You Design U.S. Immigration Policies!

President Donald Trump and the Democratic leadership are at loggerheads over immigration.

The president wants a wall, and merit-based immigration. Democrats want open borders. What’s your solution?

Who would you allow to enter our country? Would you require that immigrants be literate? Would you require that immigrants be able to speak English? At least, broken-English?

Would you accept immigrants who believe Catholic Canon Law should be the supreme law of the land? Who believe Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the land?

Would you require that immigrants should be able to support themselves?

Would you accept immigrants who will not be able to support themselves, and who will immediately go on welfare? Is it the duty of taxpaying Americans to provide the new immigrants with free housing? Free food? Free medical care? Free schooling through high school? Free college?

Are you comfortable with accepting immigrants with no job skills who will compete for low income jobs with Americans who lack job skills? If you flood the job-market with immigrants with no job skills, will you depress wages? Make it harder for Americans with no or minimal job skills to find employment?

Would you accept immigrants who believe America is an evil country? The “Great Satan?” 

Would you accept immigrants who have no desire to assimilate? Who come to create in America a somewhat better version of the country from which they just emigrated?

Would you accept immigrants with criminal records for murder, robbery, burglary, rape, gun crimes, thefts, manslaughter? Would you accept immigrants who are drug dealers? Who have made a living transporting cocaine into the USA? Heroin? Who have worked for foreign drug cartels?

Would accept immigrants who have made their living by smuggling illegal aliens into the U.S. or come to America to fly airliners into our great buildings or drive a truck into a crowd of children? To plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, etc.?

Are you willing to admit immigrants who believe their “religion” requires them to kill heretics? Apostates? Americans of different faiths? To replace courts within our judicial system with courts that make their religious law the supreme law of the land?

With open borders and no wall, how would you propose to keep our "undesirable immigrants" you do not believe should be allowed in this country? Or are there no "undesirable immigrants, "as far as you’re concerned?

Should America open its borders to all, and concern itself with terrorism, heroin and cocaine sales, and criminal conduct only after the fact? Should we leave such matters exclusively to our criminal justice system after the crimes have been committed and perpetrators have been caught?

Or should our country be pro-active to prevent terrorism, drugs sales, and criminal misconduct at the hand of immigrants by carefully vetting, to keep such immigrants out of our country altogether?

As you consider each of the questions, ask yourself whose policies are better for dealing with these issues? The Democratic solution is keep the borders open! Therefore, a wall is unnecessary. Accept anybody who wants to come, any distant relative of anybody who is already here. Keep the visa lottery system, ignore the fact that, for all intents and purposes, only people from certain countries fly airliners into civilian buildings, engage in suicide bombings at weddings and funerals, use ambulances to perpetrate suicide bombings, and behead those they regard as infidels.

President Trump’s solution would give amnesty to over a million “Dreamers,” build a wall, end chain migration, end the visa lottery system, and go to a merit based immigration system.

Mr. Trump says he wants people to come who will love our country, and who will help better our country. Who do you agree with?

Whose program better addresses the issue I have set out above? What’s your program for dealing with those issues?

One other question: Why should we have less security at our borders than we do at our airports?


Posted: QCOline.com February 15, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

New Citizens Should Share Benefits, Burdens

Those in favor of a broad amnesty for illegal aliens argue immigrants work, pay taxes and contribute billions to the U.S. economy. Those against amnesty tell us too many immigrants don’t work, live off welfare and are a drain on our nation’s resources. You can go online and find lots of numbers to support either position.

Benjamin Disraeli, one of Britain’s great prime ministers, once said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” So, how can the average American citizen determine which set of “statistics” are truthful? Sadly, I’m not sure we can.

Two things are clear, however, to most Americans who take time to look. Many of the illegals work darn hard (that would include serving in the military) and pay federal income and Social Security taxes. Others don’t work and live off welfare.



President Trump has proposed we legally admit immigrants who will work, pay taxes and benefit our country. He would not welcome those who become “public charges.” Speaking recently in Iowa, President Trump said, “The time has come for new immigration rules that say ... those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”

Fox News added, “Mr. Trump’s proposal would build on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows federal authorities to deport immigrants who become public dependents within five years of their arrival. It would also prevent the admission of people who are likely to become so-called public charges within five years of their arrival.”

