Trump is correct in wanting to end birthright citizenship

January 28, 2025

Among the many Executive Orders President Donald Trump has signed is one aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." That is the aspect of the U.S. Constitution that has enabled children born to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas while they are in the U.S. to become citizens, although their parents are not citizens.

Birthright citizenship is also known as the legal principle of unrestricted — or “pure” — jus soli, or the "right of the soil." 

Trump’s effort to end this element has stirred quite a lot of opposition. At least 22 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia have filed suit in opposition.

During the signing of the Executive Order, Trump said, incorrectly, that the United States is “the only country in the world that does this.” However, some 30 countries allow automatic jus soli, and most do not have any restrictions to it. However, while Trump’s assertion wasn’t correct, it is true that this concept is losing its appeal in these countries.

The part of the U.S. Constitution that enables this is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “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.” 

Trump's order seeks to change the rules to deny the granting of citizenship to these children in the future. It does not apply retroactively.

However, although the Amendment’s language does not specifically say it, there was a specific and limited intent for creating the Amendment that has been disregarded for a long time.

Britannica online explains that the Fourteenth Amendment, approved in 1868, “granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

To the need for the Amendment, National Immigration Forum adds: “In the aftermath [of the Civil War], Congress was eager to ensure that newly emancipated blacks not be deprived of their rights in states previously part of the Confederacy as well as to guarantee that African Americans were entitled to citizenship regardless of where they resided, overturning the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.”

However, for the last hundred or so years, the original intent of the Amendment has been unheeded, and it has been allowed to apply to virtually anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the circumstances of why the parent or parents were in the country.

Consequently, today, and for many years, pregnant women have come to the U.S. and given birth to their babies, and the babies have been granted citizenship. 

Whereas the original intent of the Amendment made perfect sense and was the right thing to do, the more liberal interpretation of it has allowed any child born here regardless of who the parent is. The parents could be good people or bad people, but that doesn’t matter. And because their child is a citizen, special circumstances exist for them.

Giving a baby citizenship in the U.S. simply because its mother happened to be here when it was born makes no sense, and is not something that we should allow any longer. And as the Amendment is now understood, and has been for some time, it is an advertisement for illegal entry into the country.

From Wikipedia: “The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2016, approximately 6 percent of all births in the U.S. (about 250,000 out of 4 million births per year) were to unauthorized immigrants, and a population of 5 million children under 18 with at least one unauthorized parent were living in the United States. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute estimated numbers at 4.1 million children.”

Straightening this out could be a difficult task, some say. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, and that is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to approve an amendment to initiate the change, and it must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of the 50.

But the simple solution is to consider why the Amendment was created in the first place, and allow that original intent to once again be the correct interpretation.

And in doing so, seriously consider the importance of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is interpreted to mean that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Given that the non-citizen parent(s) entered the U.S. illegally, it would seem their allegiance would be to the country from which the non-citizen parent(s) came, rather than to the U.S., where they have broken the law when they entered.

The original idea was not to allow every, or any, child born in the country to be ruled a citizen, but to award citizenship to African Americans, slaves and their children. Otherwise, to become a citizen here, everyone desiring citizenship must follow the existing process. 

To reiterate, Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, should it be approved, will not be applied to those who have already come in, but to those in the future.

Political differences keep intruding on badly needed reforms

This year President Donald Trump’s administration and the Republican majority in Congress identified areas of government needing reform. The tax code is huge, complicated and full of negative elements. The health insurance marketplace is collapsing, thanks to the (so-called) Affordable Care Act, under which insurers dropped out of the market and prices continue to grow beyond the ability of millions of Americans to afford them. And the nation’s border security and immigration systems are so bad as to be dangerous.

Efforts to fix the tax code and health insurance ran into political problems, and the immigration and border problem most likely will, too. But we have an opportunity for reform, and we need it.

In our sharply divided society, the political right and left have very different ideas about immigration. One side takes a dim view of controlled immigration, while the other side prefers a strong immigration system.

Generally speaking, why should America not apply the same common sense rules to immigration as its citizens do regarding whom they allow into their homes?

  ** How many of us would leave our doors and windows unlocked all the time?

  ** If one or a few people knock on our front door and say, “I really like your house, and want to live here,” how many of us would invite them in, just because they want to come in?

