A rather quick fix to the Immigration issue

A proper interpretation of the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America will and could very well limit or remove a lot of the issues we are currently having with illegal immigration.

Here is the text in full:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.^[1]

The key point is found in section 1; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State"


See it mentions subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  What does being subject to the jurisdiction mean?

Well let's take the case of a Gal from say Ireland that cross the atlantic and gets into the country while on a visitor visa.  Legitimate for the time being.... 10 months later she is pregnant by another person from England who is also not in the country legally anymore.  Should the baby born automatically get citizenship?
Well both the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the United States as they over stayed their visas.  Especially, they might have been if the birth occurred within the time frame that the visa was effective (usually 6 months from date of issue).

I believe that jurisdiction refers legal standing of an individual.  Thus because this couple has no legal standing they have no jurisdiction and are therefore no under our jurisdiction.  The baby therefore should not get automatic citizenship.

Now this would be different if one of the parents has citizenship or permanent legal residence.





Why would this small little part have any major effect on the whole immigration debate?

Well, if you make it so that a ton of people do not automatically get citizenship you do not promote people wanting to come here for "Birth Tourism" or coming here with any intent of having children and being able to stay.

If you make it less desirable to come here and bypass the rules or you make it clear that just because someone has come here does not them a ton of extra rights they likely will not come here in the first place.

I've heard of women in labor that will jump the border down by Mexico just so their child can be born here in the united states.
Now I might see them doing this for financial or medical reasons but, many times it appears it is for more then that.
If they lady being illegal find here child is not given automatic citizenship she likely will not do it again or at all in the first place.




Deincentivizing things is what you have to do.  Making it so people here for all the wrong reasons don't feel like staying here is the quickest way to resolve the illegal immigration issue.

They claim recently that illegal immigration has gone down.  Though the trend has followed the rise in unemployment.  Thus with minimal chance at getting a job the illegal goes home.  You make it that way for the 11 million plus illegals and presto the problem is solved.  You don't have to go off granting a path to citizenship or the like.  Make the reason that come here go away and you solve the problem.

If I emigrate to the UK for the free medical and do so illegally and then have my ability to get said free medical taken away due to my status then why will I stay there?  NO real reason would exist and I'd go home unless I'm really worse off there......

But, come on do you believe these people would be some much worse off back home?

Also I saw in a recent article Luck of the Irish on the BBC site that many of Irish are pushing to have the immigration reform bill passed not necessarily because it helps the Latino but, because it helps them. Directly quoting from the article
"We're meeting with people whose grandparents were immigrants, and I tell them that under the regulations today, their grandparents wouldn't get in," says Staunton, an Irish immigrant who has been in the US for 31 years. 

You see they have bought in on the fact that many of the politicans' grandparents who came from Ireland would not make it in under the current system.  Might be but, is this any reason to support something that is full of holes and can be solved in better ways?

 So let's work to make it less desirable to be here illegally and then we can work on fixing the citizenship status of those that remain behind.

This means we have to hit the employers, and the employed that are here illegally......




As an aside.  They would never do it but a few landmines at the border would sure make people think twice before crossing.




Buaidh - NO - Bas

To invent or not invent?

Well I live in the country some times considered the mother of all invention.  That is .... how many inventions do you about having come from Tahiti?

So yes, there are tons of inventions that come of out America.
And frankly the easiest way to get the product out to the market is to have it fabricated for pennies on the dollar in China and then advertise it on TV, in the form of the infamous Infomercial.
Generally they come on late at night or on the off no network TV channels.  Some times they even come on for longer ones on a Saturday morning, opposite the cartoons on more interesting or popular channel.

There are even several services out there that will help you to get your invention to market - A better way to Invent and others.

Some of these 'as seen on TV' products have become a part of American life.  How about the Clapper (sound activated light switch), or the Chia Pet (ceramic shaped pot with grow seeds), and the famously ragged on Snuggie.
resourceful

Some are really good products that have filled a niche or under served market.  A person saw an opening or opportunity and went for it.  This is what happened with many large now multinational corporations - i.e.  Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, Apple's Ipod etc.  Those however, do not carry the same stigma of the infomerical wares.  The poor made, and sold in doubled orders at 11 pm at night type stuff that has shipping and handling running almost as much as the product it's self.

