Writ of Mandamus To Order The President To Enforce U.S. Law

[BillLee]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Writ of Mandamus
From: John Karls
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 7:03 pm
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for your e-mail of earlier today.

Perhaps I am not the best person to respond to it because, as you can tell from my two suggestions in Answer 20 of today’s Second Short Quiz, I am obviously a member of the “second ‘yes’ group” described in your first two paragraphs = someone who is concerned for the well-being of illegal immigrants, particularly (1) their children who are denied public services such as schooling and medical care and, who knows, may even be forced to work in violation of child-labor laws, and (2) all illegal immigrants who may be forced to accept “slave labor” conditions from really-unscrupulous employers (all employers of illegal aliens are basically-unscrupulous for violating the 1986 federal legislation making it unlawful to hire illegal aliens) for fear that their illegal status may otherwise be discovered by others.

However, I would offer for your consideration a possible answer that you may not have anticipated to the first question in your first paragraph = “Do we have an immigration problem?”

The possible answer that you may not have anticipated???

That the actual problem is employers who refuse to obey the 1986 federal legislation prohibiting the hiring of illegal aliens – COUPLED WITH THE BRIBES (A.K.A., “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS”) WHICH THESE UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS HAVE BESTOWED ON FOUR SUCCESSIVE PRESIDENTS (AND 11 SUCCESSIVE CONGRESSES 1988-2010) TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE 1986 LEGISLATION.

In this regard, I would commend for your consideration Q&A 5 of the First Short Quiz which in total was actually the Short Quiz for our 10 January 2008 meeting 28 months ago when we last considered illegal immigration = Q-5: “Why have Messrs. George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush refused to enforce these criminal penalties [editorial note: the 1986 federal legislation] and why has Congress permitted them to shirk their duty?” A-5: “Please see under ‘Possible Topics – Feb 14’ on [this bulletin board] the topic entitled ‘The Best Gov Money Can Buy – Bribery & Extortion’ describing campaign contributions.”

We in fact did adopt the topic of “The Best Gov Money Can Buy – Bribery & Extortion” for 14 February 2008. Our focuses (foci?) were (1) “The Squandering of America” by Robert Kuttner (long-time columnist for Business Week), and (2) “Homo Politicus” by Dana Milbank (long-time columnist for the Washington Post) who described at great length how politicians extort “campaign contributions” under threat of adverse legislation and described at great length how lobbyists are “kings of the heap” and “campaign contributions” dictate everything that happens in Washington DC.

Your discussion of various walls throughout history seems to suggest that you have been taken in by the rhetoric of our politicians that “sealing the border” (as if, as you correctly recognize, a border can actually be sealed) is an immigration issue, rather than a national-security issue.

It is respectfully suggested for your consideration that Congress considered in 1986 the immigration problem and decided that the solution is to “take away the honey that is attracting the bees” (recognizing this traditional metaphor is incorrect because bees actually create the honey) – by taking away the jobs that attract illegal immigrants by imposing criminal penalties on employers who hire them.

Accordingly, the problem is to get our U.S. Presidents, four of whom in succession now have violated their Oaths of Office, to enforce the law.

Perhaps the real solution is not a six-degrees-of-separation petition to our politicians imploring them to enforce the law.

Instead, I would suggest for your consideration the common-law Writ of Mandamus. It is one of the prerogative writs under English-American common law that is issued by a court to a governmental official to perform mandatory duties correctly.

Perhaps we should be soliciting contributions to finance a citizens’ lawsuit against the President seeking a Writ of Mandamus ordering him to enforce the 1986 federal immigration law.

In theory, there should be no problem obtaining such a Writ of Mandamus against the President, though courts will often refuse to get involved in disputes with Congress or the Executive Branch that they view as too political.