  ** How many of us, if we found a small group of strangers living in our garage, basement or spare bedroom would merely ask them to leave, instead of calling the police and having them arrested?

  ** How many of us would happily feed and clothe those intruders and allow them to stay without knowing whether they are violent or can be trusted?

  ** How many would allow one of their family members to hide and protect the intruders?

These situations actually exist in our immigration system today.

Most of us insist that we decide if anyone comes into our home, who we allow in and under what circumstances we allow them to come in. But somehow, many Americans don’t see the need to apply the same logical and strict standards to who enters our country.

America has porous borders that have allowed millions of people to come into the country illegally, and it has policies that make life pretty easy for illegal aliens.

But the country is under no obligation to allow immigration, and depending upon several factors, immigration may sometimes not be desirable. We frequently hear people say that immigrants built America, and that is true. But America has already been built; so that factor all by itself does not make the case for more immigration.

No one has a right to come into our country. We get to decide whether to allow immigration, or not; it is our choice. The government has the right and the duty to decide if people come in, and under what circumstances. And we need to choose those immigrants by what the country needs and desires; we do not allow immigration just because people want to come here.

We should choose to allow only those to immigrate that can contribute positively to the country, and keep out those who have little or nothing positive to contribute. We must make sure that those we permit to immigrate understand and agree to assimilate into the existing culture, and bar those who do not agree to assimilate, or who want to change our culture.

Our problems with immigration and border security are many. Despite a federal Border Patrol force determined to prevent illegal entry, the borders are insufficiently protected to accomplish that goal. Trump famously supports a “wall,” which actually means erecting and utilizing many different elements to stop illegal border crossings, not just a huge wall along the southern border.

Certain jurisdictions in the country, known as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, refuse to follow the law and alert federal officials to the presence of illegal aliens so federal authorities can deal with them. Efforts by the Trump administration to “encourage” these sanctuaries to obey the law by withholding federal funding have been thwarted by a federal judge, who ruled Trump cannot change how money approved by Congress is used. So these sanctuary jurisdictions can continue their lawless behavior with this judge’s blessing.

When illegals are caught, they are deported. However, many return and are deported again, repeatedly, and without penalty, other than deportation. Some of them commit criminal acts, often in sanctuaries.

Whether it’s called “political correctness,” or “foolishness,” the fact remains that our country is not being protected from illegal entry and the costs, pain and harm to citizens resulting from illegal entry.

The border must be secured, illegal aliens must be gotten under control, and deported, or perhaps in some cases put on a path to citizenship that includes assimilation or deportation if they do not satisfactorily assimilate, and jailing those who commit crimes.

If America is going to allow immigration, immigrants need to come here for the right reasons: to respect and honor our country and its culture; to possess desirable skills and intentions; and to become honest and productive citizens.

Nothing less is acceptable.

Elections are too important to allow voting system insecurities

With the presidential election just weeks away, some Americans still are concerned about the security of the election process. But don’t worry; America’s always-reliable news media assure us that those concerns are unfounded.

To wit:

~ “No, voter fraud actually isn’t a persistent problem,” says The Washington Post online.

~ “Study Finds No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud,” states NBC News.

~ “Republicans’ ‘voter fraud’ false flag: Voter ID laws offer imaginary solutions to imaginary problems,” blares a Salon.com headline.

A great deal of contrary evidence exists, however, some new, some not so new. In 2012 the ACORN voter registration scandal involved Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck turning up on registration forms in Nevada. And, one of the most ridiculous examples of voting irregularity occurred in Washington, DC, in the shadow of the Justice Department where an undercover reporter recorded himself giving his name as Eric Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney General, and being offered a ballot without showing an ID or being questioned about his identity.

The Pew Center on the States found nearly 2 million dead Americans still on the books as active voters; that 2.7 million people were registered in more than one state; and 12 million voter records had incorrect addresses or other discrepancies. All of these are potential fraud opportunities.

The Daily Signal reported on a 2014 Old Dominion University study looking into noncitizen voting and found that “6.4 percent of all noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm elections,” and suggested that this likely helped Democrat Al Franken defeat Republican Norm Coleman by 312 votes for a U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota in 2008.