Fox points out, “The concept of ‘public charge’ has been part of U.S. immigration law for over a century. It allows the government to bar entry to individuals who are likely to seek public assistance. Trump is expected to propose toughening up the rules regarding ‘public charges’ and ensuring that they are enforced.”

Such was the law when my mother came to this country. Until she married, she worked. She was never a public charge. She never felt the requirement not to be a public charge was onerous or unfair.

But if Mr. Trump is right, then it’s a rational second step to give preferred treatment to illegal immigrants who have continuously worked (including serving in the military) and paid their taxes -- for (perhaps) five consecutive years. I see no serious argument against granting them amnesty and citizenship. Their conduct demonstrates they are the kind of immigrants Mr. Trump says he wants.

But why should we grant amnesty and citizenship to parasites -- people who have illegally entered our country and milk our welfare system? Citizenship is partnership. Citizens share the benefits, but they also need to share the burdens.

As such, I would suggest three rules in reference to “illegal immigrants:


• First: Federal welfare -- whether direct or indirect -- should not be available to any illegal immigrant. The promise of welfare is a magnet that draws illegals across our borders.

• Second: Illegal immigrants who have become public dependents for five years or more should be liable to deportation.

• Third: No illegal immigrants who have accepted federal welfare money should be eligible for citizenship for themselves or any child they have brought across the border, until they have repaid all the federal welfare benefits they have taken, and paid federal income and Social Security taxes for (perhaps) five years.

For the president, there is an obvious deal to be made. In return for his wall to stop this mess from re-occurring, prompt citizenship for all the illegal immigrants here (or in the military) who have paid more in federal income and Social Security taxes than they have drawn in federal welfare benefit for (perhaps) five consecutive years, and who have no felony or crime of violence convictions.

You will notice I have talked only about federal taxes and federal welfare benefits. The federal government knows what federal income taxes and Social Security taxes all of us have paid. It also knows what federal welfare benefits we have been given. The question should be whether federal taxes paid are more or less than welfare benefits granted. If federal taxes paid exceed federal welfare benefits accepted, the numbers fairly suggest that the immigrant’s presence has benefited the nation.

Posted: QCOline.com October 9, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Were '90s Democrats Racists? Xenophobes?

I recently had a conversation with a brilliant man -- a liberal friend -- I've known for almost 50 years. He opposes President Trump's "extreme vetting" immigration policy.

"Christian charity requires us to admit the poor -- the oppressed - of any nation who would seek refuge here." Then, with a twinkle in his eye, he added "And if the additional 50,000 refuges that we situate in Michigan vote Democrat in the 2020 election, and turn the state 'blue' again, so much the better."

I wasn't sure, if his afterthought was serious or putting the needle in; whether his motivation was to be Christ-like, or to win the next election, or both. Perhaps because I saw a glaring contradiction between his deep concern for all who would immigrate here, and his utter lack of concern for the child in the womb, I wasn't sure whether winning the next election was his genuine concern.



I also couldn't help but compare his remarks on immigration with those made by another very prominent Democrat 22 years ago.

"All Americans -- not only in the States most heavily affected, but in every place in this country -- are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

"The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.

"The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.

"That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

" ... we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

"We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."


This was six years before America became conscious of the real possibility of terror in the homeland -- six years before radical Islamic terrorists flew passenger liners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, murdering some 3,000 Americans; before Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon massacre, the attack on the Marine Recruiting Office in Chattanooga, and the San Bernardino Christmas party massacre. And before the Mexican Drug cartels really got going. Today those cartels ship cannabis, cocaine and heron across our open border. Chicago and other American cities have become killing fields as gangs kill over who controls territory. Drug-cartel related violence in the streets caused the Chicago Crime Commission to label Joaquin Guzman Loera, head of Sinaloa Drug Cartel, as Chicago's Public Enemy No. 1.

There are obvious reasons American parents for generations have taught their children to never talk to strangers. If a stranger came to your door, and asked if he could move into your home, would you let him? Would you be comfortable you could do so safely without "vetting" him? Would you let him sleep in a room next to your small children unless you were satisfied as to their safety?

The bottom line is this: Regardless of whether my friend's position on vetting is based on Christian charity or crass political considerations, it ignores the fact that ISIS and drug cartels are at war with us, even if we don't think we are at war with them.

