The Bill Of Rights: An Update

by Ben Crystal / Personal Liberty Digest

 

Congress of Liberals

Begun and held on board Warren Buffett’s private jet, on a day that is none of your business, peon.

The Conventions of a number of the Democrats, having at the time of their abrogating the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent protection by or use of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public obedience to the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Resolved by the President and his accomplices against the United States of America, in smoky back rooms assembled, two thirds of both Houses ignored, that the following Articles be imposed on the People of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three or four Democrats, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by liberal hate groups, and ratified by the New York Times editorial board, pursuant to the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than the worship of its authority, or allowing the free exercise thereof; or promoting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being a threat to the security of the Democrats, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be permitted.

 

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, unless the house belongs to someone who didn’t vote for the President.

 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless Harry Reid heard from some guy that they didn’t pay their “fair share.”

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury or the Attorney General, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, or in the event that person has demonstrated resistance to the President and the Democrats; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless that offence involves aforementioned resistance; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the National Security Agency catches them reading Personal Liberty Digest™, or watching FOX News, or buying a copy of Atlas Shrugged, or attending a Tea Party rally; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless a real estate developer determines it would be a good location for a shopping center or homeless shelter or ACORN office.

 

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed guilty by a partisan jury of the corporate media; unless the accused is a cop-killer, or islamofascist terrorist, or a union thug, or might otherwise be considered really cool by the Democrats, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation via notice broadcast on MSNBC or uploaded to the Huffington Post; to be berated by Code Pink; to be mocked by Bill Maher when he’s not enumerating his “mommy issues,” and to be burned in effigy by the Occupy fleabags.

 

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, as long as the American Trial Lawyers’ Association can make an easy buck off it.

 

Amendment VIII

The People will pay what the government tells them; and will thank the Government for the privilege.

 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the President.

 

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the President by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the President, are reserved to the President, or to Hillary Clinton.

State Sovereignty Wins One Obama Loses One
By; Julia Sieben / http://www.lady-patriots.com/state-sovereignty-wins-one-obama-loses-one/

Breaking Landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court today, June 25, 2013.  Obama laments that he is, “deeply disappointed” in ruling on Voting Rights Act, say discrimination still exists.

Breaking out of WASHINGTON, DC, The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the federal authorities.

The states that have been under control of Federal oversight and preclearance were:

1. Alabama, except for the city of Pinson
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs
5. Louisiana
6. Mississippi
7. South Carolina
8. Texas, except for Jefferson County Drainage District Number Seven and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One
9. Virginia, except for 24 counties (Amherst, Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Essex, Frederick, Grayson, Greene, James City, King George, Middlesex, Page, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappahanock, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington, Warren, and Wythe) and seven independent cities (Fairfax, Falls Church, Harrisonburg, Manassas Park, Salem, Williamsburg, and Winchester)

Counties that have been under control of Federal oversight and preclearance were:

1. California: Kings (except for Alta Irrigation District), Monterey, Yuba (except for Browns Valley Irrigation District and the city of Wheatland)
2. Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe
3. New York: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan)
4. North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland (except for the city of Kings Mountain), Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
5. South Dakota: Shannon, Todd

Also included were the Townships of:

1. Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista Township 

The court did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the pre-clearance requirement itself. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. Its central provision, Section 5, requires many state and local governments, mostly in the South, to obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before making changes in laws that affect voting.

That means jurisdictions covered by Section 5 must get federal approval before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law, saying that Section 5’s “preclearance requirement” was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified. They point to high voter registration rates among blacks and the re-election of a black president as proof that the provision is no longer needed.

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, say the law played an important role in the 2012 election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Section 5 was originally set to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

In 2012, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the law filed by Shelby County, Ala. Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “the extraordinary federalism costs imposed by Section 5 raise substantial constitutional concerns,” and he added that the record compiled by Congress to justify the law’s renewal was “by no means unambiguous.”

“But Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” he went on. The constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War, he said, “entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race. In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”

The Supreme Court had once before considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress did not respond.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

Please read...do it for those who sacrifce so much

From a dear friend of mine...please read for this is what our military is all about...sacrifice, honor, and courage...

I found this letter on one of my military online pages, from the base where my son is now stationed, and I feel the need to pass this on.

I am sorry if it brings tears to your eyes, as it has done mine, but I feel it need to be shared.

Understand this is an actual letter from a young marine and his words and heart pouring out. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read it. ~ Julia

Friday, January 18, 2013

A Letter From Afghanistan: “All We Ask Is That You Don’t Forget About Us”

One of our brave warriors sent this to a family member, who wanted to share. Be warned. The screen may get blurry before you are half way through. Mine got downright illegible when I got to the part about the USMC dog who couldn’t stop whimpering, and who kept looking back at the casket.

