Rotating Header Image


BD21298.gif “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…” [Emphasis added.]

BD21298.gif That quoted text is the introductory portion of our United States Declaration of Independence. It was, at the time of it’s writing, delivered in our U.S. Congress on behalf of our thirteen existing states on July 04, 1776.

The statements contained in that document refer to our thirteen states, our United States, our newly established national conditions as united expression. Of the states, for the states, from the states, about the states, about the United States and “all men” of the United States (all citizens of the United States of America in those thirteen states as the country was declared to exist at the time of this Declaration). I recognize that as this term was and is applied, that “all men” is used in a universal sense to define our nation’s regard for humanity.

The Declaration introductory text is often, recently, misstated, misrepresented and almost always used to present non-citizen privilege to citizen “Rights” as the Declaration identifies them. “All men” in the context of the Declaration of Independence, delivered in our U.S. Congress by an American on behalf of his fellow Americans, speaking to and about “these thirteen states” that was the country at that time, about Americans, about “all men” who are Americans, are citizens of the United States in the case and situation of the Declaration purpose. The significant aspect to the Declaration of Independence was that it was written as an address to and about the British monarchy from the existing thirteen colonies and from subjects of the crown in declaration of change of context, both as individuals and as territory. However, by regarding humanity as creation and work of God, endowed by Him with worth inherent in our individual lives, the Declaration does not thereby excuse or even suggest be excused a supercedence of laws for any one person or all persons in any national context.

BD21298.gif So, tonight I heard on FOX’s O’Reilly, a fellow identified as “Mark Ensalaco, Ph.D., Political Science Professor, University of Dayton” say this:

— “the Constitution says all people who reside in this country are endowed with inalienable [sic] rights.”

Spoken in rationalization of illegal aliens in the United States as possessing by being present in the country the same “‘inalienable’ [sic] rights” and thereby privileged as are citizens of the United States under “the Constitution.”

Except that he did not refer to illegal aliens as “illegal aliens,” but as “immigrants” and that they were “Mexicans” and that “militarizing the border” represents an act of “denial” of these “immigrant rights,” among many other misstatements of personal opinion represented (that’d be the “political science” of Mark Ensalaco, Ph.D.) presented as, specifically, Constitutional law, Constitutional pronouncement, Constitutional principle.

I am no Ph.D. of “political science” nor no Constitutional attorney but I believe I can read the Declaration of Independence along with our United States Constitution and comprehend the context and the intent and meaning of most of it. I realize the contents are profound and arguable among even the best of the best of legal scholars in our country and elsewhere, but these statements contained in the Declaration of Independence, as I’ve quoted them above, are specific and straightforward. I recognize that the “all men” reference is ambiguous but I also believe that since the statement was delivered in our U.S. Congress by a representative of the United States of America, speaking on behalf of and about the United States of America, agreed to by fifty-six signatories of the statement — American citizens, all — that the meaning of “all men” was, in this context, about all Americans, as a defining statement of all Americans.

It is not religious doctrine that’s declared in the Declaration — that the Declaration pronounces that ‘all men” have become specialized, suspended above or beyond responsibility to laws and social requirements — and yet this is the misapplication and manipulated context for which the Declaration is being used by persons seeking to rationalize and continue to enable illegal immigration: that the Declaration endows “all men” with some super-spectacular prestigious ability that thereby sends them flying over and beyond the hurdles that laws and legal requirements present as obstacle to their wants and desires. There’s nothing in intent and application in the Declaration of Independence that justifies or even was intended to justify that “all men” would be above legal requirements nor would be privileged to citizenship merely by repeating the text.

I do not read anywhere in that Declaration that to “reside here” was to be an American, contrary to what the Professor from the University of Dayton misquoted from the Declaration as principle upon which he regards anyone “here” — who “resides here” (in the United States), who is here in physical presence — is thereby and therefore a citizen of the country and/or an American in the context defined by the Declaration of Independence.

In fact, within the context of the Declaration of Independence, to assume that to “reside here” qualifies one as being those to whom the Declaration refers, is to defy the Declaration itself, given that the Declaration of Independence existed to identify the United States of America as independent of British monarchy rule and government. Persons not of the United States would not be in need nor would be necessarily seeking independence from the British monarchy since they would not necessarily nor inherently be subjects of the monarchy prior to the Declaration of Independence. In fact, most from elsewhere other than the British empire were subjects of Spain or France; they may have “reside(d) here” at that time but unless they were then subjects of the British monarchy and yet in residence in the United States, their presence would be nonsensical in that context of the Declaration.

