DACA and DREAMERS Affecting Immigration

DACA and DREAMERS Affecting Immigration 
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Relocating from one country to another is not a right. Any country has inherent power to establish an immigration policy that squares with the interest and culture of its citizens. Without such power, no country can continue to exist.

Rally/Protest in response to the rescission of Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Image from Wikimedia Commons by Rhododendrites, CC BY-SA 4.0.

In the United States as far back as 1924, a duly enacted Immigration Act established a “national origins quota” system to deal with immigration into our country. If ten percent of the existing population were Italian, said the Act, then ten percent of the total number of immigrants seeking entry could be from Italy. So, too, would the number of Irish, German, Polish, etc. conform to the percentage of the population already legally resident in America.

This same system of determining who might be eligible for legal entry in the United States then became the basis of the Immigration Act of 1952 written by Senator McCarran (D-Nev.) and Representative Walter (D-Penna.). Passed overwhelmingly by Congress, the Act was immediately vetoed by President Truman. It went back to Congress where the veto was speedily overridden with great support from Democrats. It was replaced in 1966 by an immigration law crafted by Senator Ted Kenned that completely reversed the existing McCarran-Walter policy. Kennedy and other liberal Democrats had discovered that they could swell the rolls of future Democrat voters via immigration.

No longer would maintaining the culture of the nation be a prime consideration. Newer legal immigration policy, not tied to the existing national origins of the American people, have opened the gates to people who have little or no knowledge of America’s governmental system. Most don’t even want to know about it. Overwhelmingly, they ignorantly prefer the socialism championed by the Democratic Party – and also by renegade Republicans who should be known as neoconservatives.

After 1966 as a result of the Kennedy immigration measure, amnesty for illegal immigrants became policy. Several million were soon welcomed via amnesty when President Reagan signed a Democrat-favoring measure in the 1980s. Mr. Reagan insisted that his granting residency to several million who came here illegally wouldn’t be duplicated. But it has been more than duplicated by other Democrat/neoconservative legislation. More millions of illegals have been amnestied after the Reagan cave-in.

In 2012, even while acknowledging that he had no power to do so, President Obama created a program providing temporary amnesty for huge numbers of young people who had entered America illegally. Called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama action granted legal status to 800,000 young people. They were converted from illegal to legal for a period lasting two years (and were able to seek an extension after those two years). They also received assurance that they wouldn’t be hunted down for possible deportation, and they were declared eligible for a work permit. In addition, they were permitted to bring family members into our country in what has been termed “chain migration.”

In many ways, DACA replaces the so-called DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors). First introduced in the Senate in 2001, and reintroduced several times in subsequent years, it has never been approved by Congress. DACA has never won congressional approval either. But DACA gained legitimacy via Barack Obama’s totally unconstitutional executive order in June 2012. President Trump has countered with his own executive order rescinding DACA but his order keeps all of DACA in place for six months.

Liberals of both political parties, expecting that most DACA beneficiaries and DREAMERS will vote Democratic, are noisily cheering for keeping DACA alive and for passage of the DREAM Act. Columnist Michelle Malkin, a native-born American whose parents are legal immigrants from the Philippines, disagrees emphatically with demands from the many leftists cheering for congressional approval of what she terms “a self-perpetuating political marketing machine.”

Liberal clergymen and politicians are now crusading for DACA  and the Dream Act to become official law. They insist doing so is the ”compassionate” route to follow. They forget that laws were broken by illegal entrants. If nothing is done to uphold law, more laws will be broken.

“There is no such thing as a deserving DREAMER,” says Malkin. She adds, “They broke our nation’s law to get here and should never be rewarded with a sure path to citizenship.” If that sensible attitude doesn’t prevail, we can expect more, not fewer, illegals entering America.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Guatemala Takes a Stand that Others Should Follow

Guatemala Takes a Stand that Others Should Follow
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Early last December, the Supreme Court of Guatemala, in a very important and welcome decision, dealt a deserved rebuke to domestic and worldwide pro-abortion forces and to the United Nations.