The group Minnesota Majority investigated claims of voter fraud, comparing criminal records with voter rolls and found 1,099 felons who had voted illegally in that election. National Review reported: “Prosecutors were ultimately able to convict only those who were dumb enough to admit they had knowingly broken the law, and that added up to 177 fraudulent voters. Nine out of ten suspect felon voters contacted by a Minneapolis TV station said they had voted for Franken.” Since Franken’s margin of “victory” was 312, subtracting the 177 admitted fraudulent ballots could not overturn the result.

New York City’s Department of Investigation sent out 63 under-cover investigators posing either as dead people or people who no longer lived in the city. Of those, 61 were cleared to vote. Confronted with this evidence, the City Council decided not to demand accountability from the Board of Elections, but to prosecute the investigators for impersonating voters, according to National Review columnist John Fund.

Just this month CBS4 in Denver reported on an investigation that found numerous examples of dead people voting and other irregularities. It said a Colorado Congressional race was decided by just 121 votes, and an Ohio tax measure was decided by just two votes.

There simply is no question that fraud exists in elections at all levels, and as previously shown, it is significant enough to affect election outcomes.

Despite these and other “irregularities,” certain factions continue to oppose efforts to clean up the problems in all levels of the election system. And state efforts to impose voter ID requirements, one of the best ways to validate potential voters at the polling place, is perhaps the idea that draws the most vociferous opposition.

Opponents of voter ID and other sensible requirements often fall back on the argument that voting is a right for all citizens of legal age, and therefore it ought to be easy to vote, and they claim that requiring a photo ID to vote places a hardship on some citizens.

This argument is defeated by reality: The Washington Examiner listed 24 routine things requiring photo IDs, such as to: buy alcohol and cigarettes, apply for Medicaid/Social Security, purchase a gun, get married, apply for a job or unemployment, drive/buy/rent a car, adopt a pet, visit a casino, hold a rally or protest, buy an "M" rated video game, buy a cell phone, or apply for food stamps and welfare.

But, if failing to require provisions to make the system more secure makes voting easier, that ought to set off warnings, because while it may be easier for legal voters to vote, it also makes it easier for ineligible persons to vote.

One might think that since voting is a critical right, all Americans would want that right protected from infringement by non-legal voters.

Certainly, the U.S. Supreme Court subscribes to this idea, The Court commented on the need for secure elections in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 at 329 (1941): “Free and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government. Hence any attempt to defile the sanctity of the ballot cannot be viewed with equanimity,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas.

Rhetorical question: Why would any good and honest American oppose efforts to assure that only legal voters are registered to vote and able to cast a ballot in any and every election?

The obvious answer is that an unsecure election process enables cheating for nefarious political reasons.

Higher education under attack from within, by disaffected students

College campuses – once the bastion of diverse opinion, a garden where ideas thrived, where contrary viewpoints were freely expressed – are fast becoming cesspools of narrow-mindedness that stifle free speech, where political correctness rules over common sense, where free thinking is discouraged, and they are occupied more and more by students offended because someone expressed a different opinion, didn’t pay proper deference, or wore the “wrong” costume on Halloween.

Student protests are returning to 1960s/70s levels, and arise because some students think that there aren’t enough minority professors on campus while others decry a lack of “social justice,” and some have called for hunger strikes over what they perceive as a lack of support for students of color.

If students don’t like a professor’s point of view, or they detect “microaggressions” in the classroom, they feel led to demand the professor resign or be fired. You are a Hispanic kid and someone wears a sombrero and a poncho on Halloween, it’s time for a protest.

And did you know that the First Amendment makes some college kids feel unsafe? Would you ever have imagined that such an idea could take hold on an American college campus?

The vice president of the Missouri Students Association, Brenda Smith-Lezama, told MSNBC last week, "I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here." Poor little thing must be terrified listening to rap or watching television or movie drama. And she suffers under the delusion that her comfort is more important than someone else’s.

While these kids have yet to accomplish much, they believe the world must work to calm their fears, perceptions that may be adequate to drive protests and hunger strikes, but their perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality. The concerns expressed by these students are precisely the types of things the liberal attitudes that prevail on campuses today work to eliminate.

