The Problem with Travel Bans

I read an article on Forbes about Trump’s travel ban and what struck me most is how people are looking at this issue. These lawyers are arguing about how it can be legal or what the legal problems are. Unfortunately, if you’ve ever had to deal with the courts you will understand that lawyers can remove all the humanity of an issue in short order.

Why is nobody looking at the usefulness of the order or how it affects people?

By broadly discriminating against a religious group the effect is obvious. If we are to believe most terrorists are Muslims, why are we not also telling Catholic priests they cannot work with children? I know to Christians that sounds like a horrendous proposition. The Muslim travel ban would sound equally as despicable if you were Muslim. We know not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, so we don’t even talk about such an idea, yet how can we so easily talk about Muslims like we are with this travel ban? I personally know many, many muslims and I know they are not terrorists. Many are some of the nicest, most generous people I know. A travel ban based on a religious basis is most incredibly insulting, insensitive and ultimately non-productive.

Many people are also discussing how it is NOT a discriminatory edict by reflecting on many Muslim nations that are not on the ban list, yet within all of the countries on the ban list we are clearly targeting Muslims. Saying we are not targeting Muslims from Pakistan so therefore we are not targeting Muslims is senseless. Why are Pakistan and Iraq NOT on the list? We know many terrorists train or are funded by some Pakistanis and ISIS is based mainly in Iraq and Syria. This makes no sense at all. We are targeting Muslim majority countries in conflict, yet we are not including Pakistan and Iraq, two of the most violent and troubled nations on earth? Clearly we are making this stuff up as we go along and trying to justify our actions based on not including a few very controversial nations. If we are just trying to make America safe, shouldn’t we also have a ban against white supremacists in public schools and movie theaters?

And since most people on earth are not terrorists, because if they were there would be terrorist events happening in every country every day, how is this affecting people and families who are not terrorists trying to come to this country, or especially those trying to flee the conflicts in their own home nations? It could be devastating for many very innocent people.

Then there are those who say people with citizenship, dual citizenship, visas, green cards, etc in the countries on the list are not affected. Why not? The people who flew into the twin towers had American visas. In England, many of the terrorists were citizens or had visas too. In the most recent attack in England, Khalid Masood was an English citizen. Why is England not on the no fly list? He could have flown here and committed his crimes. Look at France, Belgium and Germany. Citizens, visas all.

This brings up the usefulness of such a ban. We know that religion is not the perpetrator of terrorism. Christians and Muslims are listed in atrocities all over the globe, yet because we are a “Christian” nation, we are focusing only on the Muslims. This is blatantly discriminatory. You cannot argue otherwise without omitting many obvious and convenient facts.

Terrorists are Zealots. They are willing to go to extremes to get their message across. They use whatever facts they wish to use to carry their anger and hate to a broader audience. If we truly want to make the world safer, we need to work with all communities to disarm the hate, and disarm the individuals who would harm innocent people.

A real war on terrorism would put a ban on installing dictators and government that persecute their citizens in other countries just because they would work favorably with us. This would go far in removing hate against a nation because of how they are being treated by us. We also need to persecute organizations, companies and the very laws that make it easy for them to acquire weapons and the tools to carry out their crimes.

We need to reduce  the access to weapons as well as the ammunition of hate. This would be more effective than a travel ban. Unfortunately we love our easy access to weapons, and our greed keeps us producing hate around the world. We should stop blaming others for our problems and start taking the blame ourselves. Only then can we work towards making our nation and the world safer.

Stars and stripes on gun

Ann Coulter ignorant on immigrants

Adios-AmericaWhat Ann Coulter doesn’t understand about immigrants and immigration makes me wonder why she even bothers to talk about it at all. The fact that she can write a book and actually get it published, with all the distorted and untrue facts it contains, and then go on tour and speak publicly about this misinformation and speak about them as if they were true makes me wonder about our society. How far should we be allowed to abuse the term “freedom of speech,” and how far should we be allowed to go to defend this freedom when it contains so much that is blatantly untrue? Do we not have any responsibility to the public? Shouldn’t there at least be a warning label, “Caution, the ideas inside this book may not be anywhere close to the truth and any resemblance to real people and events may be purely coincidental.” recently wrote a piece about her book, “Adios America” and in it they stated,

“Coulter’s thesis is simple: Since Senator Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass., rammed through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, America’s immigration system has transformed from a device for enriching the nation for both native-born and immigrants into a scheme for importing anti-American voters.”