However, we would still win even if we lose in court. The headlines concerning the lawsuit and its intrinsic merit (vs. a possible reluctance of the court to become involved in a political dispute) would probably be enough to embarrass the President into honoring his oath of office or “light a fire” to modify the 1986 law to bring the President into compliance with his Oath of Office.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Suggested Answers to Second Short Quiz - Arizona's New Illegal-Immigration Law
From: Bill Lee
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 10:54 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John -

This one definitely has "pot stirring" potential. In order to
start that off at the crack of the bat, I would mention that possibly
(theoretically) no one is asking the right question. Is the question
really, "Do we have an immigration problem?". In the consideration of
that question we might also need to ask another question. That being,
"If we do have an immigration problem, is there anything we can do about
it?". If nothing we can do will really "solve" a major portion of the
problem then it is only a problem for contemplation in groups like ours.

From the point of view of someone who just doesn't like "immigrants", or
a portion of that group, the answer to the first question is an easy
"yes". From the point of view of someone who's only concern is the well
being of those immigrants the same easy "yes" applies.

However, if the U.S. economy and standard of living is taken into
consideration, the answer to the question would seem to become far less
certain. In that case it would have to be determined to what extent the
U.S. needs immigrant workers. If indeed the economy needs a continuous
flow of cheap labor (especially from the South) then the question becomes
can it be adequately controlled. For the answer to that question it
might be advisable to take a look at the "Berlin Wall", the "Great Wall
of China", and the concept of a wall in Israel. I am sure there are
other examples throughout history that I have not thought to mention.

I have to wonder whether past presidents and their Congressional
counterparts have contemplated the issue and come to the conclusion that
there is really no completely viable solution to the quagmire. And thus
they have ostensibly left it alone. Certainly, many have come up with
minor "tweaks" that have moved the situation closer to a solution in the
minds of one or the other of the "easy yes" groups. I am also certain
that we will continue to make further tweaks, as was recently done in AZ.
However I have a feeling that, unless world events drastically alter
either Mexico or the U.S., the dilemma of "illegal aliens" in our country
is one that has a far less viable solution than most of our other
"momentous problems".

If you want to make certain that there is adequate attendance for this
one I would again suggest that you get the word out to leaders of the
affected community,

Bill

[BillLee]

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Do we have an illegal alien problem?
From: Bill Lee
Date: Mon, May 31, 2010 12:30 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John –

If the creek doesn't rise I should be able to make it on the 9th. I
will see if I can get Betsy to come as well.

I too would like to be a member of the 2nd "easy yes" group. However if
you read closely, you will see that my second "easy yes" group consists
of those who's "ONLY concern is the well being of the immigrants". For
them the easy answer is to throw the borders open to any immigrant who's
intentions are not criminal. That might be the most humane approach for
the immigrants. However if we did that I am afraid it would take a
massive socialistic effort on the part of both the Mexican and U.S.
governments to bring the standard of living back to anywhere near the
level that most U.S. citizens, of moderate means, currently enjoy. Would
that even be possible?

We can become excessively militant about policing the border, catching
illegals, and forcing U.S. companies not to hire them. At the same time
we can become very stringent about requiring proper treatment of people
who do manage to come here legally or otherwise. That would include
their children, which would address your most pressing concerns.

However, that brings into question the ability of the companies who
currently hire "Illegals" (slave owners in your mind) and the U.S.
economy to survive paying everyone a proper wage. It would probably work
if we were somehow able to take the extra wages from the pockets of the
wealthy beneficiaries of the current substandard wages. That might be
possible if we were to abandon the ideas of making them pay for things
like healthcare and/or a halt to global warming. However, if they were
able to merely raise the prices of their goods, in order to cover the
increased wages, that would probably lower the standard of living for
many poorer U.S. citizens dramatically. Food costs would very likely be
among the worst hit.

Thus my question; Do we have an "illegal immigrant" problem? Is it
possible that we are relatively close to the "best we can do" regarding
the situation? Is it also possible that the bulk of the politicians whom
you think ignore the "problem" because they are bought and paid for
actually ignore it because the status quo or minor changes in either
direction are the best alternatives. If that is the case, then possibly
what we have is a lose lose situation rather than a "problem" that we can
somehow solve. Unfortunately the Tea Baggers along with the current
problems in Mexico seem to be forcing people to demand an attempt at a
full blown "solution".