I'm going to include a few video clips of some of the weirdest of these items.  Frankly, they seem to be bit over the top.  Some can be construed the wrong way and others are just plain unbelievable.

But, if we ever get into a real global energy crisis I'll have to patent my idea for a power gas capturing apparatus that goes on your behind and makes use of all that nasty gas.


So much for wishful thinking.... I'll likely have to make any real money off the shipping and handling.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The Dirty Little Secret

I'd like to talk about what I call the dirty little secret.  It's now exactly what you might think.  I refers to how things are being handled with teachers here in California and their pensions.

What some people might not know is that it takes about Five(5) years to make tenure for most teachers.  It is also known that in many school districts they give out pink slips almost every year and turn around and hire back many if not most of those same teachers.   Why do these 2 facts really matter.   You only begin to get access to pensions when your tenured and you restart the clock every time your pink slipped.  So that means some teachers at the local school may be working in the district for 5 years but, do not have tenure.

It will known and complained about that the Pension fund for teachers and other public state workers is very underfunded.
So this 'Dirty Little Secret' is in directly helping the pension fund since you have a growing portion of teachers that have yet to qualify for access to the pension fund.  This odd gap that is being created will create what one could call a doughnut in regards to payouts.  You have the fatted stuff now and the lack there off in the future or the gaping hole in payouts.

Is this really a good thing.  Well some would say yes since it is helping the over all pension situation.  Others would say no since it really does not solve the problem of how much is being paid out it just messes with the number of people that will receive payouts. 



And think about the teachers that are doing 4-8 years of teaching and have no retirement to show for it.  They have no district sponsored 401(k) and also no pension to speak of since they keep getting put back on the merry-go round each year.  Talk about a disaster in the making.

The payout will become excessive for the few that qualify and non-existent for those that can't get there at times for no fault of their own.  Reward the one that worked the system and don't bother with the newbies.

Do you think the unions are helping any?  Not really.  They currently can get union dues from all the teachers, and claim they are fighting for them, while due to some regulations deny them access to what they also claim is right of the union employee.  They also like to use the last in first out system.   Everything is based on seniority and not quality, test scores, or any other real valuable measure.   You keep the bad one in for longer then they should be and keep putting the young highly motivated teachers on the merry-go round.

Here in California they had a proposition to make it so corporations or unions could not automatically use monies that they have taken from your pay check for political purposes without your prior consent.  Prop. 32 when down 56% to 44%.  A slight majority in favor of leaving thing alone.  So we will continue to see teachers unions take the money given them and buy off candidates even if a good chunk of the teachers don't support  that candidate.  A bummer really since it could have leveled the playing field a bit, though the negative ads did their job and got people confused as all get out. 



How then do you try and help solve the whole pension issue and in the process help the younger or newer teachers that are not eligible for the  pensions yet.  You have to get around the merry-go round or 'dirty little trick'.   You have to offer some type of 401(k) or flat retirement plan.  People in private industry overwhelmingly are put into 401(k) plans.  So why not go that route with public employees?   Why do we have to have a pension for them?   The usual system is the employee decides to have X amount taken from the pay check.  The company matches up to a certain amount.  The employee has the money invested in a somewhat limited set of mutual funds or other financial instruments.  Hopefully, the money grows over time but, bottom line the company is not on the hook for pay outs years down the road.  It's more on the head of the employee and not the pension fund.  And since most public worker pension funds back fill with government money at times you wonder how soundly the money is being invested or whether they are taking in enough in the first place.

Now think about how this system could be beneficial over all.  You could even have a 100% match and come out ahead.  Instead of having to pay out a teacher that retires at say 55 with a set amount for the rest of forever.  If that person lives to 90 you'll have 35 years of payouts.  The 100% match would be progressive since it would be lower as the teacher starts out and then gets bigger as pay raises.  This is better then the fixed higher rate down the road that traditional pensions provide.  You do have to handle the health care portion of the equation.  This means that if you go with the 401(k) system you have to have the people paying into medicare and the like or compensate for it in some way.