One of the problems with that statement is there are 50 years of evidence to back up such a statement. All you would have to do to verify this information is add up all the years since 1965 that had Republican presidents (the party she purports to defend in all her ramblings) to see if un-American voters were messing with our government unfairly. I counted 31 years that the US had a Republican president out of those 50 years; well over half.

So the majority of presidents since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 were Republican. Does that mean she is making the statement that Republicans are “anti-American voters” or is her thesis completely and utterly flawed?

Not all of her book is based on severely inaccurate statistics. She also apparently throws in a large amount of racism, apparently to make her facts sound more accurate.

In that same article was this Anne Coulter gem,

“What made America America, Coulter argues, was a particular blend of Protestant religion and European civilization that led to the rise of the greatest nation in human history. What will unmake America, she continues, is a deliberate attempt to poison that blend with a flood of immigrants with wildly different values.”

One would expect this type of statement to come from organizations like the Klu Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation. There is just no masking the point of a message like this. What she is saying is if you are not a white european protestant, your blood line will pollute the pure American gene pool and we must get rid of you. Sounds eerily similar to fascist dictators we’ve heard from before.

Coulter goes on to argue that the number of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the USA today is 30 million and not the 11 million or so that are currently thought to be here by more responsible estimates. This is so wildly exaggerated it appears that Ms Coulter has no problem with facts that are corroborated by independent studies, peer reviewed research papers, non-partisan surveys, government census data, or any other useful type of trusted information. She just chooses not to bother to use that type of content in her writing at all. Why bother with researching multiple sources of information to see if your thesis is correct when all you have to do is write down whatever you want and be done with it.

As far as what makes this country great is concerned, Ms Coulter doesn’t wish to recognize all the different religions and peoples we have imported since the 1600s that has actually made our nation great up to this point, or any other historic milestone this country has achieved in the past, for that matter. She only counts the Protestant ones from European countries. Somehow, everyone else in the history of the United States didn’t really matter, including the unfortunate black folks we thought we needed so badly we kidnapped and brought here against their will. I guess the builders of this great nation brought Africans here to keep themselves company. The white Europeans must have done all the innovating, constructing, planting, harvesting, manufacturing and conquering all by themselves.

One of my favorite Coulterisms is when she was on The View and called out for being a descendant of immigrants herself. She flatly denied she was related to people who came from another country looking for a better life. Her ancestors were SETTLERS. Somehow these were not people who came from other countries, but who just magically came here and founded this nation, making her a native American and all native Americans becoming American Indians.

How convenient for her to have skipped the whole “immigrant” word altogether. Ancestral magic sounds cool. Her ancestors didn’t have to kill or steal or lie or renege on treaties or any of that stuff that would need to be apologized for. No admission of harming others or doing wrong. No pesky restitution necessary either. Her family history has been cleansed by the immaculate inception.

I’m betting the Scientologists fear her, for they will probably soon have to give up the claim to the newest religion in this country. The Bible of Anne Coulter should be coming soon, which begs two questions to be asked:

  1. Will she photoshop a selfie for the cover and make herself look even whiter than she already is and 20 years younger?
  2. Will it be available in Spanish?

The battle for the 14th Amendment

For as long as our constitution has been around, certain members of our community and their hired guns in Washington have tried to change our immigration laws in an effort to “keep our country white.” The 14th amendment has been under attack since it’s inception during the civil war.

This infographic helps to demonstrate the effects on such an attack.

14th Amendment2

No Illeagles

Anderson Cooper says it all in this very short video about how highly uneducated people probably shouldn’t weigh in on important topics, especially ones they can’t even spell correctly.

Hate groups thrive on immigration debate

The website, “Creeping Sharia” posted an anti-muslim article about foodstamp fraud in Maryland. The article, titled, “Maryland: Two More Muslims Arrested in $1.5M Food Stamp Fraud.”  quoted part of an article posted on the FBI website titled ” “Two More Retailers Arrested for Food Stamp Fraud”    Nowhere on the original FBI article did it mention muslims. How the authors of this site ascertained the religion of these individuals can only be deduced; if you have a middle-eastern name, you are a Muslim. What the Muslim religion has to do with the food stamp scam is still a mystery.

