Welcome

This blog is a sampler of articles from Bob Hegamin's book of 28 essays about America, Bob's Opinions Unleashed.

Bob left the Earth in January 2017 - Obituary

• The Preface
• The Index / Table of Contents

The sample essays ...

• THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
• THE TOWER OF BABEL
• WHY THE UNITED STATES IS A “CHRISTIAN” NATION
• ILLEGAL ALIENS – THE PEOPLE

** Order the complete book

ILLEGAL ALIENS – THE PEOPLE

Bowing to “Political Correctness”, Congress has decided to regard all those who had illegally entered the United States over decades, and those to follow, as “undocumented immigrants” or simply “immigrants.” Notwithstanding Congress, they are aliens -- illegal aliens. Unfortunately, Webster’s College Dictionary (Random House – 1991) differentiates between them only by the following definitions, which essentially allow an alien to become an “immigrant”.

an immigrant is: 1. a person who migrates to another country, (usually) for permanent residence.

an alien is: 1. a foreign born resident who has not been naturalized and who owes allegiance to another country.

U.S. immigration and naturalization laws and processes are foreign to the average American – proceedings that are neither understood nor how they are implemented. However, two irrefutable facts exist that: (1) hundreds, perhaps thousands, of nationals of other countries are illegally entering the United States from Canada and Mexico daily and, (2) there are already 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in the country today.

To address the first problem, Congress has decided that a wall of some 350 miles be built along the border with Mexico, and that National Guard troops be deployed to support the U.S. Border Patrol.

As to the status of aliens who are already in the country unlawfully, Congress has to yet provide a solution that, of necessity, must be achievable, logical, practical, and legal. The House of Representatives, however, has already passed a bill to criminalize all illegal foreign nationals with a felony; to deport all of them; and to relegate them to the end of the “apply for citizenship” line. Handicapped by time and a criminal record, they would be unlikely candidates for U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government would be morally wrong to offer the goal of citizenship to them without providing any path for attaining it.

In retrospect, as the U.S. economy grew, the nation began to encourage nationals of other countries to enter the country legally in order to take the increasing number of unfilled jobs. A chance at U.S. citizenship was its tantalizing prize. Unfortunately, the eligibility requirements which the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (INS) has been enforcing are basically for those schooled in the technical, scientific, artistic, entertainment or sports fields. Consciously or not, the laws essentially excluded any opportunity whatsoever to those not included on the INS select list, which led to the influx of illegal aliens.

Americans should also recognize that the millions who entered the country illegally are not a homogeneous group. The House bill is basically punitive and does virtually nothing to solve the problem. For example, it is inconceivable to demand the learning of the English language as a requirement for citizenship. Individuals should be motivated to learn English because the test for naturalization will be in that language and, once a naturalized citizen, job advancements will depend on their proficiency in its use.

In addition, to demand a fine of $2000 and all back taxes owed from a group of people, who at best have been making minimum wage, is ludicrous. It should be obvious that even most middle-class U.S. wage earners would have difficulty meeting such financial demands.

However, punishment should be imposed on U.S. citizens and legal aliens who continue to encourage the following, especially after a permanent solution has been passed by Congress:

• Providing a safe haven for illegal aliens. Individuals would be personally and criminally liable for any such activity.
• Condoning sanctuary cities. All federal funding would be denied to such cities, and all of their elected officials who approve of such an action held personally and criminally liable for violating their oath of office.
• Hiring illegal aliens. Employers and employees who have the authority to hire and, who knowingly hire illegal aliens, would be held personally and criminally liable – not the business itself.

To solve the problem, the current illegal population should be categorized so that individuals whose current status is known can be immediately weeded out. As examples, they could include those previously convicted of crimes, and others who have overstayed their visas. The latter could be summarily deported unless they can provide mitigating circumstances which could have their visas extended.

It’s apparent that a pipeline parallel to the one currently in use by the INS be authorized by Congress to allow those illegal aliens already established in the country and in good standing -- and a promise to maintain that standing -- an opportunity to legally apply for citizenship. They would not have, by federal law, the privilege of the vote.

To that end, they would then fall into the following categories, be allowed to work, and made to pay federal income tax on their earnings. But, each person’s Social Security tax would be put into an involuntary savings plan until that person is naturalized, after which the tax would be absorbed into the Social Security system in his or her name.

GREEN CARD

“Prime” green card. This card would allow applicants to file for citizenship after three years:

Parents with U.S. born dependent children at the time of registration.