Many of the complaints have a racial element, but they really center on hypersensitive feelings about things that have always been normal aspects of life. Suddenly, these normal campus happenings that students – white students, black students, Asian and Hispanic students, female students – have dealt with successfully for decades and with little or no difficulty, are now scary and threatening.

College once was a place where kids learned to think. Today, many of them seem to know only how to feel; emotion rules rationality. Listening to different ideas used to be enlightening, mind-expanding. Now, it makes the kiddies cry for their mommies.

Missing from these children-in-adult-bodies is even the suspicion that not everything revolves around them, that they are not the be-all and end-all of the known universe.

And they also want someone to pay their college loans off for them, because … well, just because.

The process of gaining entry to an institution of higher learning is long established and has worked well for decades. Colleges and universities are places where the qualified my go to advance their education, and most of the onus is on the student to fund their education through parental help, scholarship assistance, student loans, the GI Bill, or good old hard work. And then it is the student’s responsibility to perform as expected academically to complete their degree requirements, and then go out and get a job and become a productive member of society.

That is called “life,” and life is not a smooth ride, most times. But tens of millions of Americans have successfully navigated the sometimes-troubled waters successfully without being coddled and nursed along the way. Conquering challenges and facing adversity head-on build character.

The whining behavior demonstrated on several campuses recently shows a fundamental failure of thousands of young people to have learned the basic rules of life, and have their minds grow up at the same rate as their bodies.

However, bowing to the whims of students is letting the inmates run the asylum. College is a place for learning, or once was. Professors led the learning process, administrators ran the school, and the students worked hard and did what they had to do to master the material at a satisfactory level. If students weren’t happy in a particular environment, or couldn’t hack it, they were free to leave. Or they could simply adapt. If that dynamic isn’t restored very soon, we may as well shut down colleges, because they will no longer provide a benefit.

As bad as this is for higher education, it is much worse for America. A generation or two with millions of young people among them who can’t cope with the simplistic problems of going to college surely won’t be able to be good citizens, to hold down jobs in a productive economy, or staff a strong, able military capable of defending the country, or even make sensible decisions about for whom they will vote. They can hardly be expected to weigh complex arguments rationally, when anything that doesn’t agree with their narrow ideas makes them hide under their beds.

This is what liberalism hath wrought, and it will most likely get worse.

Ideas on citizenship and abortion reveal the left’s extremes

Hillary Clinton devalues citizenship

Apparently, nearly anyone who wants to be a full-fledged citizen of the United States ought to be able to gain citizenship, regardless of who they are or how they got into the country, with a few notable exceptions, according to Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

She recently said, “We can’t wait any longer. We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship” for those who crossed our border illegally or deliberately over-stayed their visas.

Demonstrating how one’s strong opinions can change due to political considerations, Mrs. Clinton reversed her previous position, likely to appeal to Hispanic voters. Last June, she said that children who traveled from South America to the U.S. through Mexico should be sent back where they came from.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked her, “So should they be sent back?” 

“Well, first of all, we have to provide the best emergency care we can provide,” Mrs. Clinton said, but “they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.” She also said, “We need to do more to provide border security in southern Mexico.” And perhaps on our southern border, too?

“We have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. “So we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws...” By that reasoning, adults who sneak in or stay beyond the limits of their visa ought to be sent back, as well.

But that was last year. Now her thinking is if they sneak in, oh, well. If they sneak their kids in, well, we can’t keep families separated, you know? Therefore, award citizenship to them.

And no Clinton campaign would be complete without a degree of distortion and exaggeration. “This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she said. “Make no mistakes — today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status…”

What Republican candidates generally support is granting legal status, but then legal immigrants can follow a path to citizenship, like the system that millions utilized to become citizens in the past.

American citizenship once was something of extremely high value. People came here through the approved process and they adopted American principles and values and made the country better.

Now more people than ever want to come here, but for the wrong reasons. Our foolish policies about immigration and pandering to illegals have turned citizenship into a path to welfare. Today there are more than 11 million illegal aliens in the country, and more coming every day.
 
The March for Life Rally in Ottawa

Organizers of the March for Life rally in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada said the rally drew 25,000 people and was the largest in the event’s 18-year history. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, however, pegged attendance at a much lower 8,000, according to the Ottawa Citizen.