Here are some simple numbers:
start pay 40k annual
end pay 75k annual
30 years work - so pension would be forking over ~70-80% of final pay i.e 55k.  Take that over another 35 years of payout.

Pay per pension over 35 years - $1,925,000
Average pay 30 years work - 57k if you did the 100% match - $1,710,000.

Seems like peanuts but, when you add this all up it can count for millions upon millions.



Most people go with the higher contribution by the participant of the pension.  But, are the people being stiffed by the 'dirty little secret' pay in as well?  If so they really are being stiffed on a massive scale.


So how do we save money in the long haul and also help out those being hit by the 'dirty little secret'?  Likely a investment system where the worker takes on more control and the decision making.

And hopefully the worker will make good choices, which you can not guarantee will occur with the current system and a bureaucrat handling things.



Buaidh - NO - Bas

Kings VS. Judges: A Better Form of Government

On Sunday we were reviewing Mosiah 29 of the Book of Mormon in Sunday school class.  The teacher who loves to use Power point style presentations was focusing on the transition of the Nephite society from a King based system to a Judge based system.

She spent a lot of time going over the differences and why the judges system would be better.   We all know what can happen when you have a king in charge.  He may decide to do things his way and that likely will not be in the best interest of the population or for that matter be very righteous.  Same thing happens when dealing with Dictatorships and the like.  Sometimes, though not always these people will do some very underhanded and not very righteous things to maintain power.  People disappear, some are tortured, and other generally evil and ungodly things occur.

If you are lucky enough to have a righteous king you will have a very righteous, religiously free society that is prospering and has taxes that are for the benefit of all, and not just the few.   You will find things can prosper since the government (i.e. the king) is not sucking things dry, or leading everyone down the garden path.  You'll also find the king not living off of the taxes but, fully participating to earn his living.
This is very different then what you imagine in your head to be a king.  You imagine this person sitting on his throne all day and eating tons of food handed to him by servants, while dressed in the latest fashions and having the easy life.   Not someone that would be laboring in the fields or actually do some type of work.





Another point that was brought up was the fact that in Monarchy situation you likely have a variety of people vying for position and in some cases the top spot of King.  This can lead to treachery and in some cases secret combinations.  Not a pretty picture.

On the other hand the system of Judges though not perfect is apparently superior.   What you find is a group of people that are elected by the voice of the people to hand the affairs of the nation and to sit in judgement on a variety of matters.  You will still have bias and behaviors that might influence the final outcome of their judgements just like in the monarchy.  However, the person was elected and in many cases they regularly hold elections to chose that judge.  That means if you feel the person is not doing such a good job you will always have a change to select someone else you feel will do a better job. 

The constitution of the United States of America was brought up several times as an inspired document.  Not a perfect document but, an inspired document.  What that means is the principles on which the document was created my be perfect but, the implementation will not be.  We have human beings with faults and bias that have to implement what they find written.  This manifests itself well in all the problems dealing with slavery that festered for so long and finally resulted in a civil war that nearly slit the nation in half.  Clearly "All men are created equal" is a perfect statement as is "Blessings of Liberty" but, implementing this proved to be a challenge.  How do you reconcile this with the fact that slavery existed on the very first day the constitution was ratified?
Compromise was what saved the day until eventually issue such a states rights and slavery became to big an elephant in the room to ignore, and thus the civil war (See Doctrine and Covenants 87 about prophesy by Joseph Smith).


Yes there are faults in our current system.  The alternative is to have a sing person deciding everything.  Hope just or righteous will that be.   For it is far better to have a few elected people that might go astray from time to time then to leave it all in the hands of one.

So what should one do to select less corrupt, more righteous God fearing people as our leaders?
You need to obtains as much as you can about the various candidates or options, study them out and see whom or what matched your values and morals the best.  Then lastly make sure to pray about it.  You get a feeling as to which way to go.





So if your not voting and things start to go down the drain as we have a bunch of corrupt, and evil people running things you have no room to complain.  If you did vote then you have some room to complain and hopefully next time you make a better choice.


Buaidh - NO - Bas