There is a banner prominently displayed at the top of the website that reads, “Stop Amnesty for Illigal Aliens,” and then lists a phone number. Hoping to speak with the creators of the blog, I called the phone number listed on the banner. A receptionist answered and asked me what state I was calling from. I told her, “California,” and she quickly routed me to another number and after a few rings I got Sen. Diane Feinstein’s message machine. I think I was supposed to leave a message against amnesty with her.

Trying to find anyone willing to stand up for this blog, I clicked on a bunch of links and although I didn’t find contact information for anyone behind the blog,  I did find a link to the American Freedom Law Center, among other smaller blogs. Could this organization be behind this article?

On another part of the page, again, prominently display is a quote about freedom of speech, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~ George Washington

Below that quote is another ad with links to websites that teach you how to get around your government or company’s web filters.

  • Steps to bypass Internet Censorship

    If you are unable to access Creeping Sharia due to IP, corporate, government or other censorship, go here orhere for easy ways to access our content anywhere.

These guys are seriously fighting for free speech. Yay!

Oh, wait. Just a little further down the page they put up these links:

Seriously. There aren’t but a few inches separating these statements. You would think the author would see how hypocritical he was being and re-think his position. One can either be for censorship or freedom of speech–you cannot be for both.

So, once again, hiding behind the shadow of anonymity, are our would-be saviors. They must see themselves as superheros, you know, caped crusaders who hide behind a mask but fight for truth, justice and the American way. Someone should tell them that instead of Batman, they are acting more like the Penguin. Supervillains hide behind secret identities too, but their motives are much more self-serving.

There is a banner on this website that reads, “We remember 1915.” A link takes you to a website that tries to link the Ottoman empire to Adolph Hitler. 1915? Really, they remember that? Why? And even if they really could remember 1915, why would anyone want to?

“If we are to strive for world peace, we need to forget the wrongs that have been done to us and focus on the good we can do together. Anyone can go back thousands of years and find people who have been harmed in order to find justification for anger and resentment, but somehow we find it impossible to look one day into the future and see people doing good things for the justification of love and forgiveness.”

Maybe We Should ALL Choose Self Deportation

Asking immigrants to accept self deportation after they arrive here without their greencard paperwork in order,  while we sit comfortably in our living rooms knowing we dodged that bullet, is highly hypocritical. How many of our fore-fathers had their paperwork secured and approved before arriving on our shores? Self deportation is a new term never before brought up in our vocabulary for a reason; only within the last fifty- years has there been a situation for such a term.

We are so backlogged with current greencard applications that we take forever getting them approved, and often lose paperwork, or ask for new paperwork because the original green card paperwork we asked for is now expired. Should we just tell our undocumented and under-documented immigrants, “that’s too bad” and ask them to accept self deportation because we are unable to handle the backlog for our current demand?

Speaking of legal and illegal immigration,  I wrote a series of articles on the language of hate. I like to keep abreast of new articles that are created by some of the more prominent hate groups parading as concerned American citizen organizations. Below is an example of the kinds of things they write about in order to enlist more followers. Obviously they are trolling the waters for the ignorant or misinformed. This sentence really jumped out at me:


“Legal immigration is people exchanging a culture of corruption for a culture that honors the rule of law.”


This is a definition of legal immigration that really defines the length to which these organizations try to stretch the truth in order to justify their message. Nowhere in that sentence is there any room for an honorable immigrant.

Are all other countries corrupt?

Is the US the only one that isn’t?

Remember Enron? Arthur Andersen? Goldman Sachs? Lehman Brothers? Countrywide Home loans? Freddie Mac? Yeah, we sure honor our rule of law– after we get caught. Until then we fly under the radar and pray we don’t go to jail. (Sound familiar?) The difference here is, and it’s a big one, the people accused of this hateful group’s crime are just coming here to better themselves by circumventing a policy that is out-dated, confusing and extremely lengthy. Immigrants are often faced with rejection due to documents needing to be re-submitted because of a confusing and lengthy application process. As for the Americans that destroyed our economy (twice) in recent years; they knew they were doing very bad things.

The blog post also carries this theme further:

“Illegal immigration is people bringing the culture of corruption of their home countries with them.”

So, if I understand these two sentences correctly, the process of filling out an application is all that’s needed to save someone from corruption vs bringing corruption with them. Nice.