However large or small the pro-life contingent was, it dwarfed the faction of pro-abortionist demonstrators on hand for the event, which was estimated to be between 50 and 100. One thing must be said for the abortion lobby, however: What they lacked in numbers they more than made up for in support of their radical position.

A TV interviewer named Marissa Semkiw talked with an abortion supporter named Alex, who made some startling claims about what he thinks ought to be the universally accepted position on unwanted pregnancy. Carrying a sign that read, “Guess What, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own F***ing Business,” Alex proceeded to defend his statement. And he took it to a level that no moral person should be able to support.

Advancing the idea that the only person involved in the decision of whether and when to end pregnancy is the pregnant woman. When asked by Ms. Semkiw if a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy one month before the child was born, Alex said that the woman alone should make that choice. Asked if a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy one week before child was born, he gave the same answer. And Alex gave the same answer when asked if the woman ought to have the right to end her pregnancy one day before the child would be born.

And finally, asked if after the child was born a woman ought to have the right to have the baby’s life ended, Alex said, “I’m not advocating for murder of any kind — again, it’s not my choice.” But apparently it is the woman’s choice.

Abortion at any time is radical enough a position. Is it now the position of abortion advocates that a child’s life can be ended even after birth?

Two points: First, if when we die the heart stops beating, what do we call it when the heart starts beating? Life? And second, have you noticed that everyone who advocates for unfettered abortion has already been born?

Potpourri: Environmentalism, Obamacare and high school seniors

United Nations environmental figure reveals new goal

Its enemies dislike capitalism in great part because it is based, generally, upon people doing what they want when they want to, and the United States, even with this current infection of liberalism/progressivism, stands as a grand tribute to the blessings of capitalism. For some 150 years the United States’ capitalist economy has achieved what other nations and economic models dreamed of and promised, but never came close to.

Monarchs, dictators and other leaders dislike capitalist liberties, preferring to limit the freedom of their subjects. They are much easier to control that way. But that control produces harmful limitations.

Environmentalism is a great enemy of capitalism, not because of its ultimate goal so much as its irrational methodology, which has done so much damage to our nation.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made an interesting admission, at a news conference last week in Brussels. She said that the goal of her convention is not to save the world from ecological calamity. That goal is instead to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said, as reported by Investors Business Daily.

Bloomberg News, reporting on comments made by Ms. Figueres in an interview, wrote that China, in contrast to the U.S., is able to implement policies “because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles” other countries have. Or in other words, “Damn those freedom-loving capitalists!”

Environmentalists hope that a new international treaty will be approved at the climate change conference in Paris later this year. Environmental goals will be much easier to achieve if all nations sign on to the U.N. plan and agree to beat their citizen-subjects into submission, no matter how much unnecessary pain and suffering that entails.

It should be clear why the United Nations wants to kill capitalism, since that is the source of America’s ability to resist that power-hungry organization’s efforts to become a world government.

The U.S. needs to abandon the United Nations.

Obamacare co-ops going broke

Writing for The Daily Signal online, Melissa Quinn reported that after receiving $2.5 billion from the federal government, most of the 23 nonprofit insurance companies created under the Affordable Care Act are going broke. If they have to shut their doors, taxpayers will be responsible for an average of roughly $108 million for each of them.

The Daily Signal reported that leading insurance rating firm A.M. Best found that all but one of the co-ops experienced operating losses through September 2014. “A.M. Best is concerned about the financial viability of several of these plans,” the report states. The exception is Maine Community Health Options, which received $132.3 million from the government.

State requires students to pass citizenship test to graduate

Here’s an idea that deserves to be copied by the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a law into effect last week that requires high school students to pass the same test immigrants must pass to become citizens in order to graduate, the first such law.

“Why is such a requirement thought to be necessary?” you may ask. Is there a rationale for why existing Americans should know less about their country than immigrants wanting to become Americans?

Consider that a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2011 found that “just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on “American Idol.” Only 13 percent knew the U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787. And just 38 percent were able to name all three branches of government.”

To pass, students would have to correctly answer just 60 of 100 questions. Here are some examples:

·      How many amendments does the U.S. Constitution have?