Prudence is a Christian virtue.

By the way, my prominent Democrat was President Bill Clinton. The citation is from his Jan. 24, 1995 State of the Union speech.

Posted: QCOline.com February 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

The Pope's Message: Will Minds Change?

Pope Francis spent much of his time in the U.S. speaking on the need to welcome immigrants, protect the environment and help the poor.

Regarding his speech to Congress, The Huffington Post writes, "In his wide-ranging 3,404-word address ... the pope called for action to protect refugees, eliminate capital punishment and stop war, yet used a mere 21 words to allude to abortion and only 54 to touch vaguely upon the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal across the United States.

"On abortion, the pope’s comments were tucked into a larger discussion on the the Golden Rule, which 'reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.' But he did not say the word 'abortion.'

"On marriage, the pope had a few more words. 'I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.'"

So why is the pope calling upon the U.S. to accept more immigrants?

According to a 2013 U.N. report, "Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision," immigrants form 14.3 percent of the U.S. population.

They compose no more than 4.8 percent of any other country's population; 19.8 percent of all the world's immigrants reside in the U.S. No other country has accepted more than 4.8 percent of the world's immigrants. The pope's home country, Argentina, has accepted 0.8 percent!

There are 45,785,090 immigrants in the U.S. No other country has accepted more than 11,048,064 immigrants.

And why is the pope telling the U.S we must do more for the poor? Is there any other country that presently does more? In the U.S., we have Social Security and Medicare for the aged. We have Social Security Disability and Medicare or Medicaid for the disabled.

We have the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the "poor." (A family of one with a maximum annual income of $15,301 is eligible, as is a family of four with a maximum annual income of $31,525.) We provide free K-12 public school education for every American child, and special education for disabled children. We provide unemployment insurance for those who lose their job. HUD helps apartment owners to offer reduced rents to low-income tenants to make affordable apartments available for low-income families, the elderly and persons with disabilities. HUD also provides the Section 8 vouchers to allow those with low incomes to pay for all or part of their rent. And nearly half of those (47 percent) who report income pay no federal income tax!

Is the plight of the "poor" in the U.S. more dire than the plight of the “poor" almost everywhere else in the world? If so, why do we have 45,785,090 immigrants? Why are Mexican and Central American immigrants pouring into this country? And why aren't people leaving the U.S. to live in Mexico, Russia or Ethiopia?

And why is he lecturing America on the need to be good stewards for the environment? Haven't we cleaned up the Great Lakes? Can you recall a time when raw sewage was dumped into our rivers? Don't we now have tertiary treatment? Can you remember driving through Gary, Ind., when smog continually hung over the city? Is that the case now? I can remember when some cars got seven miles to the gallon, and spewed exhaust. By 2016, won't American cars and light trucks have to average 34.5 mpg?

Would America be a better place if we immediately ceased heating and cooling our homes with fossil fuels?

In our courts, once the judge determines the witness to be an "expert,” that witness can give his opinion  on the ultimate issue in the case without stating facts that form the basis of that opinion, e.g., "I think Dr. X was guilty of malpractice when he removed Mrs. Y's appendix.” But what good is that opinion without setting out the facts that form the basis of that opinion? "Mrs. Y only wanted him to remove a wart on her big toe!"

So what will be the long-term effect of the pope's words?

When a pope addresses matters that traditionally are within the realm of "faith and morals," it is there that the pope is most authoritative — even for those who reject his infallibility. But when he speaks on quantum physics, absent a showing that he has a background in quantum physics, he lacks credibility. Similarly, his background as a bishop in Argentina in no way qualifies him as an expert on the U.S, our capitalist system or our immigration practices.

Of course, he may be utilizing material prepared for him by experts. But absent a showing of the expertise of his experts, it is entirely reasonable to discount the pope in areas such as biology, physics, chemistry, geology, economics and U.S. history.

Indeed, many of the same people who extol the pope's genius when he speaks on immigration and the environment would label him a "Neanderthal" when he speaks on things on which he should have expertise: abortion, contraception and traditional marriage.


