance was yielding information about the target acting as an agent of a foreign power and that yielding merited continued monitoring.[9]

3 Feb 2018 – Republican voices wanted us to agree that American citizens were not protected under FISA by those trusted to exercise protection; and that “the only place that can protect [American citizens] is the US Congress;”[10] and that the FISC issued a wrongful order because of biased dossier;[11]^,[12] and that only a single member of the Committee was allowed to see the FISA documents; and that the briefing of this single member was sufficient to support the memo;[13] and that the Committee was engaged in a multi-phased investigation into FISA-related abuse and misuse. [14]

4 Feb 2018 – Republican and Democrat voices wanted us to agree that the FISA application should be opened.[15]

5 Feb 2018 – The memo was released. Actually, the Committee Majority memo was released; whereas, the Minority memo was not released.[16]^,[17]

Republican voices wanted us to agree that the Minority memo was passed to the President using the same procedures as the Majority memo.

Democrat voices wanted us to agree that release of the Minority memo was a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the American people.[18]

7 Feb 2018 – Fox News voices wanted us to agree that the content of the Minority memo was intended to pressure the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it.[19]

The Smell will Pass, but the Mess is not Going Away

It appears to me that there are too many open questions concerning Constitutional rights and due process for this spectacle to be explained away by, or dismissed as, party politics.

Who leaked Top Secret material prior to its declassification? What was the purpose of the leak? Who authorized/directed the leak?

How does FISA facilitate abuse and misuse of the public trust?

How is the Majority memo incomplete? And, why were those details withheld?

If the ends (surveillance collection) justifies the means (multiple renewals), then how were the initial means (the original order) initially justified?

• What was collected?
• Where is the original FISA application? Where is the initial determination by the FISC? Where is the original order? Who reviewed/ordered what?
• Where are the renewal FISA applications? Where are the renewal determinations by the FISC? Where are the renewal orders? Who reviewed/ordered what?

Was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) the only party to review the FISA documents?

• If yes, then why was he the only person, and what did he review?
• If no, then who else reviewed the documents, what did they see, and why was their names not made public?

What event or circumstance prompted the Committee to take up an investigation? Who agreed and disagreed? Where is the transcript of those discussions? Where is the Committee record of the decision to investigate?

If the Minority memo is released, then is it reasonable to expect the American people to be sufficiently knowledgeable and civically engaged to judge the situation for themselves, as Schumer suggests?

• If yes, then are the People going to be in a position of sufficient power to do anything substantial about it?
• If no, then how can the public be expected to contribute to, or settle, the matter?

Are the Constitutional rights of American citizens protected from harm via FISA?

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[1] Carol D. Leonnig, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Karoun Demirjian. “Trump to approve release of GOP memo Friday over objections from law enforcement, intelligence community”. The Washington Post. 1 Feb 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-expected-to-approve-release-of-memo-following-redactions-requested-by-intelligence-officials/2018/02/01/a55210e6-0757-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.6e3f9ccf00f4 (accessed 180205)

[2] US House of Representatives. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Memorandum dated 18 Jan 2018. SUB: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Declassified by order of the President February 2, 2018

[3] Jeremy Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb 2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html (accessed 180205)

[4] et al

[5] Paulina Dedaj. “Nunes tells Fox News memo was released out of public obligation”. Fox News. 3 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/nunes-tells-fox-news-memo-was-released-out-public-obligation.html (accessed 5 Feb 2018)

[6] Jeremy Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb 2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html (accessed 180205)

[7] et al

[8] et al

[9] et al

[10] Paulina Dedaj. “Nunes tells Fox News memo was released out of public obligation”. Fox News. 3 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/nunes-tells-fox-news-memo-was-released-out-public-obligation.html (accessed 5 Feb 2018)

[11] et al

[12] Jeremy Herb. “Disputed GOP-Nunes memo released with Trump's approval”. CNN. 2 Feb 2018. http://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/republican-intelligence-memo/index.html (accessed 180205)

[13] Paulina Dedaj. “Nunes tells Fox News memo was released out of public obligation”. Fox News. 3 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/nunes-tells-fox-news-memo-was-released-out-public-obligation.html (accessed 5 Feb 2018)

[14] et al

[15] Rebecca Morin. “House Intel members: Release the FISA application.” Politico. 4 Feb 2018. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/04/congressmen-release-fisa-application-nunes-memo-389088 (accessed 180206)

[16] US House of Representatives Committee Repository. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “Meeting: Full Committee Business Meeting: Consideration of the public disclosure of executive session material, pursuant to House Rule X, clause 11(g) and other matters.” http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106838 (accessed 180210)

[17] Joseph Weber. “Schumer urges Trump to allow Dems' 'FISA memo' to also be released”. Fox News. 5 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/04/schumer-urgers-trump-to-allow-dems-fisa-memo-to-also-be-released.html (accessed 180206)

[18] et al

[19] Fox News. “Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details”. 7 Feb 2018. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/06/dems-set-trump-trap-source-says-fisa-rebuttal-memo-loaded-with-sensitive-details.html (accessed 180210)

Illegal Immigrant Civil Rights – Really?

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #DACA #civilrights #Dreamers

Have you encountered a situation in which two ideas are combined to give a new meaning that turns out to be a perversion of those original ideas? In my mind, common examples include democratic socialism, compassionate conservatism, and progressive liberalism? If you have, then you’re likely no stranger to newest combination to enter the political narrative: illegal immigrant civil rights.

On 22 Jan 2018, multiple news media outlets attributed the following to Sen. Durbin:

-          Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents when they were children “is the civil rights issue of our time,” according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill).[i]

-          Democratic Senators believe amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants is the “civil rights issue of our time,” declared Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill).[ii]

-          …the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.[iii]

Of course, Sen. Durbin is not the only champion of the cause. There are Legislators, Executives, news media outlets, protesters, and lobby groups[iv] parroting the narrative along their lines of influence.

It seems to me that the political discourse surrounding new narrative continues to spin while looking for traction. So far, within the last 15 days, we’ve witnessed clever remessaging, blatant dishonorable conduct, further condoning of criminal behavior, and massive differences in just how big the problem set is right now. Considering all that’s gone on, it seems to me, that the champion’s message is clear enough: if America does not grant illegal immigrants citizenship according to their preferences, then it’s because those opposed are racist oppressors.

Yet, despite it all, outspoken champions want Americans at large to…consent to another progressive solution…designed to fix a progressive problem…that was created to satisfy progressive ideology…that was continuously supported by progressive advocates…and is now being presented as the progressive “issue of our time.”

Why is the answer to a failed Progressive Policy another Progressive Policy?

Background

The United States is no stranger to naturalization of immigrants. The Constitution is clear on the matter: establishing a “uniform rule of naturalization” is an enumerated power reserved to the Legislature (Art-1, Sec-8). As a result, there is law and precedent dating back to the beginning of the republic.

Additionally, the United States is no stranger to addressing civil rights.

-          The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that all persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition.[v]

-          On 9 July 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment declared citizenship only on the conditions of birth within, or naturalization in, the United States.

-          On 3 Feb 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment declared voting rights of the citizens cannot be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

-          The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (aka the Enforcement Act or Force Act) affirmed the “equality of all men before the law” and prohibited racial discrimination in public places and facilities such as restaurants and public transportation.[vi]

-          The Civil Rights Act of 1957 declared that any citizen of the United States cannot be deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin.[vii]

-          The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.[viii]

-          The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin or sex.[ix]

However, when I combine these ideas, naturalization and civil rights, I perceive neither naturalization nor civil rights. I see a combined effort of professional idea brokers and steadfast activists attempting to convince the common American to believe or agree that denying citizenship to criminal actors is a fundamental wrong when those actors are illegal immigrants.

In my book, what we are looking at is a clear example of identity-based, power politics…nothing more.

Bolstered Identity Politics:

“Americans are dreamers too.” – President Trump

If illegal immigrants (an identity group) are granted citizenship, then that group will exclusively receive a reward that is inversely proportionate to their prior illegal behavior. Therefore, if citizenship is granted, then illegal behavior of that identity group will be condoned, forgiven, and rewarded.

In my view, should the deal be done, it’s likely that the champions will develop variations of the condoning-forgiving-rewarding cycle in order to continue to secure government-backed rewards. Simply stated, doing a deal will solidify their modus operandi. After all, it worked before.

Why should the common American accept the rewarding of criminal behavior as a good thing? – I mean, when was the last time that a law-abiding, upstanding, self-sufficient American received a government subsidy for being good a citizen?

Just Behaviors are Devalued:

Self-governance is a trust amongst us that mutually demands
independence, respect, and responsibility at the individual level.
America was deliberately founded on this good idea.