·      If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

                  To provide schooling and education

                  To issue driver's licenses

                  To make treaties

                  To build roads

·      Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

·      Who was president during World War I?

The sponsoring organization, Civics Education Initiative, hopes all 50 states will be mandating the test by the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 2017.

Now the government wants to control the Internet

The Internet is one of the most successful modern creations, but whenever something is successful, the control freaks in Washington get all excited.

Under a scheme referred to as “Net Neutrality,” the Internet will be declared a “public utility” and the FCC then gets to decide what Internet service providers can charge and how they operate. Less freedom; higher costs: What’s to like about this? Let your Congressional Representative and Senators know you oppose Net Neutrality before the vote scheduled for February 26.

Interesting polls, other than the North Pole, that are in the news

As the year-end draws nearer, polling organizations provide a look into the likes and dislikes of Americans.

**The Gallup organization’s daily tracking poll of December 16-18 shows that only 23 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country. Not surprisingly, a breakdown shows that 38 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents said they were satisfied with the way things were going in the U.S. throughout 2014, compared with just 10 percent of Republicans.

**The U-3 unemployment rate stands at 5.9 percent and the underemployed rate at 14.9 percent, based on Gallup’s thirty-day rolling average, and President Obama’s approval rating stands at 43 percent approval to 52 percent disapproval, having moved from a virtual tie at 46 percent in August of last year.

**Gallup finds Congress just a hair higher than its all-time record low approval rating of 14 percent, at 15 percent. Just 13 years ago Congress was rated at a record 56 percent, but its rating has not been higher than 20 percent in the last five years, or in six of the last seven years.

**A Rassmussen poll found that 86 percent of U.S. adults are proud to be Americans, and 92 percent believe that U.S. citizenship is very important. However, only 40 percent of voters like President Obama’s unilateral amnesty for up to five million illegal aliens to remain in the country. Roughly half think the U.S. will suffer because of the amnesty and that it will increase illegal immigration.

**The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index tracks daily how Americans evaluate their lives on the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale. The Index shows 55 percent are thriving, 42 percent struggling, 4 percent suffering, and 12 percent are under stress.

**A USA Today poll in November asked whether respondents favor approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project. By 60 percent to 25 percent, respondents favor approving the project, with 14 percent unsure.

**On its Website, Gallup notes “U.S. federal government workers are less engaged than the rest of the U.S. workforce. On average, 27 percent of federal government employees are engaged in their jobs in 2014, compared with 31 percent of all other workers in the U.S. With more than 2 million federal employees, this lack of engagement is costing the federal government an estimated $18 billion in lost productivity annually, or approximately $9,000 per employee.”

Gallup says that engaged employees feel connected to their organization and work to move it forward, while those who are not engaged may meet the expectations of their job, but don’t do anything extra for it, and those who are actively disengaged actually undermine their engaged co-workers. “Those federal government employees who are actively disengaged, combined with those employees who are not engaged, translates into 11 percent lost productivity across the government, according to a Gallup analysis. This suggests that nearly $9,000 of the average $78,467 federal employee salary is not producing benefits for the agency or the general public.”

**A Rassmussen Reports poll found that respondents believe America’s Founders would view the nation today as a failure by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent, with 18 percent being unsure. The Founders, a group that includes Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison, would not approve of what is going on in America today, according to this poll, and it is comforting to note that contemporary Americans agree with the Founders. But, will this dissatisfaction actually lead to a return to the founding principles of limited government and a high level of personal liberty?

**Fully 78 percent of participants like the health care they received before the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare was passed, but they believe that the health care they have been getting in recent years will get worse under Obamacare.

**Gallup found that among 11 professions nurses have the highest honesty and ethical standards, with 80 percent ranking them high or very high. Doctors, pharmacists, police officers and clergy round out the top five, while Members of Congress rank last at 7 percent.

**A Rassmussen poll in April reflected that 54 percent of participants consider the federal government a threat to individual liberty, while just 22 percent see government as a protector of individual rights, a number that stood at 30 percent five months earlier. Thirty-seven percent actually fear the federal government, while 47 percent do not, and 17 percent are uncertain.

