Give us your energetic and talented: Immigration nonsense

by Charles Novitsky

Give us your tired and poor, or give us your energetic and talented.

It is oft quoted in media and social circles, that America's uniqueness is that it is the home of the worlds tired, and poor immigrants. Yet, few know where that concept originates, and know if it is a powerful mandate, or not. Some even assume it came from our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Before we get to discussing the history of this so possible mandate. Lets talk about common sense. If I had a home, especially where my children or other loved ones lived, and shelter themselves, I would be very careful and selective of those that I let live in my home. Perhaps I have some responsibility of compassion for my live-in guests, but my primary responsibility, as a parent, or guardian is TO THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF MY FAMILY. Anything less than this is negligence to my loved ones.

Likewise, if I were a landlord, and my task was to find new tenants to move in the apartments, I have even more responsibilities. One is, I must consider tenants that will responsibly care and maintain their apartments and the common grounds. They must also be financially responsible to pay rent on time, since any rent loss can force me to raise the rent for other responsible tenants. If I go bankrupt due to inadequate rent collections, all tenements will suffer, and possibly end up on the street. Furthermore, I have a responsibility to pick tenants that a free from criminal records or sexual crimes. If I do not keep my tenants safe by screening applicants, again I am negligent, both morally, and in the court of law.

One might say, if I wished to build a happy apartment building, I might screen for the best, the brightest, the most accomplished. This does not necessitate the richest, so lets skip that straw man argument that progressives might accuse the writer of this article of.

Let's use another scenario to this argument: a self sufficient small island. Assuming the island belonged to the people, and not some King, or rich politician, we might want the happiest peaceful island possible. It is likely, that in order to keep this island working well, each of us would have to chip in with various skills and duties. Therefore, it would be in our best interest, to make sure that all newcomers are capable to contribute to our survival. It would be advantageous to screen tenants that wish to move to this little self governing island. We might wish to allow those that have the most talent (skills & knowledge) to contribute to our survival, and those that are energetic ( IE hard working). This affords the whole would be stronger than the parts. To let in the tired and the poor not only makes no sense, it is irresponsible, and possibly selfish if the leaders did so.

And less I get accused of cruelty for favoring the strong and talented and healthy, please note that I do not advocate throwing old people out of the village, or their huts. They will stay where there are, and in this scenario, that is likely a different island, their native island.
Another way, possibly even fairer, is for the new island inhabitants to have their own vote on immigration. Tyranny is when only the King, or political leaders believe that have the privilege to decide what its citizen inhabitants should want. If there are 1000 inhabitants on this island, each inhabitant theoretically owns 1/1000th of the island. They may even decide to end immigration entirely, and put an end to land giveaways, once the island has reached a peak or comfortable number. One thing for sure, it should not be up to the politicians to decide for them, for then they are only acting as autocratic tribal chieftains. Likewise, Washington DC, somehow euphorically believes they have the right to give away the land owned by Americans to other immigrants. that decision should be up to the peoples, and the States.

Even worse, if an immigration quota is utilized, to favor the tired and the poor is reverse bias For politicians to have the chutzpa to not let in the best tenants and applicants is yet a moral crime on top of another crime. Currently, the Federal Government favors immigration form certain counties and yet denies talented engineers or workers with skills and or education. A great many from Europe are denied, possibly because of reverse bias. These talented immigrants can apply for a special visa, that in a normal world would get them the first in line, called and H1B visa. This make absolutely NO SENSE!.

Historically, the motto of “Give me your tired, your poor,” is nowhere written in our Declaration of Independence, no where written in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor any amendment, nor any state constitution. So where does it come from? It was written by a socialist poet, Emma Lazarus and placed on The Statue of Liberty in 1903. Clearly, 1903 is a recent period in history, and has little to do with the founding of our nation. Also, we as a nation cannot take much credit for this art at it was a gift by the French. The same French that threw off their monarchy in the French revolution, but went far beyond necessity, with a head chopping pogrom of vengeance, killing many innocent citizens for their different thoughts, or wealth and success, but that's a different topic. Either way, this is the origination of this phrase.

From a historical and legal perspective, the concept of letting in the worlds “tired and poor”, is therefore not a mandate ( ie, a rule), it's not even American. We have an duty to populate America, when populating is even necessary, with the worlds best in terms of talents and ethic of hard work. Only this objective can elevate the entire society. This even helps the very poorest, because poverty is in part, mostly a symptom of the lack of jobs. A lack of jobs is mostly a symptom of a lack of employers. This cold approach to immigration standards, as some would argue, would help our economy, and its poor, in the way that letting in the “wretched” Miss Lazarus quotes in her poem, cannot.