Image from flickr by Elvert Barnes, CC BY 2.0.

Having discovered that a pro-abortion manual was being circulated through the country, opponents of abortion went to court to have it banned. The small Central American nation’s laws bar abortion from the moment of conception. Its pro-life forces pointed to the manual’s promotion of abortion as a “right,” and its employment of such phrases as the “right to safe abortion” and “pregnancy termination” as clear evidence of what the manual countenanced.

In its ruling, the high court refused to be swayed by arguments based on the widespread and growing liberalization of abortion laws in other nations. Guatemala’s judges insisted that pointing to abortion being practiced elsewhere shouldn’t matter when “annihilating the life of the innocent” is the issue. Calling the pro-abortion attitude a “perversion,” the jurists suggested that real progress could be made by helping women in pregnancies, not assisting them to abort infants in the womb.

Attorney Astrid Rios of the Associacion la Familia Importa that instituted the challenge before the Court jubilantly stated that the ruling “surpassed all our expectations in defending the protection of life from conception.”

As reported by the American Center for Family and Human Rights, a leading pro-life group, the judges further contended that abortion “fundamentally transforms society, in the sense of making it progressively insensitive to human suffering and the piecemeal destruction of human life.” Also, they claimed that countenancing abortion “leads to the exclusion of those most needy of protection, such as the unborn, the sick, and the elderly.” The judges then pointed to “assisted suicide and euthanasia, even for children” as a logical next step in countries where abortion has been legalized.

In its decision, the Court pointed to Article 3 of Guatemala’s Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights that Guatemala has signed. The Inter-American Convention clearly supports protection of life from the moment of conception.

Unsurprisingly, what the Manual found unlawful by the Court was brought into existence with help from the United Nations Population Fund. Sandra Moran, a proud lesbian advocate of abortion and a member of the Guatemala congress, has instituted a challenge to the high court’s ruling. MTM Guatemala, a woman’s group favoring abortion that is a foe of the Court’s ruling receives financial assistance from the Open Society Foundation led by America-based George Soros and the pro-abortion giant Planned Parenthood. No surprises there!

The Court’s reliance on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its decision likely occurred without realization that every right mentioned in the UN document can easily be cancelled via the provisions contained in its Article 29. This portion of the UN Declaration states: “In the exercise of rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law….” That means that the UN retains power to cancel any right, even those listed in its Declaration. According to the UN, rights are granted by law (see the Declaration’s Article 3). Further, the Declaration’s Article 8 tells us that God is not the granter of rights government is. A right granted by the UN or any law can easily be voided.

What the Guatemala court has done, however, is strike a blow for infants in the womb while exposing George Soros, his Open Society Foundation, and the United Nations as the enemies of innocent unborn infants. For that all pro-life partisans should be very grateful.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Tyrants Seek a Dumbed-down Population

Tyrants Seek a Dumbed-down Population
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

It should come as no surprise that an aspiring tyrant or dictator would want poorly educated and docile subjects. His goal would be the creation of a “dumbed-down populace.” That some aspiring rulers of fellow man have instituted programs to assure minimal or non-existent challenges to their rule is a certainty.

“Crimes of the Educators” by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman showcases how Utopians are using government schools to destroy America’s children. Available on ShopJBS.org.

Consider America’s John Dewey and his campaign to convert the population of his native country into an ill-educated horde unable to combat his scheme to steer the nation into socialism. He actually stated this very goal in a little-known 1898 essay entitled “The Primary Education Fetich.” As the late Samuel L. Blumenfeld wrote in Crimes of the Educators he co-authored with Alex Newman, Dewey’s plan “was to disparage high literacy and teach children to read by a method that would prevent them from achieving the kind of high personal literacy needed to develop their independent intelligence.”

The two authors of Crimes of the Educators cite the claim of the father of Progressive Education that “learning to read in early school-life … seems to me a perversion. It is simply superstition: it is the remnant of an outgrown period of history.” Gathering other socialists anxious to promote their attack on America’s well educated and independent-thinking people, they slowly and carefully set out to impose their new method of teaching the young. Of primary importance was their determination to prevent children from becoming independent thinkers. They accomplished their goal by inserting a new method of learning to read, away from phonics and into a technique marked by whole-word memorization and an inability to understand meanings and concepts that a properly educated student would figure out for himself.