For those reasons, I believe the pope's message will be largely forgotten or ignored within the week. Those who are opposed to "open borders” will remain opposed. Those who believe "God helps able-bodied people who help themselves" will continue in that belief. And those who believe "global warming" to be a scam will conclude the pope is out of his element. Meanwhile, the killing will go on in the Middle East, and in the Planned Parenthood clinics.

Posted: Friday, October 23, 2015 11:00 pm  QuadCitiesOnline

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Can a Minimum Wage Hike Help the Unemployed?

Chicago will increase its minimum wage to $13 per hour. This is obviously good for those who will see their wages rise to $13. But what about those who are unemployed?

Minimum wage laws are nothing more than attempts to amend “the law of supply and demand.”

There is a reason Giancarlo Stanton was given a 13-year $325 million contract ($25 million a year) to hit a baseball by the Florida Marlins. He does it in a way that only a handful of people on this planet can do it. And a great many people are willing to pay big bucks to see him do it. The Marlins were not compelled by any minimum wage law to offer Stanton this contract. They did it voluntarily because they thought Stanton’s drawing power would produces revenues in excess of the cost.

But what if the Marlins had opted not to pay Stanton his $325 million? Could they have signed an equivalent player for substantially less? What if the Marlin’s had offered to pay Stanton $7.93, the Florida minimum wage? Do you think he would have signed? Would any other equivalent player who hit about .288, with 37 home runs and 105 RBIs sign for $7.93 per hour?

It is not an easy thing to hit major league pitching. Very few people can hit fastballs that come to the plate at 95 mph, sliders that look life fastballs until they break at the last minute, and change-ups that leave the pitcher’s hand looking like a fastball, but come up to the plate about 10 mph slower.

Michael Jordan was one of the greatest athletes America has ever known. He tried baseball for one year in 1994. He managed to hit .202 with 1 home run at Class AA Birmingham! Last year in the majors, out of roughly 750 players, only 29 hit .288 or better; only 11 hit 30 homers or more.

But regardless of what Giancarlo Stanton is paid, that has no effect whatever on teacher salaries.

There is a reason why teachers start at disproportionately smaller salaries. There are far more people who want employment as teachers than there are available teaching positions. All applicants have the required education and licenses.

Presumably,  they can all do the job. But nobody is willing to buy a $100 ticket to see them teach.

According to a January 2014 Program Evaluation report, the average starting salary for an Illinois teacher is about $36,636 annually. And according to USA Today (Feb. 19, 2013), “The nation is training twice as many K-5 elementary school teachers as needed each year, while teacher shortages remain in the content specific areas of math, science and special education.

“Illinois trained roughly 10 teachers for every one position available.”

But what would happen to starting teacher salaries if there were 100 positions that needed filling, and only 25 teachers seeking employment? Because demand would exceed supply, there would be a bidding war, and salaries would go up to attract the best and brightest.

There is a reason Walmart and McDonald’s can pay $10 per hour. There are a great many more workers who want jobs than there are jobs. When there are 100 people willing to work at $10 per hour, Walmart can ignore the retired $100K executive who is willing to work at $25 per hour, and hire from the pool of 100.

When the minimum wage is increased, the Walmarts, as well as small businesses, have choices to make. They can

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage, “eat” the increased cost of doing business, and accept a diminution of net profits:

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage to some workers, and hold down costs by discharging other workers, or

-- Pay the new increased minimum wage and pass the cost on to customers.

What happens when a business is operating on a tight margin and doesn’t believe it can pass its increased labor costs on to customers? If it can’t risk increasing its costs, it has two options:

-- Fire enough workers to offset the increased cost of labor for others, or

-- Go out of business.

Of course. it can risk doing business as a loss; but why?

According to Forbes (Feb. 20, 2012), the “unemployment number ... reported at 6.2 percent ...  is simply misleading.  ... According to the U-6 report, the ‘real; unemployment rate is 12.6 oercent,” which includes those who have not looked for work during the four weeks.

But in the black community, Newsmax stated on Nov. 27,  the unemployment rate is worse: 11 percent  and for young black men (ages 16-21),  21 percent.

So what happens, when the president issues an executive order granting work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants? How many of those will be competing for the minimum wage jobs that are out there?

How does flooding the labor market with 5 million illegal immigrants help the 12.6 percent of Americans and the 21 percent of young black American males who can’t find employment? Increasing the supply of unemployed workers by 5 million only guarantees employers a larger pool to pick from, and it removes pressure for them to pay better wages.

A far better plan, would be for the government to work to create a job market where there are more jobs than applicants. If Walmart and McDonald’s need 1,000 workers, and there are only 100 available, wages will increase and no minimum wage law will be needed. The law of supply and demand will do the job better than any minimum wage law ever could.

Flooding our job market by providing illegal immigrants with work permits only increases the worker supply while at the same time driving down wages.

President Obama’s executive order will only exacerbate America’s unemployment situation!

Posted Online:  Dec, 6, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea


 


 

America's Open Southern Border is a Red Carpet for Terrorist's

 On Aug. 28, President Barack Obama told the whole world -- including our enemies! -- he has not yet developed a strategy to combat ISIS. His remarks come weeks after ISIS has seized Iraqi cities and village and declared war on all "infidels," and more than a week after it has beheaded an American journalist.

To quote Mr. Obama: "We don't have a strategy yet." But you can be sure that ISIS does. Their strategy is "We are coming for you" to "kill Americans any way we can."

The beheading of two American journalists should indicate to any president, that ISIS is serious. Connecting the dots in this instance isn't that difficult. Try it yourself.

-- Dot 1: On Feb. 26, Gen. John F. Kelly, the U.S. Marine Corps commander of the U.S. Southern Command testified before the House Armed Services Committee. Here are the remarks by the commander responsible for all Department of Defense security cooperation in the 45 nations and territories of Central and South America and the Caribbean Sea remarks concerning the convergence of transnational" drug crime and terrorism:

"Criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines. My concern ... is that many of these pipelines lead directly into the United States, representing a potential vulnerability that could be exploited by terrorist groups seeking to do us harm. Supporters and sympathizers of Lebanese Hezbollah are involved in ... the region ... in ... drug trafficking. ...

"Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States."

-- Dot 2: A July/August 2014 Mother Jones headline states "70,000 Kids Will Show Up Alone at Our Border This Year?"

The article tells the story of "Adrian," a 17 year-old boy from Guatemala, who found his way to a dessert safe-house in Northwestern Mexico. There, the drug traffickers "asked him" to strap on a load of marijuana and walk across the border into Arizona. Adrian" agreed to do so.

Mother Jones said, "When the Border Patrol caught Adrian a week later in the Arizona desert -- he'd ditched the pot at a drop point along the way -- he became one of the 38,833 unaccompanied minors apprehended by the Board Patrol in fiscal year 2013. That was a 59 percent jump from the year before, and a 142 percent increase from fiscal 2011; no one knows how many more kids avoided Border Patrol detection... . This year, officials have told advocates they anticipate the numbers to double again, to as many as 74,000 unaccompanied children. That's equivalent to every single student in Dallas' 81 public middle and high schools." (motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america)

-- Dot 3: Now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is warning the U.S. that jihadists could target the Europe and the U.S. if world leaders do not react to the growing terrorist threat from ISIS.

"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America.

"These terrorists do not know the name of humanity and you have witnessed them severing heads and giving (the heads) to children to walk with in the street."

 -- Dot 4: According to senior U.S. officials, the United States government is tracking as many as 300 Americans supposedly fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. "We know that there are several hundred American passport-holders running around with ISIS in Syria or Iraq."

Washington is worried that these radicalized American fighters, presently fighting abroad, could create havoc in U.S. if they return and carry out jihad in the U.S. (washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/us-citizens-joining-islamic-state-pose-major-threa/)

So, if 300 American jihadists opt to come home to fight "holy war" here, how are they going to get here? Use their passports to re-enter? Enter illegally from Mexico?

If 70,000 unaccompanied children can walk across our open southern border (and if no one knows how many of those aren't being caught by the Boarder Patrol), it should be duck soup" for 300 trained terrorists try to infiltrate. And if kids can slip past the Border Patrol, is there any reason to believe that trained terrorists will fare any worse?

Our open southern boarder is a red carpet to Muslim terrorists to pull off a second — and perhaps worse -- 9/11. But if it happens, rest assured President Obama will quickly advance a strategy: Blame George Bush!