Even in the early 20^th century, we not let in “the tired and poor”. The immigrants at Ellis Island, of which my grandfather and grandmother were included went through a screening process. They had to be healthy and able bodied, pass a health inspection, and have a job sponsor, who in effect, warranted the then existing citizens, that this newcomer would not drain the society, would find a job, and contribute to the nations prosperity. By contrast, these days, it is politically incorrect to bar even those with some communicable diseases. Regardless of traditions of the past, the question is what of the future in America? What should our future policy be on immigration, and even how much should take place. Pivotal to this question is who is allowed to decide these issues for America: the politicians or the Americans themselves, via an express annual vote. With a population of about 315 million, theoretically, each of us own 1/315 millionth. No politician or government has a moral right to decide how much of our land and wealth to give away, that should only be up to us, the citizens.

In closing this topic, one can only be sadly amused how ironic it, that the statue representing freedom in our nation was encumbered with a socialist poem, for socialism by necessity, according to Hayek, always creates some degree of tyranny.

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus 1883

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The Constitution Does Not Primarily Apply to the States!

Before the 14^th amendment, the constitution did not PRIMARILY apply to states, except for about 6 issues (diplomacy, post office, army, interstate trade barriers, gold & silver coin standards, patents).

Information from http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/did-the-14th-amendment-really-incorporate-the-bill-of-rights/

The Myth The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level. This granted the Supreme Court the power to strike down any State and local law it feels violates the Bill of Rights. The Truth It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified. The Facts James Madison was the only author of the Bill of Rights that wanted any of those amendments to apply to the States. His draft of the First Amendment specifically restrained the States but this version was struck down by the senate. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States when the final version was passed by both houses of congress and was ratified by the States. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified. The Bill of Rights now applies to the States because the Supreme Court distorted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment many decades after it was ratified.

So, what exactly IS prohibited from the States??

Lastly, bear in mind, that Bill Of Rights #9 and #10 PROHIBIT the Feds from any power not enumerated to it in Article 1, AND PRESERVE everything not prohibited for The Peoples and The States.

More reading

http://constitutions.vlex.com/vid/section-powers-denied-to-the-states-295833

Political Divide on Political Diversity

By Charles Novitsky

 
Some believe that the definition of "political diversity" excludes "Old White Men", but I will try to prove that is a narrow conclusion, and narrow view.

To me, "political diversity is not defined by my lack of a vagina, nor deficiency of skin pigment. I broaden the definition of political diversity to be able to include some of the democratic concepts AND republican concepts, that a great many San Diegans believe and respect. By encompassing what we may share in common, bring some of these diverse peoples and political perspectives into our libertarian flock, to make a stronger and larger Libertarian Community.

A great many surveys show that when questioned in the proper way, even Republicans and Democrats have much in common, and as an example, are not in favor of government waste, and fat-cat politicians making regulations that help themselves and their friends.

Another example that may be common to both sides of our political chasm, is how to reduce poverty, and/or help the poor in out society be better off. For example, how can the poor be helped according to liberal ideologues, yet the tax payers not be forcefully taxed. There is a solution that can accomplish BOTH: voluntarism. Voluntary charity has existed within mankind since the dawn of time. In the 1800's to the early 1900's we had Mutual Aid Groups, and voluntary Benefit Society groups. These forms of charity, for the most part, no longer exist, and were sadly regulated out of existence by nanny government assuming the role of welfarism.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory) / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society )

Another example of incorporating political diversity is our mutual desire to have a well run and orderly society. Both liberals and conservatives have that goal in common. The difference is that many disagree on how to achieve that balance of order so it does not evolve into autocracy or fascistic order. The answer perhaps, is for the audience to understand that government is only best adept at protecting rights, and yet, by naively giving politicians and government any power above this, is becomes dangerous. Dangerous because they will eventually use this very same power against us. If we give the government a gun to protect us, we must be weary that they can also therefore use this same gun against us. It can happen not only in the future, but some may recall it has already happened in the past. The Kent State Massacre, where 67 bullets were fired into a group of non-violent protesters.Thirteen unarmed teenagers and young adults where shot by The National Guard, and four of them died.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

In conclusion, this expanded definition of political diversity may not be conventional, but it is a worthy, important message. And indeed this is the very basis of our Nolan quiz. This quiz is available on our website link (top right called worlds smallest quiz), and helps people discover that their diversity may have more in common with freedom and libertarianism, than they would have assumed. We may be politically diverse democrats or republicans, but a great many of us are also Libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_(politics)
http://www.sdlp.org/quiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Charles Novitsky