If the standard of living in the U.S. manages to stay significantly
higher (for most) than it is for our neighbors to the south, then there
will always be people trying to "get in". There is no question of that.
The statistics you quote in your quiz e-mail would tend to indicate that
almost no one (other than the immigrants themselves and possibly their
relatives) would support throwing the borders open. As far as I can see
that leaves either a 'war on illegal aliens' similar to our oh so
successful 'war on drugs' or what I would call "minor tweaks". My choice
would be two minor tweaks.

1. Jail terms in major cases where U.S. citizens are caught taking
advantage of "illegals". Fines on employers won't work. They would be
considered "the price of doing business" and be passed on in the form of
price increases.

2. Severe indentured servitude (probably in a publicly owned Walmart) for
anyone engaged in human trafficking or abusing immigrants.

With some small notes of sarcasm from the "pot stirrer" supreme,

Bill

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Do we have an illegal alien problem?
From: John Karls
Date: Tue, June 1, 2010 5:35 am
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Although your comments might best be left for our discussion on June 9th, it might also “advance the cause” to provide some reactions so that you can be giving further thought to these matters in the meantime.

Your second paragraph (“I too would like…”) raises a moral issue touched upon in Q&A 12 of the Second Quiz = whether we believe we have a duty to help the world’s poor (or Mexico’s poor) that is as strong as our duty to help our own poor. You seem to imply that you believe our duty to our own poor is stronger.

In any event, perhaps we can put this issue aside because an “open border” is really a national-security issue and not an illegal-immigration issue. As you can probably tell, I have tried mightily to keep the two issues separate. And enforcing existing federal immigration law which makes it unlawful to hire illegal immigrants should be sufficient to address the illegal-immigration issue – in any event, its enforcement has never been tried so it would be premature to assume that it would not work. (At least the 1986 Congress thought it would.)

Your next three paragraphs raise the question of whether employers who hire illegal aliens can afford to pay the level of wages that would be necessary to attract American workers to fill the same jobs.

This provokes several reactions.

First, and please appreciate that I am not trying to be offensive, this is precisely the argument that was made by plantation owners before the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War.

Second, and please appreciate again that I am not trying to be offensive, this is also precisely the argument that is made every time raising the minimum wage is considered.

Third, I recognize that there will always be imports available from low-wage foreign nations that may even use forced child labor in unimaginable conditions, and that American labor unions always complain about imports from foreign nations that do not have environmental laws, giving them an unfair advantage over American workers.

However, there are at least two answers to the third point. First, we can do a much better job of educating Americans (as we have considered in several of our meetings) so that they are competing for better jobs in the world economy. Second, we should confer with our GATT partners (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) about revising that treaty to provide for tariffs on goods produced with child labor, or produced without proper regard for the environment, etc.

Now I will try to be offensive (or in our polite parlance, attempt to “stir the pot”), by posing a hypothetical question for you.

Let’s assume that it can be proved that if foreign workers (legal or illegal) were excluded from the U.S., that the wages that would have to be paid to attract American workers to perform agricultural jobs would drive into bankruptcy our huge companies which dominate American agriculture. Now let’s assume that an “agri-temp” (as in “office temp”) firm comes along and says that it can supply the labor at a sufficiently low price to enable American agriculture to survive. However, the workers that will be supplied by this firm are slaves in every sense of the word!!! Would you permit the slave owner to bring the slaves into the U.S. to work???

It’s an interesting question. Particularly because many U.S. imports are produced by what amounts to slave labor. And how do we know that some of the imports are not produced by the labor of human beings who are slaves in every sense of the word???

Comments regarding your “minor tweaks”???

Jail terms are already provided in the 1986 federal immigration law – the law, of course, just isn’t enforced.

It is also respectfully suggested that “abusing immigrants” would be much more difficult to define and enforce than simply enforcing already-existing law making it unlawful to hire illegal aliens.

Though, of course, I’m open to considering a “guest worker” program as was proposed by President Bush and supported by Congressional Democrats (though killed by Senate Republicans). Even though I wonder whether “guest workers” is really a euphemism for foreign slaves.

Your friend,

John K. – always working to keep the pot stirred.