Dear Friends and Family…

Sorry for not getting a good update email out sooner. My work hours are weird and inconsistent out here in the land that time forgot. Free time and internet connectivity don’t always go hand in hand either.

If you have been watching the news at all, in between election politics and Olympic events, you might have heard a little blurb about Afghanistan, but probably not.

I know you don’t have a lot of information or perspective about what is going on over here and trying to explain the past few weeks, especially right now, is beyond me. I would, however, like to share one of the most moving experiences I’ve ever had in my life with you.

On the afternoon of July 19, I jumped in a small convoy of armored vehicles from a little Forward Operating Base (FOB) along the eastern bank of the Helmand River headed towards the large Marine and British base, Camp Bastion – Leatherneck. We got there just in time to grab a quick bite to eat and meet up with some of the other guys in our unit and head to the flightline. True to my callsign I volunteered to drive a really rickety mini bus packed full of guys to where we were headed to on the flightline. We wanted to be there by 1945 (745pm). By the time we got everyone loaded up in the bus, a couple of pickup trucks and a couple of small tactical vehicles, it was already 1935.

Immigration bill advances in Senate; border ‘surge’ amendment exposes GOP rift

By Stephen Dinan / The Washington Times

Senators voted Monday to add 20,000 more Border Patrol agents to the southwestern border and require a total of 700 miles of fencing within a decade, clearing the way for the broad immigration bill to pass the chamber this week — but opening deep divisions within the Republican Party.

In the 67-27 vote, 15 Republicans joined Democrats in backing the manpower and infrastructure, but the other Senate Republicans balked, saying the enhancements were chimerical and shouldn’t be used to cover over what they argued was a bad bill that doesn’t do enough to enforce the laws and stop another wave of illegal immigration.

“I don’t know how any Republican who supports border security can vote against this,” said Sen. Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who helped write what he called a birder "surge."

“Easy,” Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, said to him moments later as the two men had a stern face-to-face talk on the floor. “The answer is to get real border security.”

The fight over the amendment — and the two senators’ words — underscore the broader battle over immigration. All sides say they want this legalization to be the last for the U.S. and that they want to boost enforcement to prevent a third wave of illegal entries.

But they disagree on whether this plan gets there.

The vote signals the beginning of the end of the Senate immigration debate.

Because the vote was on a 1,200-page amendment that included all of the original bill, the 67-27 tally shows the full measure probably has sufficient support to pass.

Until Monday, the two-week debate lacked any major action.

Although more than 450 amendments were filed, the Senate held votes on just 13 of them. The vote on strengthening the border was the only major change to pass.

Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, filed several procedural motions to force final filibuster votes Wednesday that would keep him on schedule to pass the bill out before lawmakers leave at the end of the week for a weeklong July Fourth vacation.

The chamber has not considered any amendments from Democrats to alter the number of guest workers, or to constrict gun rights, expand gay rights or provide better protections to illegal immigrants who would be caught.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a key Florida Republican, has signaled that he is trying to win amendments dealing with how many criminal violations an illegal immigrant can have and still be eligible for legalization, and raising the bar on the kinds of English language skills someone must demonstrate to earn legal status.

“There is simply no reason we need to end this debate now in order to meet some artificial deadline determined by the majority leader’s summer schedule,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republicans.

But a large chunk of his own members might desert him and vote to move the bill along on the Democrats’ schedule.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentlesen said many of the amendments awaiting votes are from lawmakers who have no intention of supporting the final bill anyway.

He blamed Republicans for refusing to allow votes on Democratic amendments, which has led to a virtual stalemate on the floor.

If the bill does clear the Senate this week, it faces a tougher time in the House, where Republicans run the chamber and are moving ahead with piecemeal bills that would toughen enforcement, create more guest-worker slots and try to boost legal immigration for those who graduate from U.S. universities with advanced technology or science degrees.

The Senate bill’s enforcement is less strict, and senators also included a pathway to citizenship for more than 7 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S.

Democrats have said granting illegal immigrants the chance at citizenship is not negotiable and that the path cannot be tied to performance or decisions.

The compromise on border security was intended to increase spending in a way that would prevent more illegal immigration.

Late Monday, the Congressional Budget Office released a rough preliminary analysis that said the added manpower would reduce illegal immigration further than the original bill, though it could not say by how much. The initial bill was projected to reduce illegal immigration by 25 percent.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the immigration negotiations, said he was shocked that any Republicans would vote against additional border security after arguing for years that it was a prerequisite to immigration reform.

“They just won’t take yes for an answer,” he said.

But Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said his colleagues were being snookered.

“Fundamentally, this is about political cover. It’s not about solving the problem,” Mr. Cruz said.