Rewarding bad behavior incentivizes the continuance of that bad behavior. In this case, there are two sets of bad behaviors: 1) the illegal behavior of immigrants; 2) the condoning of illegal behavior by politicians. Should the deal be done, the relationship between the newly formed voting bloc and the politician seeking power will become mutually supporting. Meaning, the benefits of bloc-politician resource exchanges (a gateway to domestic power) will exceed the benefits of self-governance, personal liberty, and individual responsibility (cornerstones of limited government and traditional American society). – Regardless of how things actually turn out, behavior rewarded becomes behavior repeated.

In the case of the illegal immigrants, their bad behavior is rewarded with recognition, standing, and rights to power. In turn, the group now has a mechanism capable of redirecting resources through the monopolies of government.

In the case of the politician, their bad behavior is rewarded with the creation of a concentrated and sympathetic voting bloc. In turn, certain politicians now have a mechanism capable of swaying popular consent to their favor.

Going Forward – Consider the Long-Term Effects

In my view, supporting a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants devalues just and virtuous behaviors, bolsters identity politics, and skews political consent away from those that are fully assimilated American citizens. – To be clear, I am not a fan of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants in any shape, form, or fashion.

Of course, people do disagree with my view, and for many reasons other than political power. Granted, this is a multi-faceted issue. However, I must ask, “Are you willing to live under a precedent that further concentrates political power in a way that can be used against you in the future?”

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[i] Kathryn Blackhurst. “Durbin Claims DACA Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. Lifezette. January 22, 2018. https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dick-durbin-claims-daca-amnesty-is-the-civil-rights... (accessed 180127)

[ii] “Dick Durbin Claims Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. The Citizen Press. 22 Jan 2018. https://thecitizenpress.com/dick-durbin-claims-amnesty-is-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time (accessed 180128)

[iii] Alex Swoyer. “Sen. Dick Durbin says debate over Dreamers is a ‘civil rights issue’”. The Washington Times. 22 Jan 2018. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dick-durbin-says-debate-over-dreamers-civil-rights/  (accessed 180128)

[iv] https://civilrights.org/progressive-leaders-demand-congress-act-key-priorities-dreamers-disaster-relief-chip-must-addressed/ (accessed 180103)

[v] http://spartacus-educational.com/USAcivil1866.htm (accessed 180128)

[vi] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Civil-Rights-Act-United-States-1875 (accessed 180128)

[vii] http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/civil-rights-act-1957 (accessed 180128)

[viii] http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act (accessed 180128)

[ix] http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act (accessed 180128) 

Illegals – A Means to Shift Political Power

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #civilrights #DACA #Dreamers

The political discourse surrounding illegal immigrants in the United States continues to spin ever faster. As the narrative turns and twists the collision between solid facts and soft feelings is being overrun with remessaging, blatant dishonorable conduct, further condoning of criminal behavior, and massive growth of underlying fallacy. Yet, despite it all, politicians want our consent to solve the illegal immigrant problem that they created.

Given the potential far-reaching impacts of their proposed solutions, the introduction of the civil rights[i] lens on what is a naturalization problem set, and the dishonorable conduct on display, I find myself questioning their motives.

Why do our politicians continue to advocate that Americans should adapt our laws to meet the needs, wants, and desires of illegal immigrants versus advocating that illegal immigrants should adapt to meet the needs, wants, and desires of American laws?

Why do our politicians appeal to American goodwill in order to stop oppressing illegal immigrant families versus appealing to illegal immigrant families in order to stop oppressing American goodwill?

Why do certain politicians need, want, or desire Americans to accept their playing of a race card to invoke identity politics?

Motive – A Framework

Establishing motive outside of an expression of intent is difficult; but, we can consider the consequences of a proposal or set of actions and infer a motive.

First, let’s assume that the behavior of political champions reflects a sincere intention to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants currently within the United States making them full citizens.

Second, because the champions are politicians (many are career politicians at the federal level) let’s acknowledge that the motive of human governance is power; and, the purposes of “power” are to expand, augment, dominate, and control. [ii]

When taken together, is the motivation behind granting citizenship to illegal immigrants to secure political power by expansion and augmentation of a base, or domination and control of an opposition? – Or, both?

Power Politics and American Governance – Points Not Discussed

If citizenship is granted to Dreamers, estimated at 3.6M and growing, regardless of a path, then the distribution of political consent will shift. The shift will occur because more than 72% of today’s Dreamers (2.6M) are of voting age.[iii]

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

– Declaration of Independence –

State/Local Politics: The greatest concentrations of Dreamers are in Las Angeles, New York City, Houston, Dallas-Ft Worth, and Chicago. This is significant because political power rests in the hands of the voting majority; which are concentrated in major cities where majority of participating voters reside. Because Dreamers are the beneficiaries of government support and protection; it’s likely that their consent to be governed according to government-based support and protection will remain. Meaning, their votes will likely back the expansion and augmentation of government.

