Illegal Immigration Resolution?

The quota system does not work. Place all quotas on hold and take no more applications from outside the US  until existing issues are corrected.
1) Process all existing immigration applications immediately and accept or reject as necessary. No citizenship test will be required, this will be a reward for those who played by the rules.
2) Establish a citizenship path for all currently illegal immigrants that includes registration, native country renunciation, oath to US, citizenship test, and proof of good character. Set deadlines for each phase.Registration within one year, renunciation of native country citizenship and loyalty within 18 months, proof of good character within two years of application, pass citizenship test within 30 months of registration, take oath to US within 36 months of registration. Deport all that do not become US citizens within 3 years.
3) Deport all that fail to apply for citizenship. No appeals.Deport all non-citizen criminals after jail term has expired.
4) Incent industries that hire or retain illegals to assist in obtaining citizenship for employees and their families.
5) When 3/4 of existing illegals are US citizens, begin accepting immigration applications again. Set higher quotas for economic refugees from Mexico and South America, lower quotas for all others.
6)  Increase border guards and strengthen border security on southern border.
7) Stop the H visa program. It will no longer be needed when 5 million illegals are citizens.
8) Incent American industries to establish education initiatives for US citizens they employ. All grade levels and graduate work.
Repeat each decade until the borders are under control and illegal immigrants are under one-tenth of  one percent of the census.
Reasonable Citizen

Faking Congressional Control to Fool the Public

I like Judge Napolitano but sometimes he writes things in reverse ( an amusing habit of his. Go read a few of his columns and you will see what I mean.) . Here is what he wrote. Please read it.

But here is the order that I wish he had written some paragraphs:

In our post 9/11 world, the government has gotten away with hiding its worst behavior behind a veil of secrecy, publicly justified by the fears of a loss of safety that it has instilled in the public. That is not condoned by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, a free people are always entitled to know what the government is doing, and we are entitled to a government that obeys the laws it enforces against the rest of us so we can replace the government when it fails to protect our freedoms.

In a democracy, the government must be accountable to the people it serves. Secrecy and accountability are enemies. The natural right to know what the government is doing means that secrecy must be severely and aggressively minimized. A Congress that rubber-stamps what secret agents want it to do by a secret procedure is a dangerous mix that will impair personal liberty in a free society.

The power of these (intelligence) committees effectively has established them as mini-Congresses that are unrecognized by the Constitution and are well outside its confines. The Constitution provides that “all legislative powers” are granted to Congress, not to a select few in Congress, but to Congress as a whole.

These are the same committees that have given permission to the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on all Americans all the time, so we are probably justified in concluding that the committees and the intelligence agencies they supposedly regulate are more attuned to governmental power than to personal liberty.

Over the years, as sometimes happens between regulators (the congressional committees) and the entity to be regulated (the CIA), they developed a chummy relationship. In this case, the relationship has been so chummy that at the behest of Presidents Bush and Obama the CIA has gone to the Senate and House Intelligence committees, instead of going to the full Congress, for permission to torture prisoners, kill Americans with drones and fight small-scale wars — all well beyond the statutory mission of stealing secrets.

When the CIA was established in 1947, Congress and President Truman were concerned that it might not confine itself to spying. Its sole statutory purpose was to steal secrets from foreign governments so that the U.S. would know what they were planning and could prepare for any behavior adverse to American government interests. By its nature, it was operating in secret, and because it lacked transparency, it lacked accountability. One of the statutory mechanisms to achieve accountability was to require the CIA to report to two committees of Congress, but in secret.

The government is caught up in another scandal in which federal agents have been accused of hacking into one another’s computers.

This is more than a schoolyard brawl. This is the unbridled and likely unlawful use of government computers and classified materials by CIA employees trying to dampen the enthusiasm of their regulators, or by Senate investigators accessing classified materials to which they may not be entitled. Either way, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures. Any other persons who did this would be indicted for hacking. Because all of this is so secret, we don’t know whether the Department of Justice is looking into who broke what laws.

But we do know that like its cousin the NSA, the CIA often acts above the law. It does so knowing that indictments for torturing, destroying evidence or computer hacking are unlikely, as any trial would expose the depths of this skullduggery, the unconstitutional system of mini-Congresses and the secrets these employees are trying to keep from their employers — the American people.

It is obvious to me that the ruse is to create the appearance of oversight while actually rubber stamping the programs that take away our liberties and rights. Who will change the American government and align it with the Constitution again?

Who is more sovereign: Wisconsin or the Ho-Chunk Nation?

Has anyone compared the sovereignty of  the state of Wisconsin  to the Ho-Chunk Nation’s sovereignty vis-a-vis  federal laws? Anyone out there with some background in this area?

Seems to me that Indian nations have established their sovereign rights more conclusively in the past 50 years than any state of the Union.  I understand that, as individuals and as government , the struggle for Indian civil rights has fallen short of the civil rights of black  Americans, often requiring special legislation to provide Indians the equality under law that blacks had already achieved.

What is the political and legal relationship between the state of Wisconsin and the Ho-Chunk Nation?

Can anyone jump in and give me a tutorial on whether the rights and freedoms of tribal nations exceed the rights and freedoms of the states?

For example, does ObamaCare apply to the Indian Nations? Can Congress compel citizens of the Indian nations to buy insurance? Does the penalty tax apply? How does the Indian Commerce Clause differ from the Interstate Commerce Clause  in this case?

If there is a resource in the ether that can help me understand how the Indian Nations and the state governments differ in the application of federal laws, please point the way….