All of the Democrats who were in the chamber Monday voted for the amendment — braving pressure from immigrant rights groups that said the border surge amounted to an unneeded “militarization” that would lead to more migrant deaths in the desert.

“This amendment is based on the false notion that our border is not secure or there hasn’t been adequate enforcement up to this point. The pain in our communities, the deportations and the empirical evidence prove otherwise,” said Evelyn Rivera, an illegal immigrant who has been granted tentative legal status under President Obama’s nondeportation policies.

The Republicans who voted for the additional Border Patrol agents and fencing were: Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Jeff Chiesa of New Jersey, Susan M. Collins of Maine, Mr. Corker, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mr. Rubio and Roger F. Wicker of Mississippi.

McDonald's drops halal menu after paying $700,000 in intimidation lawsuit for mistakenly serving non-halal meat as halal

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

It has been noted that "there was no evidence that the chain set out to deceive customers." So why the $700,000 payout?

Moreover, as David Wood points out, it demonstrates the inequality of treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims in Dearborn, where Christians are arrested just for answering Muslim questions about Christianity, and no one is paying them $700,000 for their hurt feelings.

Also, how was this ever discovered, anyway? Halal meat doesn't taste different from non-halal meat. Someone must have tipped off local Islamic agitation groups -- probably because they knew such a payout would be in the offing.

"McDonald's drops halal food from U.S. menu," from USA Today via 11Alive.com, June 24 (thanks to Twostellas):

DETROIT -- There have been only two McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. that have offered halal food. Both were in east Dearborn, Mich., which has a sizable population of Arab-American Muslims. 

But after a contentious lawsuit that accused the restaurant chain of selling non-halal items advertised as halal, McDonald's has yanked its Halal Chicken McNuggets and Halal McChicken sandwiches off the menu. The move brings to an end a unique product that made the two McDonald's restaurants popular with Muslims.

"Those items have been discontinued as a result of our continued efforts to focus on our national core menu," a spokesman for McDonald's said Friday.

At one of the two restaurants, the Ford Road location, a sign in Arabic and English on its drive-through menu informs customers that halal items are no longer available. The decision to discontinue the products after a 12-year run drew a mixed reaction in Dearborn: Some were disappointed, while others said it was a good move because McDonald's had problems before with selling halal food.

The removal of the halal items, which was done last month, comes after a lawsuit filed in 2011 alleging that the fast-food restaurant was selling non-halal chicken it claimed was halal. Halal is the Muslim equivalent of kosher, requiring that meat be prepared according to Islamic guidelines, such as reciting a prayer while the animal is cut. In some cases, employees at the Ford Road location were mistakenly giving non-halal products to customers who asked for halal ones.

A $700,000 settlement was reached in April that allocated $275,000 to the Huda Clinic, a Muslim health center in Detroit; $150,000 to the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, and $25,000 to Ahmed Ahmed, a Dearborn Heights man who filed the lawsuit against McDonald's. The rest went to attorney fees.

McDonald's denied any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, which made no mention of stopping the sale of halal food. Some Muslims didn't like the settlement, saying the money should have gone to individual customers, not organizations.

Kassem Dakhlallah, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, said Friday that the company's decision to stop selling halal food is "disappointing." He said that McDonald's should have tried "to ensure that all products sold were halal as advertised."

But, he added, if McDonald's couldn't guarantee that, "then ceasing to offer halal products was probably the best decision."

Majed Moughni, who had opposed the settlement, said the decision by McDonald's to end the sale of halal items "was the right thing to do." After pressure from attorneys with McDonald's, Moughni's free-speech rights were curtailed after Wayne County Judge Kathleen Macdonald clamped down on his Facebook page, which was critical of the company's handling of the case. The judge later lifted her injunction against Moughni after free-speech advocates defended him.

"If you can't get it right 100% of the time, then you're doing a disservice to the community," Moughni said of the company's handling of halal food. "Stop it if you can't guarantee it."...

Mistakes will not be tolerated.

Energy Politics

By: Charles Payne / Townhall Columnist

This week the biggest news out of Washington will be President Obama's updated battle against global warming. It's not enough to win the counterfactual war that the administration saved America from a Great Depression, but how about saving the entire planet from Armageddon! Just a week after China agreed to buy $270 billion worth of oil from Russia over the next 25 years, America is ready to stick a knife into the ailing coal industry while teeing up regulations that will severely hamper natural gas. When the deal is announced, up to 280 coal-fired units could be forced closed, taking more than 40,000 megawatts of power offline.