Federal Politics: For Presidential politics, mastery of the Electoral College is the key to victory. Looking through this lens it’s easy to estimate the potential impact of accepting illegal immigrants as full citizens.

The states most impacted by illegal immigrants currently control
154 Electoral College votes (57% of the votes needed to secure the Presidency).

Pew Research suggests that Dreamers prefer to enroll in DACA within the states of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia.[iv] This pattern closely follows the residency preferences of unauthorized workers: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois; Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.[v] Taken together, it seems likely that the political balance of the states common to both lists will experience a shift: California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Washington. – Again, because Dreamers are the beneficiaries of government support and protection; it’s likely that their consent to be governed according to government-based support and protection will remain. Meaning, their votes will likely back the expansion and augmentation of government.

Bottom Line: If illegal immigrants are granted citizenship, regardless of the path, then the prevailing view of the role of government will shift:

• Shift further from… “The Bill of Rights and Constitution are our nation’s foundations which define a government structure to implement principles which serves all of the country’s citizens and protects our freedoms.
• Shift further towards… “The political class uses government functions and institutions to enlarge, entrench, and enrich itself while viewing citizens only as parts of tribes and voting blocs resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.”

Going Forward – Pushing Back

In my view, it’s time to push messaging upon our politicians?

-       Do illegal immigrants demonstrate criminal behavior?

-       Are children of illegal immigrants born in the US citizens under the 14^th Amendment?

-       Are the children of illegal immigrants emancipated? If yes, then they are adults; why should their illegal kin be allowed to stay? If no, then why should minor children be used as the basis for condoning criminal conduct?

-       Why should Americans accept the perversion of two good things, naturalization and civil rights, in favor of rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship, standing under the law, voting, property rights, and other common protections?

-       Why should Americans accept that illegal criminals are good people for America?

-       Because progressive policies created this problem, why should Americans believe that a progressive solution is an acceptable answer?

-       Why should we accept that being against illegal behavior is racism in practice?

-       If the lawful behavior of abiding citizens is not subsidized, then why should the unlawful behavior of illegal immigrants be subsidized?

-       Why does the desire of the Government to legalize and forgive illegal behavior supersede the legal need of everyone else to be law-abiding, regardless?

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[i] Kathryn Blackhurst. “Durbin Claims DACA Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. Lifezette. January 22, 2018. https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dick-durbin-claims-daca-amnesty-is-the-civil-rights... (accessed 180127)

[ii] John Patrick Diggins, “John Adams”, Times Books, 2003, ISBN: 0-8050-6937-3

[iii] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/ (accessed 180129)

[iv] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/25/key-facts-about-unauthorized-immigrants-enrolled-in-daca/ (accessed 180129)

[v] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ (accessed 180128)

Cracking the Code - Intersectionality

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #Intersectionality

#INTERSECTIONALITY – (noun) the interconnected nature of political categorizations and over-reach to exploit the resentments associated with race, class, gender, and identity groups in order to institutionalize and aggravate discrimination or disadvantage.

"through an awareness of #intersectionality, we can better excuse, deny, condone, and encourage feelings and fears while ignoring, disregarding, and ostracizing facts and success”

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Civil Rights, Illegal Immigrants, and Political Fog

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #Dreamers #DACA #illegalimmigrants

  

The political saga of seeking to legalize illegal immigrants, making them full citizens, continues to adapt and take new forms. What was once framed as a “dream” is now recast as a righteous defense of “civil rights” – from a conditional aspiration to a moral mandate.

On 22 Jan 2018, multiple news media outlets attributed the following to Sen. Durbin:

• Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents when they were children “is the civil rights issue of our time,” according to Sen. Durbin (D-Ill).[i]
• Democratic Senators believe amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants is the “civil rights issue of our time,” declared Sen. Durbin (D-Ill).[ii]
• …the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.[iii]

In all cases, the reports were similar in quotation, concise in length and detail, and played off the latest government shutdown to some degree. In my view, at first glance the significance of reported statements seemed small enough…just another utterance from Senator “Shithole Spectacle” Durbin. – Then, there was this:

• “I’m focused on one thing — not that meeting — but on making sure that those who are being protected by DACA and eligible for the DREAM Act have a future in America. I am focused on that full time.” [iv]

Of course, Durbin is not the only voice interested in granting citizenship. Given the recent surge in news media reporting, it seems reasonable to postulate that the number of Legislators and Executives interested in granting citizenship, regardless of the preferred “path,” is large and growing.