Since we all are products of immigrants, is this a confession that their forefathers brought the corruption of their home countries with them as well? Maybe that explains where we got our corruption from. According to them we could not have manufactured any corruption on our own. Perhaps we should all go back to where our ancestors came from and leave this land as pristine and corruption-free as we found it. I’m sure the native Americans would appreciate it.


Stop Using the “I” Word: People are not illegal

People may be short, tall, thin, heavy, broad, blonde, brunette, lazy, self-conscious, hard working, narrow minded. . . but they cannot be illegal. It is not illegal to exist. A person can do something illegal, but that does not make them illegal. Calling someone illegal is at best an outward sign of disrespect, and at worst, a sign of sheer ignorance.

We do not need to rob anyone of their human dignity. Those who do, are doing so only because they have none and they think that taking some away from someone else will bestow upon themselves the characteristics they so jealously covet.

The problem is the press often uses this label when talking about people who have entered the United States without passing inspection at a border or immigration checkpoint. This is called Entering Without Inspection or EWI. While this is a federal misdemeanor, it does not place upon that person a demeaning lable, nor does it mean that someone who has done this is going to be untrustworthy at everything else they do. That logic is tragically unintelligent. If it were so, then the entire human race is guilty of crimes and therefore none of us is trustworthy and all of us should spend the rest of our lives in some kind of prison or probation program. Obviously that is a silly proposition.

If you hear or read someone using the term illegal when talking about a person or group of people, you should send them a note and let them know that nobody is illegal, actions are illegal, people are not. Request they refrain from this type of label or you will not

“Two White Hats” an anti-immigrant ideology exposed

In response to “TWO WHITE HATS” by Lindsey Grant*


Your paper makes an argument that two child families and a small 200,000 immigrant cap per year is what is best for our country. While at first blush your argument may sound logical to some people, the premise upon which it is built is reprehensible to any free thinking person on earth. Upon closer study it reveals a mad-scientist, “Rule the World” scheme that usually can be found in late night horror movies, saturday morning cartoons, or books and movies by Ian Fleming.


Global migration is a by-product of the success and growth of any region in the world, relative to the poverty and excess labor of others. In nature it is called the law of equilibrium.


It is Natural- This has been going on since man began to travel. Nobody made up the idea to move from a poor region into a more prosperous one. It was just logical. Since it is logical and natural, to attempt to regulate it will be expensive, time and energy consuming, and almost guaranteed to be futile.


It is self regulating- Whenever an area becomes saturated with a good or service, prices dive and the competition dies off, leaving the strongest to serve the region. No area supports an over abundance of consumers with limited resources. Instead, alternate regions needing service are searched out by those unable to compete, or alternative products are created to fill the new needs of those that are able to stay behind. One only has to look at our current Net Zero Immigration which has taken place during our recession. People gave up looking for work and went home. People who have jobs did not return home for their seasonal round-trip migration. No Memo went out. This is social proof that the situation is self-regulating and natural.


It solves the needs of both the poor and the rich-. Are we to say that an area with plenty of labor but few jobs is better off the way it is, as well as an area that is growing prosperous and needing more goods and services should be left to stagnate due to a bottleneck of suppliers?  Of course not. Both the overabundant and the impoverished prosper. What the heck is so wrong with this? Why is it that some of the people who have so much think they will continue to have this bounty when the bottlenecks finish draining them of their current excess resources?


This natural migration phenomenon doesn’t steal from anyone, and competition is what we as a nation are founded on. Force someone to hire a poor, lazy  person, immigrant or citizen, instead of a hungry, energetic, hardworking person, and productivity will plummet, as will morale, quality control, and damage repair will increase until the reputation of that person, company, region or nation is no longer the shining example is used to be.


Our first obligation to our country is to do what is best for our country, not force it to employ people who don’t want to work, or think that the work we force them into is what they themselves really needs. I think the Germans did this in World War II, and the Japanese did this to the Chinese, and. . . Never has forced labor been a benefit to a society, rather, it always became a shame to it.


Secondly, a two child family- I don’t know what KKK textbooks you are reading, but if you read any of the news articles circulating the past few months about the, “Net Zero Immigration” phenomenon, you will have heard that a part of the reason this is happening is the hispanic fertility rate has fallen to 2.4 children. We are already almost at a two child family right now, without legislation demanding it. Forcing people to stop having children is reprehensible. How would this be done? Abortion? Sterilization? Castration? These types of solutions are currently only on display in but a few horror movies. I can’t believe someone with a supposed education could even propose something as sick as this.


The whole thesis of “Two White Hates” is faulty and it’s implied solutions are abominable. Few societies in our planets history have ever attempted to make ideologies such as this government policy. One doesn’t have to look far to see why none of those societies are around any longer.


In summation you end with a FAIR party-line slogan of 200,000 immigrants per year cap, coming from the hugely erroneous idea that the immigration caps of the early 20th century could somehow sustain our 21st century population. Your intellectual and highly educated argument for this is,


That level was large enough to include an immensely valuable flow of scientists and intellectual leaders, and it should be sufficient again.”


Yep, that didn’t sound stupid or forced. If something is “immensely valuable” why would you want to limit it? To drive this point home, imagine this conversation,


“Because you opened a new savings account with us, we are going to give you a free bar of gold.”


“No thanks. I have enough money. Maybe next year.”





Two White Hats:


Net Zero Immigration:


Lower Fertility Rates of immigrants:




Illegal immigrants won’t assimilate into our culture

Hate speech often shows up in the form of a supposedly logical argument. Sometimes, like the following, it is just plain racist.


illegal immigrants arriving in this country in large numbers won’t be unable to effectively assimilate into our society-  

There are many variants to this theme such as, “they make us conform to them instead of them conforming to us” and “why should we have to learn their language, they should have to learn english” and “if I went to their country they’d make me learn spanish” and on and on.


This is really code for- “So many foreigners will come here they will take over our country.”

This has been an ongoing theme in the United States for well over a hundred years and is a driving force in the argument against immigration. Although a majority of white’s do not subscribe to this belief, this is a purely white myth, used to stir up other white’s into taking action in order to keep this country a white ruled U.S.A. It’s called protectionism and the white people who use this phrase are trying to protect our nation from the threat of mongrelization that they feel will occur once the throngs of immigrants get here, breed and take over their country. Then it won’t be the good ol’ white United States of America any more. Paranoid much?


How to combat this-  Whenever you read or hear this, you will know the people communicating this are acting out of fear of people who are not like them. This is a wholly racist argument and talking rationally with these people is pointless. You can point out that this hasn’t happened throughout the entire history of the United States, even after several rounds of immigrant recruitment drives* in our past, but it won’t stop them from continuing to say or write it. The only good you can do when you confront someone like this is purely for the benefit of anyone else who hears it. Giving other listeners a more intelligent and rational point of view so they won’t be left with just that one misguided opinion is a worthy cause. It also counters the effect of not saying anything and making it appear that that phrase is unchallenged and therefore correct by default.


For more information see the report on assimilation of immigrants.


* Immigrant recruitment in U.S. history

Americans from the industrializing Northeast pursued their recruitment policy even more vigorously after independence in 1776, seeking to lift European barriers to exit that were commonplace at that time. After independence, the new republic campaigned vigorously in the name of freedom to bring about an “exit revolution” throughout Europe.


From the 1830s on, railroad and shipping companies actively promoted emigration from northern Europe, and, in many cases, the multiplying US consulates functioned in effect as labor-recruiting and land-selling agencies, eventually reaching all the way to remote Norway. Simultaneously, American entrepreneurs enticed newcomers from across Western Europe by way of private missions.


These are just a couple of examples of the U.S. aggressively recruiting immigrants in our history.



Illegal immigrants make us pay to educate their kids

Why should we pay to educate their kids- 

This really means: undocumented immigrants don’t deserve to have their children benefit from our educational system– they’re not good enough.

How to respond-

Would you rather a bunch of kids grow up next door to you, being really stupid and unemployable, whose only recourse would be to really live off the taxpayer or drive up the crime rate? If that doesn’t shut them up, do you need the aggravation of continuing this argument? Besides, although schools do not collect immigration data it is noted that the overwhelming majority of children in K-12 are American Citizens due largely to the fact that immigrants don’t often bring families across the border due to the hazards and dangers of the process. Most children of undocumented immigrants are born here in the United States and are therefore U.S. Citizens. They have every right to be educated here just like every other U.S. Citizen.