An Ugly Side to Christianity

"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic" - Luke 6:29

The Church that Christ founded on Earth comes in all sorts of flavors these days. There is the Roman Catholic, there are the Orthodox branches, there are several "mainstream" Protestant denominations. And then there are... others.
Dove World Outreach Church, in Gainsville, Florida is an example of the "other". The "church" plans to publicly burn over 3,000 copies of the Qur'an in retaliation for the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentegon destruction. The church claims that it is a "total concept church", whatever that may mean, and that its purpose is to "stand up for righteousness and the truth of the Bible". The leader of this church, Terry Jones, has apparently forgotten to read that very Bible that he supposedly holds so dear.

In a CNN interview, Mr. Jones was asked about the Christian principle of turning the other cheek. To which he replied, "I think in deed that most of the time, we as Christians are indeed called to turn the other cheek. I believe that most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way. But I always think that once in a while, I think you see that in the Bible, there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up". (Emphasis supplied) Oh, really? I truly wish I could have been there to ask Mr. Jones to show me where Christ said that. I would dearly love to know where Christ said that Christianity was a "part time" faith, or that we can pick and choose which parts we don't like. I have searched, and I can't find that passage. His interpretation of the Bible amounts to heresy. Alas, this type of hypocrisy isn't rare in Christianity, and unfortunately, neither is the ugliness of Mr. Jones' message.
In my research to determine whether I could find where Christ condoned messages of hate and intolerance such as that of Mr. Jones and his "church", I DID, however, see several passages with which Mr. Jones and his church should be familiar, but have apparently chosen not to heed:
Luke 6: 27-28: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
Luke 6: 37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
This "church", and others like it, are not spreading God's love. Their message to Islam is not a message of love and peace, the message that God commanded. Their message is one of hate and disrespect. This is the ugly side to Christianity, and Christians who truly believe Christ's word should publicly repudiate this "church", and the brand of hate they spew masquerading as Christianity.
Our Constitution grants Mr. Jones and his followers the right to believe as they choose. It does not, however, require us to stand silent when a church takes actions which betrays the Christian faith, which effectively ignores the Word of God, and which also will cause untold potential harm to come to the very troops that this church may cheer on in the "fight against the infidel". Gen. David Petreus, the US Forces commander in Afghanistan, has said that the burning of the Qur'an will give the Taliban a recruiting weapon, and will deeply offend those upon we depend for information as our allies.
All Christians, of whatever persuasion, should recognize that Christianity is not a religion of hate, nor is it a religion which encourages retribution. Nay, as demonstrated above, it commands love, and forbids retribution. We should pray for those who endanger their very souls when they listen to false prophets such as Mr. Jones, with his message of hate, as it is written, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble." 1 John 2:9-10. The people of the earth are the Children of God. It is time to put hate aside, to rebuke those who spread these messages of heresy, and to walk in the path of peace.

Freedom 1, Arizona 0

Lieberman's Folly

"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." Amendment XIV, Constitution of the United States

This amendment, enacted after the civil war, sets the standards for citizenship in the United States. It has been used, over the years, to also extend many of the protections found in the Bill of Rights to state criminal proceedings, such important protections as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc. Many people today, however, only focus on the last part of this clause, forgetting about the first part, which defines citizenship in our great country.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means exactly what it says. If a person is born on US soil, regardless of their parentage, they are a US Citizen. Recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman, (Republican in all but name- Connecticut) introduced a bill which would amend 8 USC 1481 and add providing material support for any organization which is on the Secretary of State's terrorism list as grounds to revoke citizenship.

In Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton 738 (1824) Chief Justice Marshall, held in dicta that "[The naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." at 827. The history of citizenship in the US was then discussed in great detail in Afroyim v. Rusk 387 US 253 (1967)

Rather than force the reader to read this case, let's summarize. From the founding of the Republic it was widely accepted that Congress had the right to determine the qualifications for citizenship. As early as 1794, many members of Congress held the English common-law doctrine that provided for perpetual allegiance and many doubted that a person could in fact renounce citizenship. A bill that would have allowed a US Citizen to state before a magistrate that he was renouncing citizenship and then departing the country was defeated in Congress in 1794 and in 1818. There the matter stayed until the 14th Amendment which was ratified in 1868. There it was established that all persons born in the United States were citizens. Congress, in the Nationality Act of 1940, established naturalization procedures and requirements for naturalization. It set a number of ways in which a person could lose one's citizenship as well, including voting in a foreign election, etc. Most if not all of those ways, except for express renunciation of citizenship, have been found to be unconstitutional. The essential rule of the Court announced in Afroyim was that a person cannot be deprived of citizenship without his/her express act renouncing such status.

Senator Lieberman is an attorney, having a law degree from Yale. As a graduate of one of the top law schools in the US, Sen. Lieberman should know better, and/or should have staff who know how to research the status of the law. The cases at point in this, Afroyim and the debate in Congress years before would have given Sen. Lieberman and his cronies a good civics lesson and show how valuable US Citizenship truly is. The supporters of this law, in a knee-jerk reaction, seem to think that by revoking someone's citizenship, they can prevent terrorist actions. That is closing the barn door after the horse has already fled. It is true that in this case, the "wanna bomber" had been naturalized for a little under a year. However, he just as easily could have been here as a lawful permanent resident, (green card) or have even been here illegally. It would not have stopped the attack. The threat of losing citizenship would have no effect whatsoever, and would not give the US any further protection against terrorism.

This bill, riddled with constitutional infirmities, a knee jerk reaction of "patriots" who obviously forgot their high school civics lessons, should be quietly filed away and forgotten, never to see the light of day.

Ihre Dokumente, Bitte

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV, Constitution of the United States

The Legislature of the State of Arizona did something recently which reflects poorly on both the United States and the people of that state. The legislature passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed a sweeping bill which criminalizes being in the state of Arizona without legal status. SB 1070, which will go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, makes it a criminal offense to be in the state without being either a US Citizen or to have legal permission to be in the United States. The bill makes it very clear that it is attempting to enforce federal law relating to immigration control and control of the borders.

This law contains some troubling constitutional provisions. The first, most troubling section is quoted below:

"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (capitalization from original)

The troubling phrase here is "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". This is a violation of the right of persons to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has determined that where a police officer stops a person and demands identification, that such as stop constitutes "a seizure" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968). What then, constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States? The statute is silent on what constitutes a reasonable suspicion, but it does not take much to extrapolate from there: anyone who is Hispanic will surely face suspicion, anyone with an accent, (especially Hispanic) will be subject to stop and a demand for their papers. The law essentially means that anyone who can be potentially stopped should carry their papers on them at all times. That US citizens will be stopped and accosted, and thus, have their civil liberties violated is an absolute certainty.

An associate of the author's is a specialist in immigration law. His views on this statute, after reading it were that the bill's author had little if any grasp of federal immigration law and how the three federal agencies who enforce and regulate immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (CIS, CBP, ICE) operate. Further the definition used for a trespassing alien is linked to 8 USC 1304 (3) and 1306 (a). 8 USC 1304(3) deals with a requirement for an alien to carry their green card, when it has been issued legally. There are a multitude of reasons for someone who is a lawful permanent resident but not have a green card, including renewals, lost or stolen cards, spouses or children of lawful permanent resident, etc. 8 USC 1306(a) deals with aliens being required to register with immigration authorities when required to do so by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not all immigrants are required to do so, mostly those from countries who are defined as sponsors of terrorism, etc.

The Constitution of the United States grants to Congress the right to determine standards for entry into the United States. (Article II, Section 8) During the early part of US history, immigration control was the furthest from the minds of both the public and Congress. However, in the 1880's, ugly bouts of racism and bigotry took place, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A series of acts over the years now restrict who can enter the United States and qualify for residency and the right to work in the US. Throughout all this period of time, however, it has been Congress which has passed and dealt with immigration and nationalization matters. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in Ping vs U.S. 130 US 581 (1889) where Justice Field wrote, "That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence." 130 US at 603. The logic used by the Court was that control over its borders is a part of sovereignty, and that it is a nation which has control over its borders, not individual provinces or subdivisions within that nation.

It is widely agreed that our immigration system is broken. However, what isn't widely known is that there are already laws on the books to discourage unauthorized entry into the United States. People come to the United States to obtain jobs and to try and support their families in their native lands. They take jobs that not many people want, because these jobs often pay minimum wage or even less. They usually do not have any form of benefits or heath insurance. However, if there are no jobs for these people, the incentive to come and stay in the US becomes less. Certainly, the draw of family and a wealthier lifestyle is important. During fiscal year 2008, slightly over criminal 1,100 arrests were made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Of these, only 135 were of owners, managers and human resources officers charged with knowingly harboring or employing aliens. The remainder were undocumented aliens who were further charged with identity theft and social security fraud. It was not until 2009 that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano issued guidelines that indicated that more effort is going to be placed on worksite enforcement. This is long overdue.

Immigration reform is something that is needed in the United States, although perhaps not with the addition of new and onerous requirements on employers. Rather, enforcing existing law, requiring all employers to verify the eligibility of all potential employees and requiring that any name/social security number mismatch be fully investigated would resolve many of the immigration problems through reduced work opportunity for those without legal authorization to work and catching those with false papers earlier. As technology gets better, as the databases and fingerprint systems get better, it is already becoming more difficult for those without valid permission to work in the US to be here.

The Mexican government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens who are living or traveling in Arizona, urging them to make sure they have their papers on them at all times and to report harassment by law enforcement to any of the five consulate offices in Arizona. However, the action by Arizona has not helped Arizona's reputation, and if there is anything that would discourage tourism, this is a good example.

This law has already resulted in a number of conventions and other planned events which were planned for Arizona to consider other locations. Both the Republican and Democratic Conventions had been considering Arizona, and both parties have expressed concern about this law. The Arizona Hotel and Convention industry has been pleading with the rest of the country and world not to blame them, but, in honestly, why not? Its the voters of Arizona, including their members, who put the racist and bigoted lawmakers who approved this bill in office. They can and must speak loudly to their legislature to either rescind this bill, or the voters will, at the ballot box, rescind the members who voted for it. Hispanic voters are a voting block which increased clout. The Arizona politicians and their supporters may find themselves in trouble at the polls come November.

Palestine - A Perpetual Problem - Part I

"Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey." Exodus 3:16-17

With this passage, the God of Abraham, promises most of what is modern day Israel to the Hebrews. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all considered Abrahamaic faiths, because all stem from the same basic tradition, and all practice a monotheistic faith revering the same God. This writing, and perhaps several more, will explore the history behind the current conflict in Israel, and show that although the conflict in Israel came to a boiling point in 1948, the conflict is much, much older, and in fact, stems from the time of the diaspora and even before.

Following the exodus from Egypt in approximately 1400 BC, the conquest of the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, etc by the Israelites was not easy. Battles raged for decades until approximately 1020 BC, when the Kingdom of Israel was established under its first king, Saul. The united kingdom lasted approximately 100 years until the death of King Solomon in approximately 930 BC. Under Saul's successor, the kingdom split in two, and the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, remained at odds throughout most of the next 400 years until the Babylonians conquered Judah in 586 BC. The Persians then conquered the Babylonians in 538 and many of the Israelites who had been deported to Babylon were allowed to return.

In 331 BC Alexander the Great conquered Persia, and with it, the remains of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Upon his death, a succession of rulers came and went until 64 BC when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem, and brought Israel into the Roman empire. Israel was a client kingdom of Rome under Herod the Great. In 66 AD, militant Jews seized power and revolted against Rome. The revolt was ruthlessly crushed, and Jerusalem was captured and destroyed (along with the Temple) in AD 70. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were either killed outright, taken as slaves, or fled to other countries. In 132 AD a second revolt occurred, known as the Bar Kokhba's revolt. This revolt was suppressed as well, and the Roman province of Judea was then consolidated with the province of Syria.

During this period, lasting from approximately 135 AD to the beginning of the Byzantine period in 330 AD, the Romans gradually managed to eradicate Hebrew as a spoken language and through a variety of onerous burdens and eradicate the Jewish presence in and around Jerusalem. Various Jewish tribes remained as nomads in southern Palestine and eventually became a part of the founding of Islam. Northern Jewish tribes existed until well into the Islamic empires. Byzantine emperors, as Christians, lavished funds upon Palestine and funded the building of numerous churches and other important buildings. The Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Ascension were built during the reign of Emperor Constantine. The late Byzantine period of history was one of Palestine's greatest, with the cities of Jerusalem, Caesarea Maratima and Neapolis reaching their greatest glory and producing a number of important Christian scholars. In 683 AD following the siege of Jerusalem, the Caliph Omah Ibn al-Khattab and Patriarch Safforonius signed an agreement which spelled out the rights of non-Muslim occupants of Jerusalem. Christians and Jews were labeled "People of the Book", and although they were generally granted freedom of religion, they also were subject to additional taxes. Thus began almost 1,400 years of Islamic control of Palestine.

The next article in this series will discuss Islamic control of the region, the beginning of the return of Jews to Palestine, and the problems associated with the birth of modern Israel.

A More Perfect Union - Part I

"We, the people of the United States, in Order 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America." - Preamble to the US Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution grants no special powers either to the states, to the federal government, or to the people. Rather, it establishes the general purpose for the establishing a new form of government on the North American continent and gives some of the essential goals in establishing this brilliant plan of government. The Constitution itself is divided into various articles. Each of the articles deals with a particular area. There are seven articles and 27 amendments to the Constitution. This article discusses Article I - The Legislative Branch.

"All legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" Article I, Section 1. Congress has the sole power to legislate or to create new laws, although Congress has, over the years, increasingly allowed executive departments to create regulations which have the force of law. The courts have generally been tolerant of this, and in fact, in only three cases have they invalidated laws based on delegation of congressional authority. Congress, while having been given the authority to legislate, also has the authority to investigate what it can regulate. Congress has evolved the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents to assist it in its investigations. While many of these investigations seem to be political grandstanding, the courts have generally paid great deference to Congress' authority in this area and have rarely intervened. See: Barenblatt vs. US 360 US 109 (1959) "The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate"

Congress is composed of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is composed of two senators from every state, elected at large. (Note: Direct election of senators did not occur until the adoption of Amendment XVII in 1912.) The senate was set up to give a balancing to the larger states, whose members would otherwise overshadow the smaller states in the House of Representatives. Each house has the authority to determine its own rules and procedures, and they differ quite distinctly from each other. Debate in the House is much more regimented, with a rule being established prior to every debate that specifies the length of the debate, etc. Debate in the Senate has no time limit, and in fact, the practice of a filibuster is a way for the minority party to stall a bill in the hopes of defeating it, even if they don't have the votes to defeat it outright. While the Senate has two senators from every state, the Constitution directs that the House of Representatives be apportioned based on population, with each state guaranteed at least one member of the House of Representatives. This is especially important as the upcoming census approaches and each party will be trying to affect census data so to allow them to draw the districts for the House and therefore increase election chances for their party members.

Congress is granted certain exclusive powers. These include the power to declare war and make peace, to approve all treaties, to maintain an army and navy, to establish inferior courts to the Supreme Court, to levy taxes, to regulate commerce between the states and between foreign nations, and others. One important clause states that "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof". Article I, Section 8. This is often called the expansion clause, because it is used as legal justification for doing almost anything.

The commerce clause is often used by Congress to enact a variety of legislation. However, a couple of recent cases indicate that the Supreme Court's willingness to allow Congress do as it pleases under the stretch of the commerce clause may be coming to an end. Specifically, the Court held in United States vs. Lopez 519 US 549 (1995) that Congress could not use the commerce clause to expand federal police powers over areas traditionally governed by the states. The Court, however, in Gonzales vs. Raich 545 US 1(2005) did not continue along this line, and while not expressly overruling its holding in Lopez supra, it did indicate that the Court's opinion on this clause is in flux.

Congress also has some limits. Congress may not pass a bill of attainter, nor may it suspend the writ of habeus corpus (with a few exceptions), and Congress may not grant titles of nobility. It also must only enact a direct tax by doing so based on proportionate taxation of the states. In practice, the income tax amendment of 1916 has superseded this section.

States are also limited in Article I. States may not enter into agreements with each other without the consent of congress, they may not keep armies or troops during times of peace, and they may not go to war unless actually invaded. More importantly, they must tax the imports of each state equally, and may not tax exports except to the point needed to carry out inspection laws. States may not impede the operation of a contract. States may forbid certain clauses in a contract, but not one that is currently operative.

Article I of the Constitution establishes considerable power for Congress, if Congress decides to exercise that power. In Part II of this series, I will discuss the Executive branch, and along with that discussion, the unique relationship that has evolved with Congress, including the limits and expansion of Executive power.

The Least of These

³⁴Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
⁴⁰The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
⁴¹Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
⁴⁴They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
⁴⁵He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
⁴⁶Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

- Gospel according to St. Matthew: 25:34-46.

A good friend pointed out this scripture passage to me the other day, and after reading and meditating about it, not only is its beauty and simplicity the essence of Christian teachings, its also an excellent answer to the question of "What would Jesus do?" if He were participating in the health care debate.

Many of the most strident voices against health care reform have also been spreading a series of lies which are clearly intended to scare Americans into opposing health care reform. While nominally the health insurance industry has accepted the idea of reform, in reality, they haven't. Look deep enough behind the focus groups and the people who are being bussed in to disrupt town hall meetings and I think one would find funding from the health care insurance lobby.

The health insurance industry in the US is one of the largest and best funded of any of the insurance businesses. They're also a fairly unique creature. No other western economy uses health insurance to pay for their medical care to the extent that does the United States. Yet, many of the suggestions for health care reform would threaten this sacred cow. For instance, all of the suggestions for reform would do away with "pre-existing conditions". They would also usually prohibit insurance companies from canceling insurance because people got sick. It seems like a no-brainer, but the purpose of health insurance is to pay for treatment when one is sick.

Many of those who are most opposed to health care reform are Republicans. Republicans have been engaged in some of the most egregious lies about the various proposals, including Sarah Palin and her repeated claims about "death panels". Ms. Palin bills herself as a Christian, yet she spreads lies about a bill before Congress. We have heard virtually nothing from Republicans about how to work on the problem facing our nation on health care and to guarantee health care for all.

The same Republicans who claim that they stand for family values and Christian ideals spent a great deal of time recently making sure that it was very clear that those who don't have proper documentation of citizenship would be denied government benefits, including any inclusion in any government funding for health care. Christ didn't care about citizenship, He cared about people. I have written elsewhere that denying basic health care to anyone on the basis of immigration or citizenship status makes little fiscal sense, but when dealing with immigration issues, it appears fiscal realities and Republicans have diverged. However, that's not the point of this article. The point of this article is the difference between word and actions on the part of many who are opposed to health care reform.

It is time for the Republican party to "walk the walk" as well as mouth the words of Christian values. It is not enough to be a Christian on Sundays, when an election is looming, or when there are sound bites and photo ops to be had. Christianity is not an amusement nor is it part-time gig. Its a way of life which means caring for the sick, among other things. Often this is inconvenient. Very often its uncomfortable and decidedly unpleasant. Yet, by caring for God's children, and indeed, all of them, we live the way that Christ intended for us to live.

Those who oppose health care reform simply because its being pushed by democrats are wrong to do so. There are legitimate reasons to be opposed to many of the plans out there, including how to pay for them. However, to oppose them because they threaten the sacred cows of the insurance industry that has worked long and hard to make insurance payments unaffordable for many Americans, is just plain wrong. The way to oppose such plans is to present better plans that can be shown that they will work better at accomplishing what should be a common goal: making sure all have access to affordable, quality health care in the US.

Ashcroft to Ashes, Dust to Dust

In the spring and summer of 2002, Abdullah al-Kidd, a native-born American citizen and his then wife were the subject of surveillance by the FBI allegedly aimed at Arab and Muslim men. Although Muslim, al-Kidd is African American and not of Arab descent. No evidence of criminal wrong-doing was ever discovered, and al-Kidd was never charged with any crime.

In 2003, a United States Grand Jury in Idaho handed up an indictment against Sami Omar Al-Hussayen for visa fraud and making false statements to federal officials. On March 14, 2003, the US Attorney's office in Idaho filed an application for a material witness warrant pursuant to 18 USC 3144. 18 USC 3144 states "If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." The problem with this is that al-Kidd was not listed as a witness against Al-Hussayen nor was he ever called as a witness at Al-Hussayen's trial.

Al-Kidd was arrested and held for 16 days in maximum security fascilities in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho. During this time, he was repeatedly subjected to interrogation by the FBI and unspecified others. Eventually, a court ordered him arrested but confiscated his travel documents and ordered him to not travel more than a few miles from his home in Nevada. This de-facto house arrest lasted for fifteen more months, until the end of Al-Hussayen's trial. Al-Kidd was never on the government's witness list, nor was he ever called as a witness at Al-Hussayen's trial. During this time, Al-Kidd's wife, who was never a suspect nor was she ever arrested, filed for divorce and left him. As a result of the arrest, Al-Kidd, who had once enjoyed a security clearance, was unable to find a job when his security clearance was rescinded.

In 2002, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States under President George Bush, promulgated a policy which included the aggressive use of Material Witness warrants to arrest and detain men of Muslim and Arab descent. This included Al-Kidd.

Al-Kidd filed a lawsuit in US District Court in the District of Idaho in March, 2005 against former Attorney General Ashcroft. He also named as defendants a number of FBI agents who had allegedly made false allegations against him in the original application for the arrest warrant.

Mr. Ashcroft filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming absolute immunity from suit and qualified immunity from suit. Mr. Ashcroft's claims were heard by the US District Judge who ruled that Mr. Ashcroft was not immune from suit because his actions were not a prosecutorial function when he approved the use of material witness warrants, but instead, since the warrants were not used for the securing of witnesses to a prosecution, but were instead used to attempt to develop criminal information from and about the arrested party, they were police functions and therefore not subject to immunity. The district court also rejected qualified immunity against the Mr. Ashcroft and the FBI agents because they knew or should have known that their actions were an unconstitutional violation of Al-Kidd's rights. Mr. Ashcroft is an attorney, which means that at a minimum, he has had training in constitutional law. Many FBI Special Agents have advanced degrees, and law is often the advanced degree of choice. Whether or not the FBI special agents in this matter have a law degree is not clear, but the district and appellate courts were not ruling on any appeal from those agents.

Mr. Ashcroft appealed to the US Circuit Court of appeals. On September 4, 2009 a panel of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the refusal of the district court to dismiss on the grounds of immunity. The full text of the opinion is available here.

The next stage of the proceedings will be to conduct discovery. Discovery in this case could be potentially damaging and embarrassing to the government, and may very well shed more light on an era in which many politicians, of both political persuasions, allowed fear to overtake any sort of judgment they might have had, and allowed a certain hysteria to set in not unlike the "red scare" in the 1950's. Just as the "red scare" of the 1950's was overblown, the hysteria that set in with many politicians, both Democratic and Republican following the 9/11 attacks was and is unworthy of the great country that they serve.

The next months or year will be interesting. The plaintiff has a long row to go, as its clear that the defense will put up every road block that they can to uncovering additional information. However, the preliminary damage is done. The next question will be what information will come out during discovery. During the discovery process, documents can and will be demanded both from the defendants and can be subpoenaed from government sources. I think it likely that these documents will show that Mr. Ashcroft did not act alone, and that the systematic violation of fundamental American civil liberties came with the blessing and forethought of the highest levels of the executive branch. The next suspense will be whether Mr. Ashcroft decides to take the fall alone, or if he decides to take down with him those higher up the food chain. Time will indeed tell.

Words Are Not Always as They Seem

These days, two words are becoming increasingly part of the vocabulary when discussing the health care debate looming in the US Congress. These words are Filibuster and Reconciliation. Both only directly apply to the US Senate, but some constitutional and historical background is in order.

The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 5 states, inter alia, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." This means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own set of rules for the conduct of debate.

In the House of Representatives, debate for each bill is decided in the rules committee and then the majority in the House then passes the Rule for that particular bill. Debate is often quite limited, and there hasn't been a filibuster in the US House of Representatives in over 150 years.

The US Senate is another matter. The US Senate has its own set of rules, which includes Rule XIV (The rule prescribing the conduct of debate, and stating that a Senator may not speak more than twice on a legislative day (which is not the same thing as a calendar day)). Rule XIV does not provide for any way to end debate, and it is that lack of an ending which allows a filibuster to continue as a way to obstruct or totally defeat legislation, even legislation which would pass if put to a simple majority vote. Filibusters used to require that the senator engaging in a filibuster stay on the floor and keep speaking during the term of the filibuster. However, that rule has been removed, and now a filibuster can simply be declared by a senator and it requires a cloture vote to remove. It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendance, on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.

Rule XXII, however, provides for a procedure known as cloture, whereupon the written motion of 16 senators, a vote upon cloture will be held. If 3/5 of the members of the senate vote in favor, then debate ends. Technically, debate can continue for up to another 30 hours, but members are then limited to 1 hour to speak on a bill. In actual practice, debate on the bill ends when cloture is approved, and the matter is then scheduled for a vote.

Until the passing of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democratic party held a 60 vote majority in the senate, which meant that an almost certain Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill would supposedly fail. Yet, that is by no means certain. The Democratic majority in the Senate is not as united as the Republicans. This is due, in large part, to there being both conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fiscally conservative democrats who have grave questions about the health care proposal (as does this author). The Republican party, however, seems to be constantly getting more conservative, almost rabidly so, despite the claim of some of its leaders that its a party of inclusion. However, that is for a different topic. Its questionable at this time whether even were Sen. Kennedy still alive, that a vote on cloture would succeed. The Republican minority has, for the most part, been very vocal against the Democratic health care proposal, spreading a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies, and President Obama has not exhibited good leadership in pushing health care reform by placating wavering Democrats.

I do believe however, if a simple majority vote were taken, that the health care reform act, (some version of it anyway) would pass the US Senate.

The other word being brought forth from time to time is Reconciliation. Now, most of us, when we hear that word, understand its common meaning of to bring together. In the context of the current debate over health care reform, reconciliation would strip the Republicans of the ability to filibuster the health care reform bill(s). Thus, it would do anything except bring together, and would undoubtedly serve to further polarize the two parties.

Congress, acting under its authority in Article I, Section 5 to enact the rules of each house, introduced the concept of reconciliation in the Congressional Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974. The process is fairly simple: A concurrent resolution is passed which directs that a committee shall consider a bill that contains the provisions ordered in the resolution. Following that, the committee reports the bill to the Senate, and debate on the bill is then limited to no more than 20 hours. This effectively removes the ability to filibuster and guarantees a further vote on the bill. All bills are still subject to a simple majority vote in the US Senate.

Reconciliation was originally intended to allow budget matters to be passed over the objection of the minority party to help prevent budget impasse (Recall California's nightmare of recent memory) . However, any bill which is affecting revenues can be introduced under reconciliation, its not uncommon for bills to deal with a multitude of topics. The Byrd Rule (2 USC 644) provides areas which will normally allow an objection to parts of a bill under reconciliation. If crafted carefully, however, I believe that a health care reform bill could still be passed under reconciliation and survive the legislative process. The predicted court challenge to the bill would probably be denied by the courts as a political question, and our judiciary doesn't answer political questions such as this.

The Senate Democratic leadership has already given notice to the Republicans that reconciliation is an option if the Republicans do not cooperate. The Republicans, who will undoubtedly cry foul, will recall that it was the Republicans who have used, repeatedly, the process of reconciliation to pass matters relating to huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which little if any tax relief for the middle class. Further, fair notice was provided in April, 2009 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) informed the Senate Minority leader that he would consider reconciliation if the Republicans were not willing to compromise and to cooperate on health care reform. To date, the Republicans have seem to adopted a strategy they have tried to foist on millions of young Americans about drugs and alcohol: Just Say No! I can always hope that the Republicans will eventually realize that they must deal with this and not stick their fingers in their ears while screaming NO much longer, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.


_________________________________________
Definitions: Inter alia Latin: Among other things

Give me your tired, your poor

"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!"
-- From a Poem by Emma Lazarus on the pedestal, Statue of Liberty, New York

Nearly all of the people in the United States today are either immigrants or are descended from immigrants, no matter how far back one wants to go. With the exception of the indigenous population, from the beginning of colonization of the New World in the 1500’s, we or our forefathers came here from other places.


Now, in the late 20th and early 21st century, we are dealing with another problem that has come to the forefront of political debate from time to time, and a solution continues to vex American politicians of both parties. That is the problem of immigration reform. There is nearly universal agreement that the US immigration system has massive problems; the agreement on how to fix it is less clear.


First, let’s define terms. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following definition: An illegal alien is a person who is not a US Citizen and who in this country and who falls into one of two categories: Entry Without Inspection (meaning crossing a valid US Border checkpoint and being admitted by a customs inspector), or Entry With Inspection (but who has violated the terms of their visa permitting entry) Aliens who have entered without inspection are treated much more harshly than an alien who has entered with inspection and who has violated a term of their visa permitting them to remain in the US. There are at least 11 million illegal aliens, and this number is probably in error in that it is too low. The reason the number is probably too low is that there is no reliable way to count illegal aliens; most are not interested in showing up to be counted by the government for any reason.


Next, let’s examine what we do about illegal aliens currently. If someone is found to be in the US illegally, it can be because they were swept up in an ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) raid (such as the highly publicized raid in Iowa not too long ago), but more often, its due to a criminal conviction and/or jailing pending trial. Many jails routinely screen for immigration status and inform ICE if the person appears to be in the US in violation of immigration law. Once ICE has been advised, they normally place an “immigration hold” on the person. The tricky part is that if ICE doesn’t take custody of the person within 48 hours of completing the sentence (if the person is serving one) or being otherwise eligible for bail, the person has a right to petition for a writ of habeus corpus to be released from custody. Let’s assume, however, that ICE comes and takes custody.


The person will then be brought before an immigration judge, and asked if they agree that they are subject to removal from the US. If they agree, then they are either allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the US or are deported back to their country of origin. (Sometimes a bond is required if they are allowed to voluntarily remove themselves) If they disagree, they may be held pending a hearing at which point the government must prove that they are ineligible to stay in the US for a variety of reasons (that I won’t discuss here for brevity’s sake)


The reasons that people enter the US illegally are complex, but include the fact that there are opportunities available in the US that do not exist in their home countries. This includes jobs, better working conditions, and higher pay. The argument has been made that illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. A counter argument has been made that illegal immigrants generally take low paying jobs that US citizens won’t take. Both sides of the debate present data which tend to back up their claims, and the truth is probably closer to both sides being correct. Illegal immigrants may very well take some jobs away from US citizens, but at the same time, they also take jobs that US citizens won’t take.


I always think it is disingenuous to identify a problem without a solution. I don’t think this is a crisis by any means. I think there is room for improvement in our system, and I do not think its feasible to simply round up and deport the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that we have in the US as some on the far right have demanded. Nor do I propose granting amnesty.


I give some credit to President Bush for daring to take on the problem of illegal immigration and for proposing some solutions which were very against the majority of the Republican party. In the field of immigration law reform, the Republican party is between a rock and a hard place. The right-wing base seems to have the idea that it would be practical to try to deport at least 10 million people from the United States. This is not an idea grounded in reality. Others within the Republican party enjoy the idea of having illegal workers in the US, because they can be exploited to work for practically slave labor wages.

My suggestion for the illegal immigration problem is two fold:

1. We must stop the economic incentive that illegal aliens have for coming to the US. This means we must pass and enforce strict new laws concerning employers or contractors who hire illegal aliens. A suggested regulation or statute would read as follows:
A. Upon acceptance for hire, all employers in the United States who collect payroll taxes from employees must examine government issued photo identification and an original social security card upon which the name matches the photo identification. Anyone who operates on a contract or subcontractor relationship shall also comply with this Act. The social security number thus provided bust be provided to the USCIS (US Customs and Immigration Service) for verification against the USCIS database within 72 hours of acceptance of employment. The USCIS shall maintain a database of all persons eligible to work in the US. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided does not match the name then:
(1) The employer must provide the prospective employee with this information and give the employee the name and address of the nearest social security office and the USCIS office.
(2) The employer may provisionally hire the prospective employee, but shall demand that they produce government issued photo identification and an original social security card and re-enter tha number thus provided into the USCIS database no less than 30 days nor more than 45 days after the initial entry. If the employer is notified by the USCIS that the social security number does not match the name or that the person is not eligible to work in the US, the employer must immediately terminate the employee until such time as USCIS can report that the social security number and name match and that the person is eligible to work in the US.
(3) The employer may not repeat the process in Section 1(A)(1) and (2) more than one time for any particular individual. The employer shall report to local law enforcement the name and last known address of any individual who produces more than 2 sets of identity documents showing different names.
B. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided is not valid for employment, the employer must immediately terminate or refuse to hire the individual.
C. Any employer who fails to comply with Sections A or B shal be deemed for the purpose of this act to have knowingly hired a person not authorized to work in the United States.
D. Any employer who knowingly hires a person not authorized to work in the United States is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished as follows:
(1) For the first offense committed after this statute is effective, a fine in the sum of $25,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(2) For the second offense committed within ten years of a first offense, a fine in the sum of $50,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(3) For a third offense committed within ten years of a first offense, the employer shall be deeded to be operating a continuing criminal enterprise and all property of the employer, including real and personal, and any proceeds of the crime, shall be subect to forefeit to the United States. The Court shall determine, after hearing, the extent to which the property has been involved, but the Court shall include the physical location where the violation occurred in its determination.

The above proposed legislation would help with the people who are both here now, and are tempted to come in the future. Would it stop it entirely? No, it would not. There will always be some who are willing to come and gamble that they can find someone who would hire them and not pay any attention to the rules. It would help with the institutionalized hiring of illegal aliens that is routine in some American industries. Under this proposed legislation, any employer, not just large companies, would be required to comply with this requirement, as would anyone who hires "subcontractors" but who does not withhold payroll taxes.

2. As far as those who are currently here illegally, I would give the above legislation a chance to work, but would also given an opportunity for these people to bring themselves legal. I would show them that there is an opportunity in the US, but to earn the right to legally work in the US would not be easy, nor would it be free. Hopefully, many of those who are here illegally would decide to return home when they could not find work. For those who chose not to, beginning on the effective date of the statute and for a period of two years, those who are illegally in the US can apply for provisional residency status, with some provisions:
A. The illegal alien must show that they have been in the US for a period of at least five years prior to the effective date of the statute. The USCIS will develop a list of documentation which is acceptable for proof, including but not limited to employment records. Said employment records can only be used for proof of residency.
B. The illegal alien must undergo a criminal background check to determine if they are otherwise admissible for residency in the US.
C. The illegal alien must, within five years of being granted provisional residency status, complete the following:
(1) Pay a civil fine of $2,500 for every year that the illegal was in the US prior to application. Such civil fine is not discharged in bankruptcy.
(2) Declare, file and pay any income taxes due and owing for every year the illegal alien was in the US prior to application. If no W-2 can be obtained, the illegal alien must declare all income as self employment. The Internal Revenue Service shall share such income tax returns with USCIS upon request.
(3) Maintain continuous employment for the five year period of provisional residency. If unemployed during this time, such period of unemployment may not exceed 6 months nor may there be an aggregate of more than 1 year of unemployment. No person under 18 shall be required to maintain employment if a dependent or dependent spouse of a provisional resident. A person under 18 years who reaches the age of 18 years during the period of provisional residency shall, if not enrolled full time in a bona fide institution of post-secondardy education, be employed during the remaining period of provisional residency. No one above the age of 72 years or disabled pursuant to the Social Security Disability Act shall be required to maintain employment, but no provisional resident shall be eligible for payments under the Social Security Disability Act unless they otherwise qualify based upon eligible periods of employment.
(4) Demonstrate continuing compliance with all US and state laws and tax provisions.
D. If, after the five year period of provisional residency has expired, all requirements have been met, the provisional resident shall apply for and be granted permanent resident status. Failure to apply for permanent resident status within one year of the ending of provisional resident status shall terminate provisional residency and the provisional resident must leave the US.

The above may seem harsh, and a high burden to overcome, but it is better than deportation and it is far from granting amnesty. This proposal allows for those who find they truly wish to stay in the US to apply for permission to be here legally, but that the process of doing so will not be cheap and it won't be easy. It should not be. They chose to break our law and enter illegally, and they can comply with our law or go home.