Categories
crime and punishment Regulating Protest

Force Over Reason

L.A. is in flames again, with rioting, looting, attacks on police (with “commercial grade fireworks”) and against the much-​despised ICE agents. At issue, they tell us, are the horrible things ICE does to illegal entrants into the United States — kidnap them, say; or deport them, as the government puts it — and this requires.…

Well, what does it require in response? Open battles with the feds? 

As in the 2020 BLM riots, rioters are attacking federal buildings, with attempts at violent entry.

This is no way to persuade Americans of much of anything — other than that force triumphs over reason. 

So little wonder that the U.S. president chose to meet force with force by sending in the National Guard. Trump’s explanation on Truth Social qualifies as Classic Trump (not New Trump): “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”

Federalizing the Guard will be fought in court — like everything else — but it appears to be yet another case in which folks argue that President Trump does not have the lawful authority … only come to find out that Congress does constitutionally enjoy said power but unaccountably legislated it away to the president. 

Rita Panahi of Sky News Australia covered the mayhem in her “Lefties Losing It” segment. “And while the Mexican flag was proudly flying throughout these protests, the American flag was nowhere to be seen,” Ms. Panahi observed, “unless it was being set alight.” 

Protesters waving the flag of the foreign state they’ve fled?!?!? 

That’s not Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights ideological culture national politics & policies

Whose Principles?

Partisan contest! You may start with principles, but — if you are careless — end up fighting, instead, for the things your opponent only thinks you stand for. You become the strawman your enemies put up as the dumbed-​down version of your position.

This happens a lot: Democrats have long denied being socialists, but have accepted leadership from socialists; Republicans have long denied being authoritarian, but routinely act like authoritarians.

Case in point: the deportation of “criminal illegal aliens.”

This is not an authoritarian position as such; right or wrong, it can be done in a legally sane way.

But Donald Trump and Republicans have embraced an extremely authoritarian manner of deportation.

How? By denying the principle I defended in April: due process. Writing about the Abrego Garcia case, I made this simple point: “whether a dangerous criminal or an innocent, hard-​working family man, Garcia’s status is hardly the issue. This is about whether our government must follow its written Constitution.”

Now we are learning a lot more about who has been sent to El Salvadoran dungeons: the innocent. 

According to an informative Cato article, “of the 90 cases where the method of crossing is known, 50 men report that they came legally to the United States, with advanced US government permission, at an official border crossing point.”

This is important: “Dozens of legal immigrants were stripped of their status and imprisoned in El Salvador.”

We are, today, shocked to read of how the ancient Athenian democracy would expel citizens from the polis. But Trump’s deportations are much worse: they’re being done without constitutionally required due process … without any chance for the accused to defend themselves.

And the innocents are being sent to a hell-​hole prison, not merely banished.

Trump and his willing government functionaries are conforming not to their principles, but the ones imputed to them by Democrats.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

The Hill to Die On

“This is a hill they’re willing to die on,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R‑Tenn.) toldFox News audience. The senator was dumbfounded by the Democrats’ support for returning Abrego Garcia, the man deported from Maryland to an El Salvadorean prison.

Former Trump campaign manager and advisor Kelly Anne Conway, substituting for regular host Sean Hannity, opened the program by showing a picture she explained was “Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen staring affectionally into the eyes of admitted illegal immigrant and accused serial wife abuser and human trafficker with suspected gang ties, who was recently deported to his home country.”

Others claim Garcia is “a loving father and husband,” who “has never been charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States.” 

But whether a dangerous criminal or an innocent, hard-​working family man, Garcia’s status is hardly the issue. This is about whether our government must follow its written Constitution. 

In court filings, the Department of Justice acknowledged that Garcia’s deportation was an “oversight” and “an administrative error,” as it violated a previous court order not to send him back to El Salvador. 

A unanimous Supreme Court clarified that the administration is required “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

My question is: Why are Trump and Republicans willing to die on this hill? 

It could kill their future political chances. 

I believe in due process, and I vote. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall media and media people

The Hill as Hallucinogen

Americans for Citizen Voting had a super successful Election Day. I swear!

But you wouldn’t know it for the news coverage. 

Throughout 2023 and 2024, we worked to place constitutional amendments on the ballot in eight states, which, if passed, would specifically ban noncitizens from voting in state and local elections. Then, this November, every one of the measures swept to victory. By roughly a 2 – 1 margin in Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 3 – 1 in Iowa and North Carolina; 4 – 1 in Oklahoma; and by a whopping 6 – 1 margin in South Carolina. 

Of course, don’t be shocked if folks dispute my claims of victory. Especially if they read The Hill, which published two articles the day after the election declaring that Citizen Only Voting Amendments were defeated — in South Carolina and in Wisconsin. 

“Voters in Wisconsin have rejected a ballot measure amending the state’s constitution to explicitly prohibit foreign nationals from voting in any election in the state,” The Hill informed its audience. 

Even though 71 percent of Badger State voters actually pulled the lever for the constitutional amendment, not against it. 

“South Carolina defeats noncitizen voting ban,” boasted the headline on another Hill article. Since an incredible 86 percent of Palmetto State voters said yes to the amendment, how did The Hill manage to report that the referendum failed? The very opposite of the truth. 

Oh, The Hill was kind enough to take down their false news stories once alerted to them. But the paper refused to do what I asked: place a note on the corrected story acknowledging their mistake.

Readers who had seen the erroneous articles should be notified that they had been misinformed — and not left thinking they had been hallucinating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law general freedom Voting

Strange Standard

Last week, an audit found that Oregon’s Department of Motor Vehicles staff had erroneously forwarded the registrations of 1,259 people who had not provided necessary citizenship documents on to the Secretary of State, and — voilà! — they appeared on the voter rolls.

“None of the Oregon residents who were automatically registered to vote without demonstrating citizenship voted in an election where they could have cast the deciding ballot, the state’s elections director told lawmakers on Wednesday,” reports Oregon Capitol Chronicle.

Is that the new standard? Don’t fret about a system that automatically registers people who are noncitizens … because the number of likely noncitizens who appear to have illegally voted was not enough to have changed the outcome.

The Democrats running the Oregon Legislature were reluctant to hold a hearing; House Majority Leader Ben Bowman opened by warning that “scoring political points” or “attacks or accusations against election staff” or saying anything “that could incite any violence of any kind against any immigrants or any communities in the state” would not be tolerated. 

That’s a dodge — hiding behind concern for immigrants when the issue is a faulty election system. 

Besides, we don’t serve immigrants by placing them on voters’ lists without their knowledge, then sending them flyers urging them to vote, when, if they follow all the prompts sent their way and cast a ballot, they can lose their chance to become an American citizen.

And even be deported.

Simple, straightforward solutions exist: End these automatic voter registration regimes, require proof of citizenship for new folks registering to vote, and make it clear at all levels that voting is for citizens only. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts