America the Great

The history of the United States of America has it share of unsightly stains. I categorize a "stain" on our history as things which run counter to the ideals and principles espoused in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights.

The most enduring and noteworthy stains have been slavery, racism, and elitism, which both run directly counter to the foundational principle that "all men are created equal." An emerging stain is the intolerant, and anti-democratic movements of 'social justice', critical race theory (CRT), and 'wokeness.'

In spite of very real stains, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

Part 1 - Slavery

In fairness to the Founding Fathers, many of them recognized the hypocrisy of their egalitarian principles and the institution of slavery. They made some concessions in their principles to keep the states united as one nation. At the same time, they took steps to minimize the political leverage that might accrue to slave owners by discounting the value of their human chattel with regards to apportioning legislative seats. 

I believe the Founding Fathers also trusted that, over time, the principle of 'forming a more perfect union' would continue to erode slavery until it could be abolished entirely. Which is exactly what happened. 

The Three-Fifths Compromise

The so-called three-fifths compromise, alluded to above, is actually a racist statement, but it may surprise some to realize that it isn't racist towards blacks. It is racist toward Native Americans (Indians):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons

Note that the words 'slave' and 'black' are not used anywhere is the Constitution. Rather the terms used are "free Persons," persons "bound to service for a term of years" (i.e., indentured servants), and "all other Persons." Only the "Indians" (all Native Americans) who were undeniably free persons, were called out and excluded by race from either category.

As a matter of Constitutional law, slavery was not a racial matter. Slavery was a legal status.

US Civil War Ended Slavery

The US Civil War was the slave owners' last ditch effort to preserve the institution of slavery which was, then, cornerstone to their economic livelihood. They had no way to know that less than thirty years after the Civil War (about 1894), Eli Whitney would invent the cotton gin, which would effectively eliminate a significant reliance on manual labor for the production of cotton.

Regardless of arguments over states' rights versus slavery as the proximate cause of the Civil War, it is incontrovertible that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is directly linked to the Civil War. It was passed in January of 1865 and ratified in December of that same year. The amendment ensured that the debate over the legality of slavery would be ended when the Union prevailed over the Confederate States of America. The amendment converted the Emancipation Proclamation, a potentially temporary executive order using the wartime powers of President Abraham Lincoln, into the overarching law for all states in the United States of America.

Separating Racism and Slavery

The 13th Amendment does not address racism, at all. It further perfects the Union by eliminating slavery. It also eliminates the portion of the US Constitution which discounted the voting power of slaves, because it eliminated the legal status of slavery.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: National Archives 

Slavery is a legal status, not a racial one. 

There is ample evidence in the historical record to support this assertion. If we accept the terms 'black' and 'white' as racial identifiers, then the fact that blacks in America owned slaves substantially destroys the argument that slavery is a racial issue. Further, the historical evidence supporting the involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery) of Irish prisoners brought to the American colonies by the English destroys the remaining foundation of any argument that slavery in the Americas was purely a racist institution.

Part 2 Racism

Racism Defined

Racism has existed from time-immemorial. It is based on prejudice.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as:

• Belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
• Behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
• Systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
• A political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Prejudice

Webster defines prejudice as: 

• injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
• preconceived judgment or opinion
• an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
• an instance of such judgment or opinion
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Notice that prejudice is characterized by being based on lack of knowledge and irrationality.

Prejudice and racism are nothing new. Throughout history, nearly every distinct tribe, people, and nation have fostered prejudice against others.  

Among the Native American tribes of the USA most nations referred to themselves as some variant of "the human beings." This implied that other nations were less than human.

The peoples of the USA believed they had a "manifest destiny" to conquer and control all of North America (and at times beyond those limits).

Romans considered themselves superior to the barbarian nations on their borders.

Germans are better than the French. The French are better than the Germans.

Before World War II, the racial prejudice of the Japanese led them declare themselves the "master race" and justify their conquest of Korea, China, and everywhere else as a logical outcome of their racial superiority and natural right to rule.

Nearly everyone is aware of the Aryan master race theory promoted by Adolf Hitler as the rationalization for the subjugation of all "inferior" races and even the extermination of specific races. His delusion led to the death of more than six million Jews as well as contributing to the deaths of 75 to 80 million soldiers and civilians in World War II.

Racial Slavery Justified

Regardless of the legal nicety distinguishing the issues of slavery and racism, it is irrefutable that, in the years leading up to the Civil War, most slaves in the United States of America were of African descent. The ethnic characteristics of the Africans were often very different than the European ethnic characteristics of those in power. This facilitated the mental gymnastics of Bible-toting slave owners to justify their enslavement, even in the face of Christian mores condemning slavery.

They reasoned that the ethnic differences between Africans and Europeans were outward manifestations of fundamental differences in the intellectual and spiritual capacities of Africans and Europeans.

This ethnicity-driven attitude toward slavery contrasts sharply with the historical justification of slavery as the merciful fate of the weak at the hands of the strong. Throughout human history, those who survived the violent conquest of their people were enslaved.

The Root of Raced-Based Slavery

Slave owners in the USA did not have the pretext of conquest to provide any moral justification for slavery, so they had to invent a moral pretext. If Africans were inherently inferior to Europeans, then enslaving Africans was an act of service, lifting them above their brute existence and into the lowest rungs of civilization. 

At best, this was a specious argument. At worst it was simply a lie and blatant rationalization to quell a guilty conscience. The suppression of teaching slaves to read and write was a necessary measure to prevent the refutation of this ethnic rationalization of slavery. Blacks who could read, write, and reason as well as any European would put the lie to the argument that they were inherently inhuman brutes, barely better than savage beasts, or other domesticated livestock.

To support slavery in the USA, the ethnic differences of Africans and Europeans had to be portrayed as more than ethnic variations. Instead the Africans had to be transformed into a species that was similar to humans, but something slightly less. They had to be portrayed as a separate race of humans-like creatures with capabilities and potentials distinctly different, and less than European humans.

Part 3 - Modern Stains

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT is nothing more or less than racism. Its foundational concept is that individual and collective behavior is predestined based on skin color. But, CRT is not color-blind. It is specifically and particularly anti-white.

Under the notions of CRT, white people are evil oppressors and black people are oppressed victims.

A key premise is that any institution (such as the government of the United States of America) which has been created and supported by white people is inherently designed to promote white-supremacy. Further, such institutions are irredeemably corrupted by this racist purpose and cannot be corrected. Instead, they must be dismantled and replaced by institutions built by black people. The assumption inherent in the is either that black people will inherently create untainted institutions, or that building institutions which are anti-white is definitively "good" because white people are defined as "evil."

It doesn't take a revelation from God to see that such vituperative views will inevitably lead to genocidal violence. Violent, genocide is the logical end of advocacy of any philosophy based on irrational hatred of others because of their inherent traits.

Racial violence deriving from CRT will come from any or all of three sources:

1. As a natural extension of CRT as its advocates embrace their own version of Hitler's "Final Solution" and seek to exterminate whites.
2. White supremacists winning adherents and supporters to aggressively "protect" whites from  increasingly threatening and militant CRT supporters.
3. Ordinary people who reject racism, embrace Constitutional principles, and band together to defend themselves against militant CRT black supremacists and militant white supremacists.

When that happens, it will be another stain on the history of the USA.

Wokeness

While the dictionary definition of wokeness sounds like a good thing, its practice is pretty vile. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines wokeness as:

Aa state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

Being aware of social problems such as racism and inequality is a good thing. If we are unaware of problems, we are nearly incapable of resolving them. Unfortunately, in practice, wokeness is particularly centered in the notion of intersectionality. 

The way in which different types of discrimination (= unfair treatment because of a person's sex, race, etc.) are connected to and affect each other

Intersectionality, in practice, is a game of one-upmanship where each person tries to show how much more (potentially) they are oppressed than others because of their unique behaviors or characteristics. The underlying motive is to secure preferential treatment for some intersections more than for others. The reasoning is that the greater preference is required to offset the greater degree of oppression or discrimination. The reality is that practitioners of intersectionality want to derive financial benefits based wholly on their characteristics (inherent or otherwise) without any effort or value-add to society. The narcissistic foundation of intersectionality is that society should pay for the enrichment is supposedly receives from the presence of such intersections.

The Irony of Wokeness

The consummate irony of intersectionality is that when you carry it to its logical end point, you inevitably arrive at a doctrine which determines that the individual, is the ultimate expression of intersectionality and thus merits the greatest degree of societal protection and support. 

Individual worth and protection, regardless of other characteristics, is the cornerstone of the principles of Constitutional law and liberty. That is why the Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." 

Social Justice

The Cambridge Dictionary defines social justice as:

"The idea that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

Like wokeness, this is another movement that sounds right in its definition, but is totally wrong in its execution.

Let's unpack this definition to find out where it goes wrong.

 "all people should have the same rights"

That statement is totally in agreement with the founding principles of the USA. 

 "all people should have the same ... opportunities"

Life Isn't Fair

Here, we begin to skate on thin ice. Opportunities are often closely linked with circumstances and personal characteristics. Suggesting that everyone should be given the same opportunities is based on the false assumption that life is fair and evenhanded in the distribution of our circumstances and characteristics. 

Some of us have greater intellectual capacity than others. The person with an IQ of 60 is unlikely to have the opportunity to attend MIT because that low IQ indicates the inability of that person to succeed at the level of intellectual endeavors needed to matriculate and succeed in studies at MIT.

Although there is not equivalent of and IQ for artistic talent, someone with my mediocre level of artistic skill is not going to benefit from, and hence not receive, an opportunity to attend Julliard. My abilities simply aren't sufficient to qualify me for attendance. 

Legislating such "fairness" of opportunities without regard to abilities will have the end result of destroying excellence, and all the benefits that come from excellence. Excellent inventions such as smart phones, excellent art such as a Warhol (even mediocre art such as a Bob Rossi), and many other marvelous and beautiful enhancements to our lives will cease to occur.

Outcomes

"a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

This component of social justice is focused on individual outcomes. Everyone, means every individual. The premise here is that we should all get the same outcomes. The assumption is that these outcomes are universally good, hence the word "benefit."

The bitter reality is that the only way you can ensure that everyone gets the same benefit is by denying all but the most rudimentary benefits to everyone. Worse, such enforced egalitarian poverty is at odds with basic human nature and thus is doomed to failure. Enforced poverty will inevitably lead to corruption as people seeks ways to manipulate the system to provide themselves with what levels of comfort they want (regardless of what they may, or may not, deserve).

Capitalism

Worst of all, this phrase is totally anti-capitalist. 

The beating heart of capitalism is sustained by two things:

1. the free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services
2. the natural principle of supply and demand

While governments and individuals may strive, or succeed, to exert coercion in exchanges, the natural principles of supply and demand cannot be subverted. They are inexorable.

Scarcity and utility are the natural drivers of value. People are willing to exchange more goods and services for those goods and services which are more scarce or of greater utility. They unwilling to exchange goods and services which are scarce or very useful and will do so only if the exchange is of equal or greater value to them.

Because of this natural principle, those who provide the most scarce or most useful goods and services will inevitably accrue a greater abundance of other goods and services than others.

Socialism

This is true even (or especially) in the halls of socialist governments, where valuable information or access is clandestinely and routinely traded for such goods and services as the holder of information or access desires. Political and economic power are commodities which are scarce and very useful. Thus, such egalitarian utopias almost immediately upon inception descend into corruption as illegal exchanges become the only means whereby anyone can rise above the enforced poverty dictated by the state.

Even if equality of outcomes were possible, it would be undesirable. The behavior of slaves is especially instructive in this point.

Social Justice is Economic Slavery

All slaves enjoy an equality of outcome from their labors. From their masters they get food, clothing, and shelter. The rewards do not increase in proportion to the success of the master's enterprise. As a result, when the master is not overseeing their work, slaves do only the minimal amount of work they are not forced to do.

No one will exert themselves to excellent inventions, art, innovations, or anything else, unless it will directly increase the rewards they receive for their efforts. You may argue that this should not be how people behave. However, you can just as effectively argue that the sun should rise in the West as many days as it rises in the East, and have just as much success at changing things.

Equality of Outcomes Equals Destitution

Equality of outcomes is both unattainable and undesirable. Equality of outcomes destroys initiative, innovation, excellence, and abundance. It leads only to universal poverty and destitution.

Part 4 - The Greatness of America

As I mentioned at the start of this essay, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

The USA is the first nation in the history of the world which was founded on the principles of individual liberty. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the first government expressly designed to protect the rights of the people and preserve them from oppression by the state.

The success of the American Revolution, and its founding principles, led directly to democratic revolutions all over the world, beginning first with France. It is arguable that if the American Revolution had failed, most of what we currently know as "the free world" would still be governed by powerful monarchies. Instead, they are republics, governed by leaders who are elected by the people to serve for a time while representing the best interests of the people. 

The USA has fought and won two world wars to defend the political liberty of people in other countries. Unlike conquering powers throughout history, the USA did not require political or economic subservience or servitude of its defeated foes. Rather, it expended its treasure to rebuild its former foes and encouraged their self-determination.

In the wake of the successful imperial efforts of the USA (a stain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) instead of colonizing and retaining the servitude of countries such as the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, and most of the Pacific Islands, in the twentieth century the USA relinquished control of these countries to self-governance.

Through most of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century, the USA consistently eschews colonialism and imperialism. Preferring instead to encourage self-governance, the rule of law, and universal recognition and protection of the inalienable rights of humanity.

The Decline of America

Nation Building

Sadly, our national good intentions have been abused as politicians have been seduced into "nation building."  We try to impose our economic and political values and structures of governance on other nations which have not reached a point of maturity where they have a majority of people who desire these. 

Most recently we see this failure in Afghanistan. Instead of using our military might to teach the Taliban that it is not in their best interests to support those who attack the people of the USA, we took over their country for a time. While there, we tried to encourage democratic government. We failed because democracy is never something that can be imposed upon a people. They must win it for themselves. True, they may need outside help, but it is worth noting that no French armies took the field with American revolutionaries against the British. The greatest share of bleeding for freedom was done by Americans.

Previously, we saw this same lesson explained to us in Vietnam. Before that, it was taught to us in the jungles of Central America during the so-called wars of the Banana republics. In all those cases, after we removed our military, the governments of those countries collapsed and re-emerged in forms that the people of that country were willing to support.

Moral Decadence

At the same time as we are seeking to build other nations, our national public persona has come to be widely portrayed by media and popular culture as dissolute, licentious, and pleasure seeking. Our movies, societal trends, and many of our laws seem to disregard the importance of the nuclear family, religion, and the sanctity of life. 

All these destructive societal trends were manifested preceding the destruction of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. They are clearly critical performance indicators for the survival of any nation. Many of our current trends, are repugnant to wholesome people of all nations. It isn't hard to understand how Muslim extremists can gain credibility with more mainstream people by calling the USA "the Great Satan." Our society is becoming increasingly devilish and degenerate.

Conclusions

We have many old, and some new, stains on our history. Slavery, racism, CRT, wokeness, social justice, and even some imperialism are all stains on our history. Many of our old stains have been removed. Some persist and are made worse by new stains. Although the old stains of slavery and imperialism have been vanquished, racism persists and is being exacerbated by things like CRT and wokeness. Before the rise of CRT, racism in the USA was on the wane and nearly extinct.

 

Despite these stains on its robes, the USA is still the best place on earth to live. We enjoy a level of economic abundance, mobility, and liberty which is the envy of the world. Our political freedom (though rapidly eroding) is still substantially greater than anywhere else. The USA is still a shining city on a hill and a beacon of freedom. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant of the facts, or jealous and conniving for our downfall.

We will solve our social ills by ensuring that the law applies equally to everyone, without any regard to their immutable characteristics, or their choice of religion.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2023 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Radical Immigration

My father's father was a naturalized US Citizen.  An immigrant.

Tom Sheppard

7/20/2018

The picture above was taken when my grandfather was working and living as a trapper in the Northwest Territory of Canada, many years before he emigrated to the US and married my grandmother.  After becoming a citizen, he built, bought, and sold several businesses.  He owned a ranch for a while, until Roosevelt's New Deal made it more profitable for him to not plant wheat or run cattle and sheep.  Then, he became a store owner and drilled water wells.

His three sons all went off to war during World War II.  They all came back alive.  The oldest boy was among the "Battered Bastards of Bastogne" who withstood the German siege of Bastogne, France during The Battle of the Bulge.

My point in telling you this snippet of family history is to let you know that I have very personal knowledge of the contributions immigrants make in this country. 

In addition to my personal knowledge of the contributions of immigrants, I lived for nearly two years in Ecuador, South America.  Ecuador is a wonderful country, and it is, in many ways, very typical of the third-world countries all over the world.  This experience, living in a third-world country, not just passing through as a tourist, gave me intimate, first-hand experience with real poverty, political turmoil of the sort that makes our elections look like family picnics, and  the hearts, minds and lives of ordinary people who live in these circumstances.

All of these experiences, as well as what I see in the history of the US shapes my views on immigration.  Because of these experiences and study, I have come up with a pretty radical view on immigration which might shock many of those who know how politically, economically, and socially conservative I am in my views.

Before I explain my radical immigration proposal, I want to share a little bit of the history of immigration law in America.  We all understand that the first Europeans in America were immigrants.  In fact there was no real immigration law in America until the US was founded.  Even then, for a long time, the only real immigration law was that the President of the US had to have been born in the US.  He or she could not be a naturalized US citizen.  Alas, my grandfather's political ambitions were capped. :-)

The Constitution authorized Congress to establish immigration and naturalization laws.  They left the open borders policy of the Founding Fathers pretty much in place.  However, it is relevant to note that from its very start, the immigration and naturalization laws of the US had a racist bent.

Those who know me well will be surprised to hear me say that something is racist.  I believe the term is not only over used, but often misapplied.  However, as your read on, you will see why an acknowledgement of racism (or ethnicism, to be more accurate) is applicable in this case.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 prescribed the manner in which "free white persons" of "good moral character," could become US citizens.  The wording expressly excluded anyone who was not of European descent.  As you will see later, this was narrowed at some points to provide the easiest path to those of Northern European descent (people like me and my family).

In 1868 the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, granting citizenship to children born of parents in the US.  In 1870 the law was broadened to include blacks, but explicitly excluded anyone of Asian descent.  One step forward, and one step backward on the ethnicism front.

In 1882, Congress got even more explicit against the Asians with The Chinese Exclusion Act (everyone of Asian descent was, of course, considered Chinese).  This Act was the true beginning of our current immigration laws.  It should resonate with many anti-immigrationists that the term "Yellow Peril" was popular at this time, as a shorthand for describing the threat to the US posed by any permanent settlement of the folks who helped build the transcontinental railroad.

The act was tightened in 1884 and renewed again in 1892.  In 1902 it was made permanent, not requiring any further debate to renew it.  It wasn't repealed until 1943.

In 1907 we clamped down on Japanese immigration, particularly into Hawaii.

In 1882 immigration law banned folks with poor mental health, physical health, or lack of education.  In 1901 they outlawed the immigration of Anarchists, after one of the assassinated President McKinley.  The Immigration Act of 1917 (note the timing with the First World War), a literacy requirement was added to the immigration law.

Things really got going on the institutionalized ethnicism in 1921 when Congress enacted the Emergency Quota Act.  Immigration quotas were set for pretty much all countries outside of Northern Europe.  The quotas were intended to limit the number of "undesirables" coming from the countries of Eastern Europe, since Asia and Africa had already been effectively prohibited.  The quotas were revised by Congress in 1952.  The UK, Germany, and Ireland were the favored countries for immigration.  Everyone else were pretty much personae non grata.

Immigration laws were used to strip Indians of their citizenship and to remove the property rights of Native Americans (not the same folks as Indians, who come from India).  Those property rights were later restored, but I think anyone can now see the pattern our immigration laws have followed for a very long time.  From the very early on they were aimed at ensuring that the majority of people in this country had Anglo-Saxon ethnic origins.  This meant that, as noted before, Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, and Germany were given preferential immigration treatment, with the countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland not far behind.  In contrast with these favored ethnicities, everyone else was put on a quota system.

The quotas restricted all Eastern and Southern Europeans and they almost excluded African, Asian and Middle Eastern.  

Although in 1965, they ostensibly abolished the quota system based on national origins, for the first time,  they implemented quotas on immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere, and it gave preference to immigrants with skills that were desired to fuel our economy.

For those who mistakenly believe this all came about as a result of Republican Racism, alas no less than Senator Edward Kennedy was a primary architect of this bill and is quoted as saying, in defense of this bill, "the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."  So, the racist/ethnicist inclinations cross and crisscross the aisle of Congress.  The hands of neither major party are clean in this ugly history.

In my view, the quotas on immigration from the Western Hemisphere are a response to the "Brown Peril."  Unfortunately, the fear of having whites drowned in a flood of Hispanics is not without some foundation.  No less than the President of Mexico has endorsed the "Reconquista", the taking over of the Southwest United States by Hispanics, specifically by Mexicans.  The avowed aim of this movement is to return those lands to Mexico, or to turn those states into pro-Mexican puppets within the United States.

The term Reconquista has its origins in Spain as the Christians of Spain worked for about 780 years to retake the peninsula from the Muslim (AKA Moorish) forces which had conquered it.  Now, it is about the cultural and political retaking of the US Southwest by pro-Mexicans.  

Regardless of the aims of the Mexican Reconquista, the way to combat it is not through overt or covert discrimination in our immigration laws.  Rather, it is by doing what Americans do best, leading by example.  The reality is, if things in Mexico and other countries in the Western Hemisphere were so great, their people wouldn't be beating a path to get into this country.  We have something they want, and it isn't land, it is freedom.

In this country, if the police pick you up off the street, you get a phone call.  You don't disappear, as happens in so many other parts of this hemisphere.  In this country, you can disagree with the President, or the Government in general without fear that some pro-government para-military forces are going to drag you from your bed in the middle of the night and execute you in front of your family, or kill your family in front of you, and then kill you.

In this country, if you are born into what we here call poverty, you are not automatically condemned to a life at the bottom economic rungs of society.  Interestingly, a recent study of the top 1% in the US found that not only are they not the idle rich, they are working hard for their money, but fewer than 10% of them inherited their wealth.  That means that 9 out of 10 of the top 1% rose from lower economic positions to attain great wealth.

Immigrants to this country are four times more likely to become millionaires than are native-born citizens.  Why?  Because those immigrants have lived in societies where their status at birth capped their opportunities for advancement.  They were ambitious souls, so they came to America, where no one can utterly block the advancement of their ambitions.

By the way, don't confuse being a millionaire with being in the top 1%.  The top 1% are billionaires and hundred millionaires.  In this country, more people around you than you might imagine are millionaires.  The book, The Millionaire Next Door outs them very well. 

Photo (C) NBC News

The Road So Far

1. Our Immigration Laws Are Ethnically and Socially Discriminatory
2. Immigrants Tend to Boost Our Economy

My Radical Immigration Plan

My plan has a few simple (but not easy) points.

1. Build a digital wall
2. Abolish all quotas and immigration number limits
3. Deny immigration requests only on the basis of criminal activity or for national security reasons.
4. Make US Citizenship a Desirable Privilege
5. Give Aliens Clear Paths to US Citizenship

Let me elaborate on each point.

Build a Digital Wall

We have technology to create a digital, biometric registry of every person coming into the US.  Every person seeking entry to the US, including diplomats, should have their fingerprints, retinal scans, facial scans, DNA, and all other biometric information, along with their name and other identifiers loaded into a national registry which is accessible to all law enforcement agencies in the US.  Each entrant should receive an Alien ID Card with a unique identifying number.  Possession of this card would allow them the legal right to work at any job in the US for which they can get hired, be that picking lettuce, or being a brain surgeon.

Aliens would be required to update their addresses whenever they moved.  This could be done with a simple box and bit of info on mail forwarding materials with the USPS.

This registry should be constantly cross referenced to databases of crimes and criminal evidence.  Anyone attempting to enter who is found to have been deported due to criminal activity would be denied entry.

Abolish All Quotas and Immigration Number Limits

This is very simple, and means just what it says.  We will let as many people into our country as want to come, as long as they are not criminals or national security threats.

Deny immigration requests only on the basis of criminal activity or for national security reasons.

The Alien Registry would need to be constantly accessed by our national security forces and intelligence services to screen out known threats to national security and known criminals.  Criminals might be known either internationally, within our own borders, or to the security and police forces of their country of origin.  Anyone who triggers a flag from this check would either be automatically denied, or require a security review and a waiver before being admitted to the US and issued an Alien ID card.

Make US Citizenship a Desirable Privilege

As controversial as my earlier points are, they probably pale by comparison with this one.  The short version of this point is that Aliens should not enjoy all the rights and privileges accorded to US Citizens.  Their basic judicial rights, trial by jury, right of appeal, right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc., would be provided.  But none of the taxpayer funded financial programs available for US Citizens would be available.

• All government entitlement programs, be they at the municipal, state, or Federal level are reserved solely for US Citizens.  This would also include things like unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation.  
• Aliens would be able to attend public schools, but would not enjoy resident rates at state funded colleges or universities.  
• They would not be eligible for any voucher programs for state funded schools.  
• Their wages and earnings would be subject to Social Security and Medicaid Taxes, just like everyone else, but they would be ineligible to participate in those programs as recipients, no matter how many years they had paid in.
• Obviously, they could not vote in any municipal, state, or Federal elections and could not hold any publicly elected office.
• They could not lawfully purchase, sell, or possess firearms or weapons of any kind.
• They could enlist in the US Military, which would provide a fast-track for citizenship.

None of these restrictions on taxpayer funding for aliens would hamper private charities from extending any form of aid they desired.

Are these restrictions unfair?  Absolutely.  They are deliberately calibrated to deny to Aliens many of the most desirable rights under the US Constitution and the laws of the land.  This makes US Citizenship a desirable privilege.

Give Aliens Clear Paths to Citizenship

The short version of what follows is that Aliens need to keep their noses clean while they are here.

• Anyone desiring US Citizenship should be required to speak, read, and write English at a minimal level.  Perhaps 6th or 8th grade level of competency?
• They should be able to pass a basic test, showing that they understand their Constitutional rights and responsibilities as citizens.
• They should be required to sign an oath of allegiance to the support and defend the US Constitution, much like that which is required of those who take public office and those who enlist in the US military.
• They should have resided in the US for at least 5 years with no history of violence or drug crimes.
• Any Alien currently under a felony indictment is ineligible for Citizenship until the indictment is dropped or they are either pardoned or acquitted in a court of law.
• Aliens who enlist in the US Armed Forces can apply for Citizenship after just 2 years of residency.  All other requirements apply.
• Any Alien convicted of violent crimes, drug crimes, or any Felony will be deported immediately after their release from prison, regardless of whether that release is due to completion of their sentence or probation, and they will be ineligible for reentry into the US.

For all Aliens that are present in this country at the time of enactment of these laws, they would have two paths open to them.

1. They could immediately proceed to an Alien Registration Port and become Registered Aliens.
2. They could return to their country of origin and apply for entrance from there.

All Aliens currently residing in the country would have 12 months to get their Alien Registration ID and become a Registered Alien.  After that twelve month period, if they are apprehended and determined to be an illegal alien, they would be deported with no possibility of readmission to the US.  Their evasion of the law would be a de facto admission of ill-intent toward the US, its laws, its government, and its citizens.

Unregistered or illegal aliens who have been residing in this country prior to the enactment of these laws, and who subsequently register, would have no shorter path to citizenship than the 5 year requirement.  All other restrictions would also apply until they attain their US Citizenship.  It would be as though they had arrived in the US on the day they received their Alien Registration ID.

Conclusion

The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth.  Our Constitution is a marvel of world history and both an example and bulwark of liberty for people all over the world.  Our Constitutional Rights are worth shedding blood to defend.  They are also worth protection from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Immigrants have helped make America great.  They continually inject new energy into our country and our society.  We need to abolish the racist/ethnicist underpinnings of our current immigration laws and replace them with laws which honor the principles which have made this country great.  They need to embody the principles and sentiments expressed in the poem New Colossus, which is associated with the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,With conquering limbs astride from land to land;Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall standA mighty woman with a torch, whose flameIs the imprisoned lightning, and her nameMOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-handGlows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes commandThe air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries sheWith silent lips. "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!"

I have my doubts that my Radical Immigration ideas will ever get read by President Trump, or anyone in power in the US Government.  But, I will put them out there anyway, and go on the record.  Perhaps my friend Eric Trump will see this post and show it to his Dad.

Tom Sheppard and Eric Trump, son of President Donald Trump

Perhaps one of you will share it and it will find its way to the eyes and minds of those who can make this happen.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2018 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.