We elected a president to preserve and protect" the Constitution and the country. We don't need an "Ethelred the Unready," or "Nero fiddling while Rome burns."


Posted Online:  Sept. 8, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Immigration Policy Unconstitutional, Incoherent

Politics aside, I can think of only three possible reasons we are accepting 90,000 illegal immigrant children from Central America:

-- The Constitution requires it;

-- We need more children in the U.S;

-- Christian charity.

The purposes for which our federal government was established are set out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

"... to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Is there anything in the Preamble about "securing the blessings of liberty to children of Central America?" Iraq? North Korea? In the Constitutions' enumerated powers, Congress was granted no power to provide for the welfare of children of foreign nations. The only power granted to Congress related to immigration is the power "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The president is granted no power whatsoever relative to immigration. His duty is limited to faithfully enforcing the laws made by Congress.

If the U.S. has a duty to the children of Central America, it must be as an incident of the congressional power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." But Article I, specifically states Congress has power "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" -- not of Central America.

If the administration's open border policy is premised on the argument that we need 90,000 more children in this country each year, then why in the name of God have we aborted -- killed -- more than 50 million of our own children? And why are liberals demanding that the government, insurance companies and employers provide abortifacients under Obamacare so that we might kill more of our own fetuses and have fewer live births? If America needs more children, why are we killing our own?

If we admit Central American children as a matter of Christian charity our priorities are out of whack.
The liberal left in this country is apoplectic over the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. They rant that it is impossible for a family-owned corporation -- or any other corporation -- to have religious rights and/or religious beliefs. They shriek that it is utterly inappropriate for such corporations to deny abortifacients to their employees on account of the religious beliefs of owners. But how can the same people who contend that it is wrong for owners of a corporation to use the corporation to carry out their religious beliefs insist that it is right for them to use the government -- a enormous corporation -- to act upon their religious notions of "Christian charity?" How is the latter logically consistent with opposition to the Hobby Lobby decision?

Do not misunderstand. I am in favor of individuals practicing Christian charity. I believe it is meritorious for a person to use his own goods to help those in need.

I also am in favor of Congress using tax dollars to provide for the "general welfare of the people of the United States;" e.g., Social Security.

But there is an egregious double standard at work here. As an act of love -- of Christian charity -- we are told that we must accept and care for thousands of children illegally crossing our borders, while at the same time we are killing millions of American babies who are doing nothing at all illegally, and seek only to pass through their mothers' "border" to life. Where is the love for these fetuses? Where is the "Christian charity" toward them? Is it an act of love -- of Christian charity -- to kill them?

There is a grotesque intellectual inconsistency in nurturing thousands of illegal immigrant children while at the same time killing native unborn children by the millions.

Every morning on TV we hear pleas from the Wounded Warriors Project for "$19 per month" to provide funds for our soldiers who incurred horrible wounds defending our liberties and our country. If Christians insist that the government should go into the business of Christian charity, why aren't they insisting that the government do more for our horribly wounded soldiers? Why do illegal alien children have a greater claim to our nation's resources than our disabled soldiers?

We have a VA crisis. Could the dollars being spent on illegal immigrant children be better used to fix the VA? To provide timely and adequate treatment for our veterans?

And how are things going in Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit? Are the kids from Central America in any greater danger of drug violence, gang violence or being shot than the kids on the south side of Chicago? Are there more one-parent families in Central America than in Chicago, Washington or Detroit? Why do the children from Central America have a greater claim to our tax dollars (our Christian charity) than kids living in our inner-cities? Is there any truth to the maxim that "charity begins at home?"

And what about our citizens with mental and physical disabilities? Every dollar spent on an illegal immigrant is a dollar that can't be spend on an American child. The $3.7 billion that President Obama wants to take care of children illegally coming across our border, is $3.7 billion that won't go to organizations that care for Americans with special needs.

Space precludes me from mentioning the needs of our elderly.

There are 7.25 billion people in this world. If America, as a matter of Christian charity, has a duty to provide for 90,000 children who will be shipped/smuggled across our southern border this year, where does that duty stop? There are 1.35 billion people in China. If the government of China decides that it is in their national interest to ship a billion of their citizens here, do we as a matter of Christian charity have a duty to receive them, provide them with housing, schooling, medical care, cellphones and food stamps?