I believe the entire point of the Declaration was to say, ‘we have been subjects of the British monarchy and this place has been “these Colonies” as property of the British crown, but we now are no longer subjects of the Monarchy and declare our independent nation accordingly in this place we now define as the thirteen states, these thirteen United States of America.’

BD21298.gif Within the ongoing problem of illegal aliens who are in the United States at this time and persist in arriving here by various illegal means, irregardless of various laws of the U.S. that forbid their behavior and those who involve with them in various degrees….these are illegal acts and those engaging in them are illegal aliens.

They may “want to work” and very well may “work” in the United States, but the argument that they are necessary and needed by the U.S. as available cheap labor is also a violation of principle to many Americans because who and what is “cheap labor” to some employers is quite expensive to support by American taxpayers. And, that “cheap labor” once “at work” will remain “cheap” only so long as those “cheap laborers” continue to participate in “cheap” wages and conditions, all again at the expense of American taxpayers and to the denigraton of many of our national resources and conditions by that “cheap” process — “cheap labor” as resource for some is expensive to support for everyone else and by that, the labor is not so “cheap” after all but is exploitive of everyone else.

So, the concept of “Guest Workers” is then introduced to explain away the illegalities involved by those who are in the country illegally. They become “workers” and “immigrants” and “migrants” and anyone who objects to their illegalities is deemed to be “anti immigrant,” just as the Declaration of Independence — our country’s regal document establishing our very terms as a nation — is reduced to misquotes and a manipulation of terms to suit and accommodate ‘the market” that is irreverant to the heart and soul of what the United States is all about: a nation of laws. Mostly I think it ‘s manipulated to accommodate political interests but those are not, in my view at these times, the best interests of the country as to inspiration nor as to leadership for a better future and conditional improvements of our present.

No, these mashings of our very founding principles are the wiggle-room, mumbo-jumbo mushings of the English language that are corroding confidence in every single political figure and representative of illegal aliens — by whatever name — in the perceptions of most Americans.

BD21298.gif And, as if that’s not bad enough, here is the dreadful lowered standard of language (and perception as indicated in the statement and language themselves) that a member of our present-day United States Senate has to say about his peers: “…(Colorado Senator Ken Salazar), elaborating on what it would take to pass new immigration laws in both the Senate and the U.S. House, Salazar said he hoped that ‘the president can himself weigh in and try to make sure that the House crazies don’t derail a workable immigration reform package.'”

“Immigration reform” is not synonymous with “curtailing/preventing illegal immigration.” The point from Salazar’s perspective (as also from some others) is that illgal immigration be “reperceived” in a comfortable fashion contrary to our United States context of laws, and that legislation be manipulated to accommodate that reworking of legal context, and worse, to punish and ridicule those who refer to reality otherwise. No one is then “illegal” but is in fact “an immigrant” despite our immigration laws and despite the inabilit or refusal by many to observe them — most Americans want to know why our laws are ignored and even disdained and think that indicates a poor candidate for citizenship among those refusing to participate in a legal process.

And, most wonder if the sensibility and civic awareness of other countries are grander than our own such that ours must adopt theirs, why so many come to the U.S. at all — the bare truth here is that they aren’t seeking citizenship and thus, they are not immigrating legally and are not behaving legally once they’re here and many have no plans to do so. People such as Salazar (among others) want increased accommodaton for all of that and decreased respect for the laws of the United States and it sure seems to be racially motivated based upon people such as Salazar and the many statements he has made in that regard. Call it “open borders” but I call it anarchy and the undermining of our very founding principles themselves.

Our Declaration of Independence — that glorious and intelligent work by inspired, studious and creative individuals braving enough originality to create a new and unique form of government — is today reduced to missquotes and manipulations to enable illegal behaviors and to attempts to shame Americans who will not engage in those illegalities by support or direct contribution to what they find offensive.

BD21298.gif The Declaration of Independence ALSO says, however, this:

“…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…”

BD21298.gif President Bush and Senator Salazar and various professors of poltical science, all included here with a noticable daliance and relationship with Mexico, should take note. Perhaps it is Mexico we Americans should change but first, we need to militarize our Southern border. And then we need to deport illegal aliens and prevent more from entering the United States.

And then President Bush or a later Administration can propose a “Guest Worker” program that solicits “workers” where they live and organizes a legal process by which “workers” — if that’s, indeed, what they are — can apply, be approved by and then complete a “Guest Worker” stint in the United States and then return home. Because that’s not going to happen without a certain degree of law enforcement and militarizing our Southern border, specifically, as made necessary by ongoing failure by “migrants” and “guests” who don’t or won’t ask permission to enter before they walk in the back door.


C O M M E N T S : now closed