Image 01 Image 03

“Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law” = new GOPspeak for “illegal”?

“Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law” = new GOPspeak for “illegal”?

We’ve completely surrendered to the language of open borders. The rest is just details.

We’ve written before about how open-borders supporters carefully and successfully manipulated our language by branding long-standing terms such as “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” racist even though the terms are race-neutral.

The new politically correct term is supposed to be “undocumented.” Because immigration is just a matter of paperwork. Or no name at all, just a description of their living circumstances.

Politico posted  a late afternoon draft of the House GOP Standards for Immigration Reform.

This paragraph has an interesting title:

Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law

Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.

And you thought “undocumented immigrant” was too politically correct? The GOP will jump even higher.

We’ve completely surrendered to the language of open borders. The rest is just details.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Karen Sacandy | January 30, 2014 at 8:24 pm

I’m not so sure, Professor. The problem is, Americans are so tired from the last few years, they’ve run out of energy to do what would stop this: exactly what they did in 2007, and absolutely INUNDATE their congressmen’s offices with calls, faxes, emails, in opposition to amnesty.

INUNDATION gets their attention. Like a charm. Every time. :^))) But it does take some “Righteous Indignation” and righteous energy to accomplish.

I will be writing, and calling, and emailing this weekend. I urge Legal Insurrection’s readers to do likewise, and don’t forget to target Ryan, Boehner, Goodlatte and Cantor with your ire.

    I agree, but sometimes it takes more than a letter or e-mail.

    David Yotham in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 31, 2014 at 2:41 am

    re: “The problem is, Americans are so tired from the last few years, they’ve run out of energy to do what would stop this: exactly what they did in 2007, and absolutely INUNDATE their congressmen’s offices…”

    In principle, I would agree. The reality is much more serious than that though. The Executive Office is occupied by a man who himself flaunts his lawlessness – just look how he’s changed the application of the ‘law’ called Obamacare. Furthermore, POTUS (chief lawbreaker of the USA) openly states that he intends to govern via executive order, regardless of Congress. Appointment of Czars; what are those? Fast and Furious; quick and deadly? The main stumbling block in this entire fiasco isn’t a political party but a tyrant and his soft coup, engineered by hidden leadership and unaccountable power blocks.

    I’m in. Again. I remember winning this fight several times in past decade — under Bush, and now under Obama. And every single time we were told that opposition to Amnesty was hopeless.

Karen Sacandy | January 30, 2014 at 8:25 pm

BTW, are there any readers here versed on the arguments AGAINST automatic citizenship by birth? I’ve read them years ago, and would love to be refreshed on it.

How about “individuals who have not subjected themselves to US law?”

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | January 30, 2014 at 9:37 pm

The words in the “draft” of Boehner’s Principles read well enough yet it’s the acts that follow that will determine what happens. I’ve told my Representative, John Kline, that before I’ll commit to supporting him for another term in office, I wanted to know what his position is. One of his DC staffer’s said that Rep. Kline is against amnesty yet the remainder of his position is not clear.

I’ve told the state GOP that unless it makes it clear that immigration changes will not result in amnesty, of any kind, IMHO, the state GOP will become dormant, really non-existent. The only way our GOP representatives will get the message that we need fiscal reform, greatly improved border security and visa enforcement. and rational border entrance conditions is if we tell them exactly what their election future will be if they fail us once again.We have to declare our position and tell these congressional representatives that they will not be re-elected if they fail again to do protect this country of ours.

We have to stand our ground on this immigration issue and other issues too, else we will not be the people of this country.

Not a new term, we’ve used it for a couple centuries. At least the shortened form Out(side the rule of)Law

I notice there’s the standard “serve honorably in our military,” but for an illegal alien to do so, he or she would have had to commit fraud to enlist.

Do politicians know how to use anything but weasel words?

    Musson in reply to AZ_Langer. | January 31, 2014 at 9:05 am

    Actually, military service has always been a road to citizenship. Go to just about any High School and see how Hispanics are taking ROTC. They want to get citizenship.

We surrendered to open borders a LONG time ago. Now we’re haggling over the price.

We could have dealt with this through enforcement in the 90’s, but we didn’t and now there are so many that expatriation would look like one of Stalin’s forced migrations,or worse.

We have some 10-15 million persons illegally present and their concentration in a few states is posing a severe test to the rule of law. When the law commands something that no one without an armband is willing to do, the law has to be made workable.

    Valerie in reply to caseym54. | January 31, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Bingo. We should have enacted a guest worker program, and we didn’t. But we did not stop the guest workers from coming in and working, either. So now we have a mess.

    I’m ok with creating a guest worker program, and presuming that everybody here illegally, that has not committed other crimes, is a guest worker. The question of whether somebody here illegally (there can be mitigating circumstances) should have a path to citizenship is a WHOLE ‘bother smoke.

    People who choose to come here without subjecting themselves to our laws should be considered guest workers. And that “anchor baby” program should end.

One thing I’d add to the price: US citizen’s rights in Mexico. Such as buying property and businesses anywhere in Mexico. These newly legalized immigrants should not have any rights here that are denied to an American in Mexico.

For those of us stuck with Democrats as our Congressman and Senators, any thoughts on the best way to put pressure on House Republicans?

Obama is legislating … “outside the rule of law”, and the GOP won’t confront him either.

Saying illegals are outside the law sounds like they need to be brought inside. Saying they are breaking the law sounds like they need to be deported or arrested.

We could biometrically ID them all, then decide what to do with them. Any not ID’d within a year get deported when found working without valid social security numbers. (half of California) Any DMV office could get their photo ID and get prints or whatever. They are ILLEGALS … get them out of the shadows and ID them. That doesn’t have to merit them any long term residency or health care. Conditions for staying should be at least as rigorous as Ellis Island.

