I therefore cannot endorse any candidate who supports amnesty/Jesse Alaniz Letter to the Editor

Of Immigration Reform & Amnesty –
And so I have remained silent on the subject for a while out of observation or weariness I don’t know perhaps both. At the heart of the matter millions of illegal aliens who are said to be in the United States though no one knows for sure. The question of what to do with them is then placed before the American People and not the political sciences but rather the chicanery, trickery and exercises in deception and deceit begin.
To the honest voter support your candidate’s compromise for amnesty or face a loss in the general election. Have your candidate compromise and vote for amnesty and your candidate is assumed to get support from the Hispanic community. Here’s a spoiler alert for all Republican candidates, politicians and special interest political deputies. The Republicans stand no chance of getting any benefit out of supporting amnesty and the Democrats will do an excellent job of selling the Hispanic population that the only reason any Republican voted for amnesty was because they were afraid of the Democrats after all of the hard work they dedicated in bringing justice into the plight of the felon. While I may vote for such a Republican to keep a Democrat out I personally cannot support you. I have made myself available to Republicans to speak out on the subject and not one person has taken me up on the offer. Walk at your own peril then.
The Political Amnesty Climate –
Under the usual cloak and guise the rally cry of uniting behind the candidates will be made. Personally I would prefer the safety and sanity of Picket’s Charge than the justified wrath of the American People. The last general election was in 2012 and the Republicans have failed to send out any message or form an opinion on the subject under political cowardice. A review of some the historical incidents as they relate to immigration.
1) Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev are alleged to have set two bombs off at a Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. The two brothers are said to have into the country legally despite of warnings from Russia according to some reports:
Boston Bomber Slipped Through: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-anniversary/russia-warned-u-s-about-tsarnaev-spelling-issue-let-him-n60836
Michael Moore alleges that the Tea Party was behind the Boston Massacre bombings, Sadly, Moore wasn’t alone in his assumptions. MSNBC host Chris Matthews pinned the blame for the bombings on right-wing extremists.: http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/16/michael-moore-alleges-that-the-tea-party-was-behind-the-boston-massacre-bombings/
These are just many of the immigration failures.

2) It is estimated that there are 14 million illegals in the United States that government claims “cannot track”. Ironically the United States has had no trouble spying on Americans and knowing where they are despite a history of legislation that is supposed to protect Americans.
3) The politicians maintain that it would be too expensive to find every illegal, arrest him, charge him, arraign him, prosecute him, indict him convict him then sentence him. Thus, it just makes better sense to grant them amnesty and move on.
– Would the government spend money to arrest, charge, arraign, prosecute, indict, convict then sentence 14 million Americans who couldn’t pay their taxes?
4) A reminder that it was the United States government who shut down war memorials during the government shut-down and then opened the mall for illegals to hold a protest: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/08/government-shutdown-immigration-rally/2942257/
5) The other rub comes during the Nevada rancher having his cattle taken for not paying grazing fees. The Feds move in with power and usurp his cattle –
As points no. 4 & 5 how is it that the United States Federal government is so powerful to keep old veterans off war monuments and take cattle but cannot secure a border?
Of the United States Constitution –
Observe the Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, [establish Justice,] insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
“in Order to form a more perfect union” is the clear intent of the new Constitution and it’s first object is to “establish Justice”.
On the interpretation of the United States Constitution, Associate Justice Joseph Story wrote:
Exposition of the Constitution — The Preamble.
§42. Having given this general sketch of the origin of the Colonies, of the rise and fall of the Confederation, and of the formation and adoption of the Constitution of the United States, we are now prepared to enter upon an examination of the actual structure and organization of that Constitution, and the powers belonging to it. We shall treat it, not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be,) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself. It is to be interpreted, as all other solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all the terms; and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma of party. It is the language of the people, to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men. The people have established it and spoken their will; and their will, thus promulgated, is to be obeyed as the supreme law. Every department of the Government must, of course, in the first instance-, in the exercise of its own powers and duties, necessarily construe the instrument. But, if the case admits of judicial cognizance, every citizen has a right to contest the validity of that construction before the proper judicial tribunal; and to bring it to the test of the Constitution. And, if the case is not capable of judicial redress, still the people may, through the acknowledged means of new elections, or proposed amendments, check any usurpation of authority, whether wanton, or unintentional, and thus relieve themselves from any grievances of apolitical nature.
§ 43. For a right understanding of the Constitution of the United States, it will be found most convenient to examine the provisions, generally, in the order, in which they are stated in the instrument itself; and thus, the different parts may be made mutually to illustrate each other. This order will, accordingly, be adopted in the ensuing commentaries.
§ 44. We shall begin then, with the Preamble, which is in the following words :— “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain-and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
§45. This Preamble is very important, not only as explanatory of the motives and objects of framing the 4 Xiii. Constitution; but, as affording the best key to the true interpretation thereof. For it may well be presumed, that the language used will be in conformity to the motives, which govern the parties, and the objects to be attained by the Instrument. Every provision in the instrument may therefore fairly be presumed to have reference to one or more of these objects. And consequently, if any provision is susceptible of two interpretations, [that ought to be adopted, and adhered to, which best harmonizes with the avowed intentions and objects of the authors, as gathered from their declarations in the instrument itself.]
§ 46. The first object is, “to form a more perfect union.” From what has been already stated, respecting the defects of the Confederation, it is obvious, that a further continuance of the Union was impracticable, unless a new government was formed, possessing more powers and more energy. That the Union of the States is in the highest degree desirable, nay, that it is almost indispensable to the political existence of the States, is a proposition, which admits of the most complete moral demonstration, so far as human experience and general reasoning can establish it. If the States were wholly separated from each other, the very inequality of their population, territory, resources, and means of protecting their local interests, would soon subject them to injurious rivalries, jealousies, and retaliatory measures. The weak would be wholly unable to contend successfully against the strong, and would be compelled to submit to the terms, which the policy of their more powerful neighbors should impose upon them. What could Rhode Island, or New Jersey, or Delaware, accomplish against the will, or the resentments, of the formidable States, which surround them? But, in a more general view, the remark of the Abbe Mably may be appealed to, as containing the result of all human experience. “Neighboring states (says he) are naturally enemies of each other, unless their common weakness forces them to league in a confederative republic, and their Constitution prevents the differences, that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy, which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves, at the expense of their neighbors.”
§49. The next object is, “to establish justice.” This, indeed, is the first object of all good and rational forms of government. Without justice being fully, freely, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. Call the form of government whatever you may, if justice cannot be equally obtained by all the citizens, high and low, rich and poor, it is a mere despotism. Of what use is it to have wise laws to protect our rights or property, if there are no adequate means of enforcing them? Of what use are constitutional provisions or prohibitions, if they may be violated with impunity? If there are no tribunals of justice established to administer the laws with firmness and independence, and placed above the reach of the influence of rulers, or the denunciations of mobs, what security can any citizen have for his personal safety or for his public or private rights? It may, therefore, be laid down as a fundamental maxim of all governments, that justice ought to be administered freely and fully between private persons; and it is rarely departed from, even in the most absolute despotisms, unless under circumstances of extraordinary policy or excitement. Doubtless, the attainment of justice is the foundation, on which all our State governments rest; and, therefore, the inquiry may naturally present itself, in what respects the formation of a National Government would better tend to establish justice.

§ 50. The answer may be given in a few words. In the administration of justice, citizens of the particular State are not alone interested. Foreign nations, and their subjects, as well as citizens of other States, may be deeply interested. They may have rights to be protected; wrongs to be redressed; contracts to be enforced; and equities to be acknowledged. It may be presumed, that the States will provide adequate means to redress the grievances, and secure the rights of their own citizens. But, it is far from being certain, that they will at all times, or even ordinarily, take the like measures to redress the grievances, and secure the rights of foreigners, and citizens of other States. On the contrary, one of the rarest occurrences in human legislation is, to find foreigners, and citizens of other States, put upon a footing of equality with the citizens of the legislating State. The natural tendency of every government is, to favor its own citizens; and unjust preferences, not only in the administration, but in the very structure of the laws, have often arisen, and may reasonably be presumed hereafter to arise. It could not be expected, that all the American States, left at full liberty, would legislate upon the subject of rights and remedies, preferences and contracts, exactly in the same manner. And every diversity would soon bring on some retaliatory legislation elsewhere. Popular prejudices and passions, real or supposed injuries, or inequalities, the common attachment to persons, whom we know, as well as to domestic pursuits and interests, and the common indifference to strangers and remote objects, are often found to interfere with a liberal policy in legislation. Now, precisely, what this reasoning would lead us to presume as probable, actually occurred, not only while we were colonies of Great Britain, but also under the Confederation. The legislation of several of the States gave a most unjust preference to the debts of their own citizens in cases of insolvency, over those due to the citizens of other States and to foreigners.
Commentaries on the United States Constitution
In §1327 – 1331 Joseph Story comments on the slave trade(s). This has been one of the great tragedies here in the United States that has angered the American people. We must recall that slaves were brought into the United States and traded as property against their will. The illegal who enters the United States illegally cannot then claim victimization.
Failed Border Policy Results in Failed US Border Policy Respect
There isn’t a day where Americans aren’t harassed at the US/Mexican border. In many instances the media fails to report them out of cowardice, political correctness etc.
Mexican Military Holds Border Patrol at Gunpoint Inside U.S.


Border patrol agent held at gunpoint


Brian Terry Killed At Border


U.S. Marine Held in Mexican Jail Over Gun Possession Charge


It is my decision that neither state or federal governments can “establish justice” by granting amnesty to people who have entered the United States illegally while fully prosecuting Americans to the full extent of the law. It is my belief that granting amnesty to illegal felons while prosecuting our own citizens for breaking federal laws constitutes reverse discrimination and creates a privileged class of non-Americans which receive preferential treatment as a reward for breaking the law. It is my contention that such politicians are then incapable of interpreting the United States Constitution less enforcing the protective instruments as the law of the land and further that the American People are in further danger of having more of their rights eroded to foreign invaders for the specific purpose of political gain. I therefore cannot endorse any candidate who supports amnesty.

Jesse Alaniz

Source: Will County News

Comments are closed.