The ultimate goal set by Dewey and his confreres was a system where government controls everything, people most certainly included. While Dewey and his confreres never shied away from admitting where they wanted to take the nation, they persuaded many to believe that their aims would benefit the general population. Crimes of the Educators correctly pointed out that the egalitarianism these socialists sought “is what Lenin gave to the Russians and Castro gave to the Cubans.” Stripped of all its grandiose promises, Dewey’s program assured that there would be “equal poverty for all.”

Where Dewey and his associates advocated a slow “dumbing down” of the populace, other well-known tyrants sought to speed up the process. Adolph Hitler’s faithful secretary, Martin Bormann, spelled out the Nazi plans for the people Hitler’s army had conquered. Of those in Poland, he wrote, “They are especially born for low labor.… It is necessary to keep the standard of life low in Poland and it must not be permitted to rise.” Obviously, if German youth were properly taught reading at an early age, the tyranny of the Third Reich would be more difficult to maintain. Turning his attention to the clergy, Bormann wrote that the Polish priests “will preach what we want them to preach. If any priest acts differently, we shall make short work of him. The task of the priest is to keep the Poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted.”

Regarding the people of the Slavic nations, Bormann expressed Hitler’s utter contempt for justice when he cited the conquering dictator’s thoughts with  “Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100 … Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a means of diversion….”

Achieving control of the many by the few can be arrived at slowly through Dewey-style progressive education. It can be achieved speedily with tanks and guns. Always, the goal is creation of a dumbed-down population. In America, the government-run schools have been forced to introduce failing programs such as Outcome Based Education, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and Common Core Standards. The results continue to produce functional illiterates. Blumenfeld and Newman see all this as deliberate criminal activity. Who can disagree?

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Voting in Virginia: Your Vote Counts

Voting in Virginia: Your Vote Counts
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

When assessing the voting preferences of the people in various states, a knowledgeable political watchdog will find that Virginia is always up for grabs. During its history of reliably choosing Democrats when Virginia’s Southerners were wary of the growing power of the federal government, the Virginians habitually chose Harry Byrd Sr. and then Harry Bryd Jr. for an important seat in the U.S. Senate. The trend in Virginia during the later decades of the 20th Century was full of electing conservatives for federal and state posts.

Image from pixabay by Maialisa, CC0 Creative Commons.

Things began to change over more recent decades when Virginia’s northern counties became home for large numbers of federal employees. These people have customarily voted mainly to keep their jobs, and they don’t vote as Virginians formerly did. Many of the good-paying jobs they fill are with completely unconstitutional departments and agencies (Education, Energy, Transportation, Health, Foreign Aid, etc.). The bureaucrats who fill them aren’t conservatives; they are reliably left leaning liberals and their choices on election days can be expected to be liberal Democrats. These government employees have enormous influence in Virginia’s statewide races such as those for President, Governor, and U.S. Senator.

Nevertheless, distaste for even larger government has kept the state’s legislature from falling into the hands of liberals. But the growing presence of federal employees has led to a shrinking of the conservative-leaning GOP’s once solid 32-seat advantage in the 100-seat House of Delegates. Also, no one can deny the negative effect for GOP candidates of President Donald Trump.

In Virginia’s 2017 election, GOP domination advantage disappeared and the hotly contested race for the seat in the House of Delegates sought by Republican David Yancey and Democrat Shelly Simonds became the cliffhanger of cliffhangers. What was at stake was control of the lower House of Virginia’s government. If the Democrat prevailed, there would be a 50-50 split in the House, and the newly elected liberal Democrat governor would get to choose House leaders and set the House’s agenda.

The result on election day initially saw Democrat Simonds prevail by a single vote. A recount found another vote for Republican incumbent Yancey – which meant a tie and the winner could not be named. Each candidate had won exactly 11,607 votes. So Virginia did what its law called for. That law stipulated the creation of a non-vote drawing where the names of the two candidates are written on separate pieces of paper, put into a bowl, and the election winner is chosen when an official of the Virginia State Board of Elections selects one slip of paper. On January 4th, David Yancey’s name was on the slip pulled from the bowl. The Republicans had won and their margin in the House would be 51 to 49.

So, unless some other challenge is made, incumbent David Yancey will return as the elected representative of the district where a slip of paper, not a plurality of even one vote, made him the winner. A few more federal employees in the district would have resulted in a Democrat victory, not only for the single seat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, but for expanding Medicaid, approving a call for a federal Constitutional Convention, and a lot more.

Whoever says his vote doesn’t count should be made aware of what recently happened in Virginia.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


National Debt a Serious Threat

National Debt a Serious Threat
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Only recently, rioting broke out in Venezuela when supermarkets had nothing on the shelves. A few years earlier, the people of Zimbabwe found their supermarkets empty and their hope to obtain basic necessities vanished. In both of these cases, people turned to the American dollar as something of value that could restore a semblance of normality. But, is the U.S. dollar’s reliability unshakable? Could its value shrink to nothingness as did the Venezuela Bolivar and the Zimbabwean Dollar?

Image from pixabay by Rilsonav, CCO Creative Commons.

Money isn’t something to fool with. Where there are reliable pieces of paper that signify honest value, commerce thrives, goods and services are readily available, and next to nobody worries about the future. The key here is the complete meaning of “reliable.” In the United States today, the reliability of our currency continues to shrink. The rise in popularity of “virtual” currency such as Bitcoin provides evidence of trouble ahead.

During the 20th Century, the almighty U.S. dollar descended from being “good as gold,” to being “good as silver,” to being as good as the promises of most politicians. American currency went from history’s most reliable money to currency backed by nothing. The value of the “almighty dollar” continues to shrink. Venezuela and Zimbabwe, here we come.

Never one to miss an opportunity to trash her Republican opponents, former House Speaker Democrat Nancy Pelosi (now downgraded to House Minority Leader itching to get back to being Speaker) told the press recently that the current Republican-controlled Congress is “robbing from the future by increasing the national debt.” While her statement is correct, she completely ignored her own complicity in steering the dollar toward worthlessness.

When she served as House Speaker from January 2007 until January 2011, the national debt rose $5.3 trillion – more than $1.3 trillion per year. After the Democrats lost majority status at the start of 2011, Republicans took over and the national debt rose from $14 trillion to $20 trillion. In other words, the debt continued to rise, not as fast as when Pelosi led the House but still substantially. So, Nancy Pelosi who points only at Republican profligacy, is correct when she claims that GOP management of the nation’s finances is miserable. But she managed to ignore that it was even more miserable when she held the House’s most powerful post.

Any argument between Democrats and Republicans about whose leaders are more guilty of ongoing fiscal suicide is meaningless. The focus should be on the indisputable fact that our politicians are indeed taking the nation to the edge of a fiscal cliff. So the Republican response just enacted is a tax cut. But what the country needs is realistic consideration of the debt. Allowing the people to keep more dollars that are steadily decreasing in value – because of adding to the debt with freshly printed unbacked currency – doesn’t solve the major problem. It may even speed up the arrival of what happened in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. It has happened over and over again throughout the course of history when fiat money (make-believe money that is unbacked) becomes a substitute for honest backed currency that is exchangeable for the valuable commodity on which it is based.

Pelosi is wrong to target Republicans while essentially giving herself and her Democrats a pass. But also wrong are Boehner and Ryan her two successors. For their failure to take the nation away from “good as gold” currency, so are former presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. And let’s not leave out of this list of shameful leaders the current president who seems unwilling to break the pattern of adding to the nation’s indebtedness. As his predecessors did, he is ignoring the escalating debt – the elephant in the nation’s living room – and continuing down the path that will make what happened in Venezuela and Zimbabwe resemble child’s play.

America needs a return to honest money – and that means money backed by a valuable commodity such as gold or silver, or both.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.