How to enact a patriotic immigration reform

Henry Dampier writes:

In a universal suffrage democracy, mass agitation isn’t actually quite so important as it sometimes seems. The way to get a law passed is to bribe politicians to pass the laws that you write, and then those politicians will use the bribe money to agitate the party faithful to keep them in office. Politicians challenge one another for a chance to be a channel for that bribery. They will also sometimes get the chance to serve on helpfully labeled committees and caucuses that tell bribers from different industries whom they should funnel money to, for convenience purposes.

Bribing officials must always happen for private advantage at public expense, because otherwise there would be no motive to do it — and the advantage must come at the expense of some group.

The only successful conservative pressure group in the United States is the National Rifle Association. It has consistently fought for a single issue, amassed support for that issue, and ignored attempts to dilute its message for decades. It has the support of the explicitly written 2nd Amendment, but even that was tenuous for a while.

Would an anti-immigration pressure group be able to achieve similar results?

It might be possible for an organization to raise money from a broad base of supporters for the singular purpose of pressuring the federal government to tighten enforcement of immigration laws, and to reduce total immigration.

The organization would need to have enough pull to counteract the efforts of industries who benefit from low-wage labor, politicians who benefit from impoverished clients, and ideologues who believe in a world without borders.

However, by focusing on a single issue it might be able to have a big enough punch. Industry is not unanimously in favor of unlimited immigration; the organization could unite those businesses who do not benefit from slave-wage labor. The political parties’ support bases are not unanimously in favor of unlimited immigration: Republicans depend on support from law and order suburbanites; Democrats need votes from underclass whites and blacks both. Ideologues are largely hopeless, but largely uninfluential.

It could work. It’s just a question of numbers.

The actual text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

A little known fact about America’s laws is that the published form of an act of Congress is not the actual law passed by Congress. Despite all the months of debate over various clauses and kickbacks, the published text of the law is largely irrelevant to how the law is enacted. The unpublished text of the law, however, is strictly adhered to by all the authorities, including the President, the executive branch bureaucracies charged with enforcing the law, and the Supreme Court. Last week’s Supreme Court decision made this plain.

The published text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can be found online for all to see, but the text of the law doesn’t explain the Court’s decision, and it is apparent that the Court relied on the hitherto unpublished Actual Text of the PPACA.

Did I say hitherto? That’s right. Here is the actual text of the PPACA, that defines the United States Government’s regulations over all health care services in the United States:

[111th Congress Public Law 148]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 119]]

Public Law 111-148

111th Congress

An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 2010 – [H.R. 3590]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.>>


President Barack Obama is authorized to regulate the provision of health care for residents of the United States in any way he sees fit in accordance with the current consensus of the New York Times and Harvard University. Mr. Obama and his agents are authorized to increase taxes, enact new taxes, forbid certain acts of commerce, compel certain acts of commerce, and levy fines and other punishments in order to achieve the intentions of Congress when passing this ACT.

See, it all makes sense now.

It’s time to end anti-discrimination law

Originally protecting blacks, anti-discrimination laws have expanded to new protected classes including women (not men), immigrants, religious minorities, nonwhite races that were not historically unprivileged, the disabled, illegal aliens, and now homosexuals and other sexual fetishists. There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Laws forbidding private parties such as individuals, corporations, clubs, homeowners associations, and restaurants from discriminating against members of protected classes are blatantly unconstitutional. The 14th amendment states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying private parties the right to conduct business or to refuse to conduct business with whomever they choose deprives those parties their liberty and the use of their property.

Laws requiring people to interact with people they do not want to interact with are oppressive*. Under a fair reading of the constitution, such actions would only be permitted as punishment for crime**, were they not blatantly cruel and unusual.

The federal government and states should be free to forbid discrimination within their own organizations, but they may not apply these restrictions to private parties.

The original purpose of anti-discrimination laws was to correct the longstanding abuses of black Americans by pro-discrimination laws. But pro-discrimination laws were eliminated during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jim Crow laws have been gone for over 50 years. Anti-discrimination laws’ justification has elapsed.

Anti-discrimination laws should be struck down now.

*Under the current reading of the law that disparate impact among protected classes is evidence of discrimination, these laws are also capricious.

**Maybe this is the justification for forcing convicts to share prison cells with homosexual rapists.

Equal protection of the laws

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whenever I read an article decrying the unequal rates of imprisonment among the races (never among the sexes, for some reason), I perceive that the author is attempting to argue that the laws have an illegal and immoral disparate impact. Locking up more blacks than whites for criminal offenses, in this reading, is inherently racist.

What isn’t usually considered is the rate of victimhood among the races.

It is obvious that blacks are, by far, much more victimized by criminals* than whites are in the United States. It is also obvious that, by far, most criminal acts are perpetrated against the same race as the criminal.

A neutral reading of the constitution would imply that laws forbidding crime and punishing criminals are meant to protect the victims of crime and not the duly processed criminals.

Therefore, given the principle of disparate impact, it is unconstitutional for the United States federal government or the governments of the states, to direct the provision of justice so that one race is disproportionately represented among the victims of federal and state crimes.

The criminal justice system in the United States is insufficiently protecting black citizens’ rights by insufficiently punishing black criminals.

*(And no, it isn’t because of the drug war.)

Reforms and consequences

Progressives arguing for the institution of same-sex marriage claimed that their proposed reforms could not possibly tread on the religious freedom of those who wanted no part in the institution. The passage of laws recognizing* the institution was contingent on this understanding.

Consequently, it has been shown that the institution of same-sex marriage does tread on the religious freedom of those who chose not to observe the institution.

Therefore, the institution of same-sex marriage was created under false pretenses. It should be dissolved and reevaluated under our current better understanding of the institution’s consequences.

*I refuse to say permitting or legalizing in regard to same-sex marriage. The issue was never one of permission but one of institutionalization.

The Beor the Old Amnesty Plan

The first step to fixing America’s immigration problem is guaranteeing effective enforcement of the law. There are an estimated 11 million to 30 million illegal aliens currently residing inside the borders of the United States. I propose a strict enforcement regime: any illegal alien found inside the borders of the United States will be immediately imprisoned for 3 years*, and upon completion of the 3 year sentence the illegal alien will be summarily deported**.

But I also propose a universal amnesty: illegal aliens will have 6 month window between the passage of the Undocumented Immigrant Universal Amnesty Act  and the institution of the imprisonment regime to vacate the United States. Any illegal alien found inside the borders of the United States before the end of the 6 month term will not face immediate imprisonment, but instead be allowed to return to his homeland unmolested. Of course, he will not be issued any revocation of illegal alien status, and if he remains inside the United States after the 6 month amnesty window, he will be imprisoned for 3 years and deported afterward.

I think this is fair.

*To save money, the prisoners could be held in an open-air prison outside Nogales, Arizona. I got the 3 year imprisonment idea from Steve Sailer.

**To save money, prisoners who didn’t originate in Mexico could be transported by container ship.

Immigration reform

Republicans in congress rightly insist on the prerequisite for reforming immigration law be that the border is enforced. But it must also be proven that the border is enforced. There is only one thing the government can do that will prove that immigration law is enforced. The illegal aliens need to be expelled from the United States.

Expelling the illegal aliens is immigration reform.

Rote learning and strength training

Over at Ara Maxima, Mark Yuray argues that critical thinking can’t be taught, but that it is what naturally intelligent people do automatically. Legionnaire counters that it can be taught, or at least improved, but that intelligence is a prerequisite. I think they are both on the right track, in that teaching critical thinking without instilling a base of knowledge ranges from a suboptimal teaching strategy to a complete waste of time.

What struck me about this argument is that it seems parallel to something Mark Rippetoe talks about in his proselytizations for strength training. He argues that every athlete has a maximum genetic potential for explosiveness. This potential is measured by the athlete’s standing vertical jump, a measurement that cannot be improved through training (explained here from 38:58 to 42:44, but watch the whole thing). Athletes gifted with high explosiveness have an easier time building strength than other athletes. But all athletes can improve their strength through training. Power, however, is the ability to apply strength quickly, and so can be improved by increasing strength.

The analogies spell themselves out:

  • Explosiveness is akin to IQ, and cannot be improved for normal people.
  • Rote learning is akin to strength training, which are both process for systematic personal improvement. High IQ students can absorb information much more easily than low IQ students and may not even need to spend much time in rote learning; gifted athletes get stronger faster than awkward athletes and some may have great achievements without spending much time in the gym.
  • Final exams are like power exercises (such as the power clean) which are performances that reflect the person’s improvement in knowledge or strength.
  • And critical thinking is like an athletic performance. Using the basic tools of acquired knowledge and IQ, along with training in a specific field, a great thinker can synthesize better arguments, or discover new theorems, or do all sorts of smart stuff. Likewise, using his strength and explosiveness along with much practice in his specific sport, a great athlete can become a top performer on the field, court, or arena.

Not everyone can become a great thinker and not everyone can become a great athlete, but much in life can be made easier by self improvement in both knowledge and strength. Knowing arithmetic makes everyday tasks such as paying bills or avoiding playing the lottery much easier, regardless of IQ. A bigger deadlift makes everyday tasks such as hauling children into the car or not getting hurt when slipping on ice much easier as well, regardless of athletic ability.