If you think it's going to be replaced by wind and solar you are greatly mistaken. The coal plants affected by the unleashing of the EPA are mostly in the following states:

> Pennsylvania
> Ohio
> Georgia
> West Virginia
> North Carolina
> Kentucky
> Indiana

Those states have no solar or wind projects in the works, and it really wouldn't make a difference since only 3,000 megawatts of power is in the offing for all solar projects. Moreover, these projects have come at an immense expense to taxpayers while yielding very few benefits. It's mostly crony capitalism at its best. Take for instance the Topaz Solar project in California. After being penciled in for $1.9 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees, a series of critical management mistakes caused the loan to be pulled ... in steps Mr. Buffett.

Warren Buffett and his Mid America Energy bought out ownership from First Solar and cut a 24 year deal with Pacific Gas and Electric to purchase overpriced solar power at above market prices. PG&E has no choice since California has mandated utilities must generate one third of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This mandate is another tax on ratepayers, including taxpayers and home and business owners.

In fact, it is estimated the sweetheart deal California Valley struck with the state will result in PG&E paying $463 million above rate over the lifetime of its existence. This project received a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee and will have to pay no property tax. So, when President Obama says electricity has to go higher to fulfill his goal it wasn't a lie. On the contrary, this is going to be extraordinarily painful to average Americans. So, what are the benefits? The industry will tell you solar savings around the world have thus far been equivalent to taking 1.1 million cars off the road and planting 138.3 million trees.

Before we dethrone Johnny Appleseed, let's be clear, no trees have been planted and not a single car has been replaced.

The biggest insult is the lack of permanent jobs being created from all our taxpayer dollars ... or, as the White House calls it: "investment."Current solar projects, manufacturing, bio fuels, and wind development cost American taxpayers $17.2 billion and will yield a grand total of 1,188 permanent jobs.

Rise in Illegal Crossing Roils Immigration Debate

By: Byron York / Townhall Columnist

 

There was a striking moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee's debate on the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill when Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Charles Schumer argued over the number of immigrants who would be allowed into the country under the new legislation.

Sessions cited reports suggesting the figure would be more than 20 million over the next decade in addition to the 11 million or so who are already in the United States illegally. Schumer took issue with that, although he wouldn't name a figure of his own.

Then Schumer declared the whole dispute beside the point. "It is not that, 'Oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come,'" he said. "They are coming.

They're either coming under law or not under law."

The Democratic leader of the Gang of Eight continued: "This argument that there are going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be lots of millions ... in the country illegally if we don't have a bill."

What made the exchange notable was that many Democrats who oppose more stringent border security measures argue that after recent increases in spending and resources the U.S.-Mexico border is already pretty secure -- "as secure now as it has ever been," in the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They also suggest that the number of illegal crossers is at an all-time low and will likely never rise again to levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s.

What Schumer conceded, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is that the border remains quite porous, and the U.S. can expect "lots of millions" to cross illegally in coming years if nothing more is done.

The disagreement on Capitol Hill, of course, is over what should be done, but Schumer's off-the-cuff analysis provides a lot of material for Republicans pressing for a guarantee of greater security measures before millions of illegal immigrants are given legal status.

That GOP position received an even bigger boost with a recent report from the border in The New York Times. The crux of the story is that the number of illegal crossings is rising, and in response to greater security measures in Arizona, the flow from Mexico has shifted east to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Yes, the number of illegal crossers is down from a dozen years ago as the U.S. economy remains a less powerful magnet than it once was. "But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year," the Times reported. "The Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers' land, according to local officials."

"There is just so much happening at the same time -- it is overwhelming," a Brooks County, Texas, sheriff's deputy told the Times.

Border Patrol agents are outnumbered; extensive, passable stretches of the border are unwatched; whole groups of immigrants cross unseen. "People are just crossing without fear," said an alderman in La Joya.

It's happening in part because the American economy, hit so hard by the economic downturn, is finally improving, becoming a draw again for immigrants, especially those from Central America who travel through Mexico on their way to the Texas border. Also, crime remains a terrible problem in many immigrants' home countries. And word is spreading that the U.S. Congress is contemplating a measure to legalize millions of illegal border-crossers.

That is the backdrop for this week's Senate debate on border security in the Gang of Eight plan. Democrats are dead set against any proposal that would make permanent legal status and a path to citizenship contingent on measurable improvements in border security. On the other side, many Republicans believe those improvements will never happen unless the law says legalization won't be allowed without security first. The only question is whether Republicans will stick to their guns or give in to Democrats.

In the debate, supporters of the Gang of Eight bill will almost certainly pronounce the border more secure than it has ever been; such rhetoric is a staple of such debates. But the situation on the border remains troublesome, and if the American economy continues to improve, as everyone hopes it does, the problem could become worse.

Schumer is probably right. In coming years, "lots of millions" will seek to come to the U.S. illegally unless something is done.

Some of us are and some aren't...