“Resident” green card. This card would allow applicants to apply for citizenship after five years:

* Parents with non-American born dependent children.
* Families with dependent parents who are over the age of 60.
* Married couples without children who have been in the country for more than five years.
* An individual who has been upgraded from “Special” based on a work performance.

“Special” green card. This card would be issued only to an individual for the following reason:

One who is specifically requested by an employer for a specific job. The card would have to be renewed each year and be good for a maximum of five years. After three years, however, the individual could apply for a “Resident” green card.

“Standard” green card. This card would be issued only to an individual for the following reason:

One who is currently in the country to work would be allowed to remain in the country for another three years, after which time he or she would have to return to the country of origin. While still in the country, the individual would have to renew the card each year, but could be upgraded to “Special” at any time based on an employer’s recommendation.

Should an individual holding a “green card” decide to voluntarily and permanently leave the United States, two thirds of the Social Security tax paid into the system would be returned to the individual at the time of exit.

AMNESTY

Special amnesty. With Congressional approval, this amnesty would apply only to the following:

* Individuals who entered the country seeking political asylum.
* Individuals who might have served and been honorably discharged from the U.S. military.

General amnesty.

Individuals who can document that they have established roots in the United States and, because of debilitating age or physical disability would not be able to start life over again in their country of origin.

EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBER

Extended family members would be issued an Extended Family Card valid for only three years, after which time, he or she would have to return to the country of origin. They would have to renew the card each year. During the third year, they could establish their own credentials for an upgrade to “Special” green card based on the recommendation of an employer.

The idea of expelling all aliens for being in the country illegally is ludicrous. Historically, even small migrations of Americans in the country have caused major economic upheavals in the country. The House bill had completely ignored the fact that by eliminating five to ten percent of the U.S. work force, it would have, not just a major but a catastrophic effect on the economy.

The House Bill is not a solution, because there isn’t any way that it can be made to work. A practical solution to the problem has to be submitted NOW! Is there anyone ready to propose another option to the one presented above?

The People, Copyright 2006, Bob Hegamin

WHY THE UNITED STATES IS A “CHRISTIAN” NATION

The controversy over the separation of church and state would make one think that there are two Americas, one Christian and the other secular. Interpretations of the First Amendment, ad infinitum, by the U.S. Supreme Court continue to fuel the debate although all the Amendment says about religion is that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …….”

If arguments based on previously flawed court decisions continue to be used to justify the separation of church and state, the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to find the Declaration of Independence in violation of the Constitution. Written twelve years before the Constitution, it had acknowledged God as the Creator of the universe, and the source of every human’s inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is absurd to believe that the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution, twelve years later, would have deliberately planted a corrosive loophole in the Constitution that had the potential of destroying the very nation they had just formed.

Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions are in fact destroying the U.S. Constitution. The results, unfortunately, are playing into the hands of ideologues trying to establish another form of government for the United States.

It doesn’t seem possible that after more than 200 years, there should still be a need to determine the effects of commingling religion and government within the framework of the First Amendment. In order to put the debate in perspective, it’s only necessary to visualize the many U.S. military cemeteries in this country and others; to see the religious icons over the graves of those who had died to preserve their country and its constitution; to recognize that all, regardless of religion, had given their lives for their country -- not a national religion.

The framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dictatorial power and influence that religion had over the governments of Europe. They had neither the intention of replicating that model, nor did they intend to abandon the concept of freedom and liberty they had envisioned for the new nation. Their solution was the First Amendment, which specifically mandated an "arms-length" separation between the doctrine of any religion and government.

That constitutional provision prevented the new government from using the doctrinal, or devotional, or ritual observance of any religion from controlling the people. Conversely, the First Amendment also assured Americans that no religion would ever be given the ability to mold the federal government into a theocracy. This brings up the question of what forms the American psyche, if not religion, as most countries do apply societal religious principles -- the universal standard -- to formulate constitutions, policies and ethics. And, historically, it can also be shown that those ideologues who have overthrown an established government and assumed dictatorial powers have either suppressed all religions or completely replaced it with a theocracy.

Wisely, the Founding Fathers had rejected the concept of “government by theocracy.” But, they did use a religion, Christianity, as the foundation for the U.S. Constitution because it was the one they practiced and knew the people could understand.

America had inherited the status of being a “Christian” country as early as the days when England, Spain, France and Portugal were still sending explorers to find new trade routes, and to claim whatever lands they happened to run across. They took possession by simply raising the sponsoring country’s national flag and the flag of Christianity, making the American continent “Christian.” Such was the legacy of the thirteen American colonies.

Further, it can also be rigorously demonstrated that had the principles of any other religion, or no religion been used to formulate a constitution for the new nation, Americans today would not now be enjoying all of the freedoms they have. Consequently, the United States is what it is -- a secular nation guided by Christian principles.

Most countries still cannot match the freedom of religion enjoyed by Americans under the U.S. Constitution, exemplified by the Statue of Liberty. A gift from France and America’s symbol of freedom and liberty, the Statue of Liberty first encouraged the world in 1886 to “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” They were some of the final words from a poem entitled The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus, who was inspired to pen the poem after seeing some arriving Jewish immigrants who had fled a Russian pogrom. (Chronicle of America, DK Publishing, New York, NY 1997 Page 473). Ever since, Lady Liberty has globally offered all religions their most sought after and previously elusive goal – a land and the right to practice their faith without fear of persecution.

This fact cannot be emphasized enough. The United States of America is not a nation governed by a Christian theocracy, but one that is “Christian” simply because its guiding principle is Christian. To argue otherwise can only be viewed as a biased attempt to reconstruct the history of the United States.

Why the U.S. is a “Christian” Nation, Copyright 2006, Bob Hegamin

THE TOWER OF BABEL

Americans today are as frustrated with every level of government in the United States as their forefathers were with their government in England in the 18th century. Included here (from the Chronicle of America, DK Publishing, Inc. New York, New York 1997) are some acts that riled the colonists and eventually led to the revolution and birth of the nation. Compare them with what's taking place today.

• April 5, 1764. Great Britain imposed the Sugar Act -- a tax on sugar and an extension of the previous year's Molasses Act.
• May 24, 1764. Speaking at a town meeting, lawyer James Otis raised the issue of "taxation without representation" and called for a united colonial protest.
• March 22, 1765. Britain's Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on such items as legal documents, newspapers and playing cards.
• May 10, 1773. Parliament passed the Tea Act -- a tax on imported tea.
• September 5, 1774. The first Continental Congress was convened at Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia. On October 14, the delegates passed the Declarations and Resolves, a sweeping condemnation of British interference in American internal affairs. The colonists, however, still considered compromise with the motherland a viable option.
• July 4, 1776. After blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord, which together was the "shot heard 'round the world", the second Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence.

Obviously, the leaders of the impending revolution could not afford the luxury of being distracted by foolish, meaningless concepts and words. Time was of the essence. Whatever differences there were among themselves, they must have set them aside since their lives depended on one another.

They had to bring together the people of many ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In order to convince them that the separation of the colonies from England would be a noble cause, communications and a communications system must have certainly been an essential part of their effort.

Today, however, ethnic and cultural societies are actually being discouraged from assimilating themselves into mainstream America.

As a consequence, many in such communities stay in fear of a government they literally cannot understand. Meanwhile, many elected officials, over time, have adopted the Tower of Babel syndrome by encouraging job languages that, without help, people can't understand or decipher. As examples, two such “languages” that most seriously impact society are used in the policies and procedures of government, and in the babble of the legal profession that has all but destroyed the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

The United States is fast becoming a dysfunctional society, somewhat like the one that attempted to build the Tower of Babel. The history of its people includes a “confusion” in languages that forced the builders to abandon their goal of building a tower that would reach heaven. America’s sources of confusion today are the many foreign languages; electronic devices that have replaced face-to-face communication; and, the use of such technical, social and legal “languages” in manuals, forms, and legislation. Cumulatively, they are forcing the country to stray from its goal of perfecting the constitutional "government of the people" for its people.

The result is that great numbers of Americans cannot follow or deal with day-to-day events, unless such are presented in media-type sound bites. They cannot unravel convoluted arguments, or aren’t familiar enough with the different "languages" to follow instructions or arguments on an issue. Obviously, the lack of a simple, standard, non-politicized communication and information system in the nation is the reason for the problem. Consequently, most Americans today find difficulty in making informed decisions governing their lives.

In other words, Americans cannot allow themselves to be governed by ambiguous laws written in many “tongues” by many unethical legislators; generally misinterpreted by the courts; and, subjectively applied by law enforcement. Obviously, failing in their obligation to be "eternally vigilant", modern America has been slipping into its own version of the Tower of Babel.

If America is to survive, Americans must demand a return to a life under the formal U.S. Constitution. The document was written in simple terms, so that it could be easily understood. This generation of Americans cannot afford to forfeit that legacy.

Tower of Babel, Copyright 2004, Bob Hegamin