Do you smell that? It smells like…

I have questions:

• Why would any Legislator redirect their attention away from representing the many interests of their constituencies in favor of illegal immigrants?
• Why is this Senator distancing himself from remarks so proudly parroted?
• Why is this Senator pushing eligibility per an Act that he knows is not yet a law?
• Why would anyone agree to hold 2.7M federal civilian employees (US citizens and legal immigrants) ransom in order to coerce the acceptance of any number of illegals (US criminals)?

Then, there is the question that matters most:

• Why would politicians want us to believe or agree that granting citizenship to a specifically identified group of people exhibiting criminal behavior is a civil right?

Because those that hold political power continue to demonstrate their willingness to double and triple-down over this issue at the expense of every other concern, I am highly suspicious of their motives.

What are we being asked to accept?

In this case, the heart of my suspicion lies in the claim that government action (a subsidized solution) is necessary to correct the unjust status of illegal immigrants (a problem). – In my view, the problem set seems to change frames as follows:

• Prior to 2010, the dominant voice (politicians in power) was not interested in the plight of illegal immigrants (the inferior voice) because the behavior of those individuals was justly illegal, a violation of established law.
• Today, the dominant voice (politicians in power) is interested in the plight of illegal immigrants (the inferior voice) because the behavior of those individuals was made unjustly illegal, a violation of civil rights.

This recrafting of the problem allows social and cultural space for the rise of a political discourse that’s intended to realize a government solution.

Simply stated, the government is seeking our approval to subsidize the social, cultural, and legal standing of a specific, relatively small, people-group from “illegal immigrant” to “American citizen” regardless of their prior connection to illegal behavior.

When the government subsidizes the solution to a problem,
then more of that problem will develop.

However, there is a glaring assumption within the proposed solution: the inferior population (illegal immigrants) is small and will remain small. Unfortunately, because the federal government exercises a monopoly on the use of force and the establishment of guilt, and the nature of any government is to secure and expand its power, the assumption does not hold true to fact. The bottom line is this: the underlying assumption is a fallacy. Thus, the proposed solution is actually a mechanism for the expansion of political power.

In fact, the fallacy is already demonstrating itself.

• 12 Jan 2018 – Durbin claims 700,000 “Dreamers” reside in the United States [v]
• 18 Jan 2018 – 3.6M “Dreamers” are in the United States [vi]
• 22 Jan 2018 – Durbin is paraphrased, “…the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.” [vii]

Going Forward – Seeing Through the Fog of Power Politics

Earlier I asked, “Why would politicians want us to believe or agree that granting citizenship to a specifically identified group of people exhibiting criminal behavior is a civil right?” – Answer: I suspect we are witnessing an attempt to expand political power by force of guilt (versus a bid to restore liberty to citizens unjustly denied civil rights).

Given the obvious reframing of the problem, the continued condoning of criminal behavior, the exponential demonstration of the underlying fallacy, and the highly dishonorable conduct of those involved, I find the idea of reducing/diluting my political consent through granting citizenship to a criminal element within American society to be completely unacceptable.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[i] Kathryn Blackhurst. “Durbin Claims DACA Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. Lifezette. January 22, 2018. https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dick-durbin-claims-daca-amnesty-is-the-civil-rights... (accessed 180127)

[ii] “Dick Durbin Claims Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. The Citizen Press. 22 Jan 2018. https://thecitizenpress.com/dick-durbin-claims-amnesty-is-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time (accessed 180128)

[iii] Alex Swoyer. “Sen. Dick Durbin says debate over Dreamers is a ‘civil rights issue’”. The Washington Times. 22 Jan 2018. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dick-durbin-says-debate-over-dreamers-civil-rights/  (accessed 180128)

[iv] “Dick Durbin Claims Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. The Citizen Press. 22 Jan 2018. https://thecitizenpress.com/dick-durbin-claims-amnesty-is-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time (accessed 180128)

[v] Video

[vi] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/01/18/there-3-5-m-dreamers-and-most-may-face-nightmare/1042134001/ (accessed 180129)

[vii] Alex Swoyer. “Sen. Dick Durbin says debate over Dreamers is a ‘civil rights issue’”. The Washington Times. 22 Jan 2018. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dick-durbin-says-debate-over-dreamers-civil-rights/ (accessed 180128)