But people in high places are protecting the flood of illegals, probably protecting the guns, drugs and human tracking as well, according to former border patrol agents.

    There is a well known method for bringing those outside the law into the law.

    It’s called a criminal indictment. Presto – you are under jurisdiction.

I will remind all of you what LBJ said about black Americans when he signed the Civil Rights Act. And his words proved true; black Americans vote almost totally for the Democrats.

This foolish act on the part of establishment Republicans will do two things that will please the Democrats; it will turn Texas blue and it will guarantee that a Republican will never hold the Oval Office for at least decades.

The GOP is not called “the Stupid Party” for lack of reason. So, from me, not one more dime to them. I will continue to support conservative candidates but the national party needs to take note of the mistletoe hanging from the back of my belt.

    retire05, It is also worth noting that LBJ’s words proved true despite a higher percentage of Republicans voting for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. If Republicans think they will earn anything by passing amnesty (aside from plush lobbying gigs), they are fools.

Subotai Bahadur | January 30, 2014 at 11:16 pm

I am a native born American citizen. My father was an immigrant who earned his citizenship as a combat infantry squad leader in Patton’s Third Army.

Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law

As an American citizen, I have come to believe that I am living outside the rule of law. The rule of law does absolutely nothing to protect me from the attacks of my government, from criminals, and definitely not from attacks by illegal aliens.

The only operative rules left are 1) The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. and 2) Mao’s Rule: Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Recommended reading (A Must Read, actually): An open letter to the GOP on third parties and Lost causes.

By way of introduction – let’s just say I’m one of Millions of formally loyal supporters of the GOP. We are the people who donate small amounts and volunteer to make phone calls and knock on doors and do a myriad of others things we don’t like to do just to support the Republican party….

…We may be on our way to defeat with a third party – but we will do it with our head held high and our Conservative principles intact.

They’ve already caved on spending. Darrell Issa’s investigations are a bright spot, but there’s been no conclusive action – I say we take Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Trey Gowdy, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin, and bail – there’s no point in supporting people who won’t stand up for principles as simple as fiscal responsibility and rule of law – not to mention our privacy, and smaller government.

Like the author of the piece above, I am actively involved with the R party. If they cave this time, I am resigning, and re-registering, not as an R.

If they try to pass any bill on this stuff, it will officially be insane, a suicide attempt in what should be a strong midterm election year.

But a “statement of principles” is not a bill. So it is a time to email and call, not to panic and run around like frightened chickens.

Funny. In trying to make the name sound “nicer” they simply remind us that these are people who have no regard for the rule of law.

I wonder how the Washington elitists would react if the “little people” aka US Citizens, suddenly decided they (like the President and Illegal Aliens) would live outside the rule of law? Would they feel so kind and compassionate if employers across the country decided they would cease withholding payroll taxes and put the responsibility on the employees to pay their own taxes?

“Individuals outside the rule of law”– I think this is actually a very good way of describing the problem.

Think back to common law stuff– I’m no expert, but as I understand it the root of “outlaw” was one not covered by laws, ie, one outside of the rule of law, one who gained no benefit from the laws.

Those with no legal protection for their position.

Avoids the liberal “you’re being mean calling people illegal!” thing.

An “individual living outside the rule of law” stole the lawnmower from one of my neighbors. Now he and the lawnmower are outside the rule of law

Have you actually read the “Principles”?

This is the same rehashed load of crap they were peddling last year. A bunch of meaningless platitudes about enforcement and security that will be ignored, topped with a giant steaming scoop of Amnesty.

The “Youth” Section is the Eric Cantor Plan: Come to America illegally and we will make sure your kids are given citizenship.

If parents embezzle funds or fraudulently avoid taxes are the children allowed to benefit? Rewarding children when the parents break the law encourages more law-breaking. It is immoral to reward the children of lawbreakers by letting them cut in line ahead of those seeking citizenship legally.

Enough of these Amnesty Quislings!

For the umpteenth time since Rubio, McCain, McConnell and Graham joined the Gang of 8, I am reminded why I changed my voter designation to Independent.

I want no part with these brainless cowards and ne’er do wells who care so little for actual taxpaying citizens.

As always, the devil is in…

1. the details, and

2. the political reality, which in this case is much more dangerous.

We are assured that there is “only” a “pathway to legal status”, but any fool can see that pressure will be applied to expand that to full citizenship BEFORE the ink dries.

Anyone who says differently is trying to trick you. I would bet money there are young lawyers in public interest law firms drafting right now the lawsuits demanding full “civil rights” for illegal-but-legalized “low-intensity invaders”.

I don’t have a problem with the wording as it legally describes illegal aliens. In addition, the first sentence uses the word illegal as a descriptive. It’s the potential implementation that’s a concern.
Perhaps looking to Texas’s success in enforcing it’s own border in a 3 month experiment would give insights. It was quite successful, but Obama refused to free up funding for it to continue.

To Foxfier at January 31, 2014 at 3:26 am


That’s exactly what I was thinking: Live according to the established rule-of-law and that same law protects your rights. Abandon rule-of-law and you become an “outlaw”, and the State withdraws its protections.

“Rights” come with “responsibilities” — this idea is as old as civilization itself. What’s wrong with our Establishment Republicans that they just can’t grasp this simple concept?

The path to symmetric open borders is through statehood. It is mutual, as with the border between Oregon and Washington.

Asymmetric open borders is an invasion.

Imagine that the citizens of the 6 Northernmost Mexican states petition to become a US state. It would be about symmetric open borders. Would the La Raza racists object?