**Gallup asked public school teachers if they have experienced each of seven possible emotional reactions to the Common Core State Standards (Worried, Frustrated, Resigned to it, Hopeful, Confident, Angry, or Enthusiastic), and 65 percent said Worried, 62 percent said Frustrated, and 57 percent said Resigned to it, while only 20 percent said Enthusiastic, 24 percent said Angry, and 27 percent said Confident. Forty-nine percent said they were Hopeful.

Where parents of public school students are concerned, 35 percent view Common Core negatively, 33 percent view it positively, and 32 percent aren’t familiar with it or don’t have an opinion. Gallup found a shift toward negative feelings since April when 35 percent were positive and 28 percent were negative.

Best wishes to all for a Happy Chanukah and a Merry Christmas!

When you are self-absorbed, you can’t see the forest for the trees

Life provides lessons for us in unusual ways. Occasionally, it is someone totally missing something obvious that provides the lesson. Here is a very good example of that.

A photograph posted on Facebook shows a woman holding up a sign. The sign says: “I have a Master of Arts degree in Women’s Studies. However, the only job I can find is as a bartender at a local restaurant. I owe over 60k in student loans. I am forced to rely on food stamps and WIC to support my son. Is this the ‘American Dream’ I worked so hard for? I am the 99 percent occupywallstreet.org.”

The lesson is there for all to see, but the woman – let’s call her “Ms. OWS,” – not only didn’t learn from her experience, she didn’t even suspect there was a lesson there. That experience was only an opportunity to complain that America hasn’t provided a better life for her.
The lesson that unless you are independently wealthy or have someone to support you while you go to school, you don’t borrow 60 grand to pursue a degree in a subject area that will not equip you to support yourself and your child and pay for the education that you have just received totally escaped her notice.

Like the make-believe class college kids used to joke about, “Underwater Basket Weaving,” Women’s Studies, is not a viable career field. To prepare for supporting yourself you study accounting, engineering, computer technology, law, medicine, chemistry, elementary or secondary education, or one of the other majors where jobs are available. But Ms. OWS, probably without a gun to her head, instead chose Women’s Studies.

The Occupy Wall Street movement with which Ms. OWS so closely identifies, includes some pie-in-the-sky idealism, like:
    •    The right to economic justice, including a living wage for all, regardless of the job, or the level of skills or experience one has
    •    Debt forgiveness for all debts
    •    Free college education
    •    Open borders

These goals are not merely unrealistic; they are dangerous. None would be good either for the country or for its inhabitants. Someone has to pay for the higher wages, the free college education, and the debt forgiveness, and that won’t be the people who think about life like Ms. OWS does; it will be the people who approach adulthood responsibly, and prepare to take care of themselves.

Movements like Occupy Wall Street seem to attract those disaffected souls who, for whatever reason, have not learned what life is about, expect to be provided for, and become indignant when life does not provide to them the rewards to which they believe they are entitled, due to nothing more significant that they were not aborted and draw breath.

Like Ms. OWS, they float through life indulging in the things they like, neglecting to seek out things that will prepare them for life as a responsible citizen, and then contributing to society and the wellbeing of our country.

Perhaps it’s not entirely their fault. We have a segment of our society that imagines it is possible to achieve Utopia, and a large group of pandering vote-seekers all too willing to promise it to them, and who provide a few goodies at taxpayer expense in return for votes and a cushy career in government.

And then there’s government, itself, at all levels. Even in cases where young people show some initiative, and take steps to help themselves, they are often thwarted by bureaucratic absurdity, as in these examples reported by The Daily Signal:

** Chloe Stirling started a business in her kitchen called “Hey, Cupcake!” In addition to selling her goods to friends and neighbors, she donated some to charitable events, including a fundraiser for a student with cancer, and delivered cupcakes to residents in a senior home. Not good enough! Illinois health officials declared that she lacked the necessary permit to operate and told her to close up shop.

** A zoning official in Holland, Mich. shut down a 13-year-old’s hotdog stand because he was supposedly competing with nearby restaurants.  Nathan Duszynski had planned to sell hotdogs to raise money for his disabled parents. The boy’s mom has epilepsy and his dad has multiple sclerosis. Within minutes of opening his stand, a zoning official ordered him to cease operating because he lacked a license.

Bah! Humbug!

Is this a great country, or what? On the one hand there’s a substantial number of people who think they are entitled to whatever they think they are entitled to, and lack the motivation to get off their duffs and earn their rewards, and on the other hand people in government stupidly apply rules to punish young people who take the initiative to earn something through work.

But then there was a pleasant breeze of tolerance and common sense wafting its way north from Dunedin, Fla. where 12-year-old T.J. Guerrero operates a lemonade stand to raise money for summer activities with his friends and family. After one neighbor complained to the city, Mayor Dave Eggers visited the stand, enjoyed some lemonade, and praised the youngster’s initiative.

Perhaps all is not lost. But we must be vigilant.

US negligence in securing the southern border puts us all in danger

Do you have locks on the doors to your home and/or business, and do you lock them? Do you lock your car when you park it at work, at the mall, and other places? Do you insist that people who come to your home knock on the door or ring the bell and be invited in before entering? Would you be offended or angered if people set up housekeeping in your basement or outbuilding without your permission? Would you order them to leave and call the police to have them removed if they refused?

If so, you are among the scores of millions of sensible Americans who understand why we must strengthen border security and revamp our dysfunctional immigration system. And that must be done before taking any sort of action to give illegal immigrants legal status of any description.

The administration wants us to believe that the border is really not so bad: "I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. Please forgive some cynicism, but that could be achieved by ordering the Border Patrol to apprehend fewer illegals.

But as it turns out, she's just wrong. Customs and Border Protection released data showing that arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year when the number was 170,223. It is 192,298 this year. 

This begs the question of where Ms. Napolitano -- who "worked the border" as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, the state's Attorney General, and its Governor -- gets her information. But perhaps it’s not the source of information that is Madam Secretary's problem; instead it is her perverse perspective. In 2009 she said on CNN's "State of the Union" that entering the country illegally is not a crime. No, really. That's what she said. That statement should have sunk her as Homeland Security secretary.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state’s border with Mexico is still not secure and called for additional resources to improve border security. Following what she termed an "extensive" aerial tour, she said the border with Mexico continues to be “a gateway” for drug smuggling and unlawful crossings. She called for more fences, drones, Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops.

“The ranchers will tell you, if you sit down and talk to them, that they’re fearful, that the Border Patrol is too far north,” Gov. Brewer said. “They need to get closer to the border because they let [illegal immigrants] go so far [into the state], and then they just sort of blend in." "They’re destroying their land and destroying their cattle, they’re destroying their water. They’re frustrated.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn agrees: "People are coming from around the world through what they know is a porous border to come to the United States without us knowing who they are, what their motives are," he said. "This is a national security problem."

The Boston Marathon bombing reminded us that the threat of terrorism is very real. And the negligence of the federal government in handling border security provides no assurance that along with people looking for work and a better life, and the drug cartels and thugs looking for markets and victims, there are not also terrorists slithering across the border while the government is busy not paying attention.

About the only people who do not acknowledge the disgraceful state of border security are those in Washington like Secretary Napolitano whose responsibility it is to secure it. A March poll of 1,014 adults by ABC News and The Washington Post reflects that eight-in-ten Americans support stronger border security.

But of course the "everybody who disagrees with me is stupid" crowd demurs. They not only think lax border security is a good thing, but also believe that those who think we should actually control who comes into the US are racists. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 22 percent of liberal participants hold that view.

These folks believe that it is racist to control who gets into the US, and that the country would be better off if we just opened the borders and let anyone in who wants to come in. They may also believe that if you disagree with Barack Obama about anything, you are also a racist. It has been found that these beliefs were arrived at using a very high level of third grade playground logic.

Perhaps since the feds won't block illegal immigrants from crossing the border we should round them up and send them to live with those 22 percent who hate secure borders and love lawbreakers.

The feds get a big fat F in "paying attention to important things." They've allowed millions to expend minimal effort to illegally enter our country; they designed and carried out the deadly "gun walking" fiasco known as Fast and Furious; they ignored numerous warnings about rising danger in Benghazi that ultimately killed four brave Americans; and did not pick up on clear indications of radicalization of the accused Boston Marathon bombers. And next year Obamacare takes effect.