I suggest Congress was given power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" to "provide for the common defense, and the general welfare" of our nation; not to practice Christian charity to the world. The resources of our nation are finite.

Posted Online:  Aug. 15, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Why the Senate Immigration Bill Is Nuts

Imagine that a one-inch water pipe bursts in your basement. What do you do first? Do you try to shut off the water? Or do you let it continue to run, and begin cleaning up the water with sponges, towels and a Shop Vac?

Your wife, while preparing a salad, seriously cuts herself with a knife. She bleeds all over your kitchen. What do you do first? Try to stop the bleeding? Or wipe up the blood from the floor and sink?

Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are pouring across our open Southern border. What should Congress do first? Shut off the flow of illegal immigrants? Or worry about giving them a "pathway to citizenship?"

Eight U.S. Senators, inanely referred to as "The Gang of Eight," have cobbled together a 1,200-page bill which purports to solve "the immigration problem." (America's first immigration bill ran a page and a half!) Does it close the border? Not exactly.

Instead, according to Fox News,"The measure voted on (June 24, 2013) ... would double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol at a cost of around $30 billion and complete 700 miles of fencing. At the same time it sets out a pathway to citizenship for some11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, who would be permitted to get permanent resident green cards only once all the border changes had been put in place, about a decade after enactment of the legislation. The Department of Homeland Security already has fenced off 651miles of the 1,969-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico. If 700 more miles are fenced off, 1,351 miles would be fenced off, leaving 618 unfenced.

Do fences work? Ask the Israelis.

In early 2013, Israel completed a 144-mile section of fence along its southern border with Egypt to keep out "illegal infiltrators." It is 16 feet high and is augmented with barbed wire, surveillance cameras and radar. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Wall Street Journal, states that illegal crossings have declined 99.9 percent from 2,000 per month to only two. The 144-mile section cost $416 million. (So, what would 1,318 miles of fence cost?)

The new Israeli fence is separate from the fence that runs along the West Bank, which began in 2003. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003."

In 2002 alone, Israel suffered 55 suicide bomber attacks that resulted in 220 deaths. As the West Bank fence was completed, both attacks and deaths declined. By 2005, there were but seven attacks which took 22 lives. In 2006, there were four attacks that killed 15. In 2007, there only was one attack that took three lives. According to the Israeli Security Agency, there were no suicide attacks in 2009 and 2010.

The U.S. would not be building a fence to stop suicide bombers. But if a fence can stop Muslim fanatics determined to plant bombs in Israel, even at the cost of their own lives, it certainly should be able to stop Mexican men, women and children trying to escape Mexican poverty and drug violence from entering the U.S.

A U.S. fence also would have a second critical use. It would make it far more difficult for Mexican drug lords to send their drugs, violence and agents into our country. If you think this isn't a major problem, consider the words of Jack Riley, special agent in charge of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's Chicago office:"While Chicago is 1,500 miles from Mexico, the Sinaloa drug cartel is so deeply embedded in the city that local and federal law enforcement are forced to operate as if they are on the border."

Our open southern border facilitates the transport of deadly illicit drugs into our country. It allows the cartels to send in their hitmen. And it allows them be become rich and powerful enough to control governments.

If drug operatives are easily crossing our open border, why can't Muslim terrorists? Does it make any sense that we leave our border unfenced, while our National Security Agency is reading the emails and monitoring the other Internet traffic of every American in a effort to keep the country safe from Muslim terrorists? This is nuts!

It's like barring the front door, while leaving the back door and windows open!

Sadly, it appears, that in the eyes of the Senate and the President, that illegal immigrants and narco-violence "specialists" less are worthy of less government scrutiny than are law-abiding Americans using the internet!

Our immigration policy should not exist to create little "Democrats" or little"Republicans" or to provide a power base to keep politicians in office who put party over country.

We are a nation of immigrants. Our doors are not closed. Every year, America admits over a million immigrants legally. A spreadsheet prepared by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that no other nation even comes close.

Our immigration policy should have two goals: First, close the border to illegal immigration, Mexican drug violence and potential terrorists; then, once that is done, create a fair bipartisan path to citizenship for those who are here illegally but who haven't created felonies and/or do not pose a danger to this country.

Posted Online:  July 06, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea