Home for Critical Thinking


President Obama's Immigration Executive Order is logically flawed.

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 11-26-2014 | in Economics, Human Relations, Race, Government,

President Barack Obama's  order not to deport foreigners living here illegally is an amnesty program. Obama reported to the nation, "If you have been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you are willing to pay your fair share of taxes you will be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation." He claims this protection from deportation is not amnesty.

I mistrust any personal, business or government communication that deceives by omission, distorts definitions, misstates fact, or appeals to emotions. Obama uses those devices to disguise the weak basis for issuing the immigration executive order.

Obama refers to "undocumented Immigrants" in his speech to suggest that he issued the executive order to address the concerns of immigrants affected by a broken immigration system. However, "undocumented immigrant"  is a contradiction of logic that refers to a fantasy character without legal status.    

People, foreign nationals, are not immigrants in America except by documents of a proper sponsor's application for an immigration visa on their behalf, and with the foreign national receiving an approved petition.  "Undocumented" is someone lacking proper immigration or working papers. Therefore, undocumented describes a foreign national living illegally in America. But "undocumented immigrant" is the logical contradiction of someone lacking proper immigration papers having approved documentation of immigration.   

Obama claimed, "My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship."

Obama repeats common assertions of the 19th, 20th, 21st centuries that erroneously generalize to all Americans the immigration policy experienced by European nationals. Disrespectfully they ignore the different experiences and paths to citizenship of other Americans.   

I am a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and so were my parents and grandparents. My ancestors did not desire nor petition America for immigrant status. Instead, savage people kidnapped them from their African homes and communities and delivered them to equally savage American property owners. Those property owners claimed ownership of my ancestors' bodies and labeled them slaves although they lacked the justification of monetary debt or moral obligation my ancestors owed them. They forced my ancestors to work alongside European nationals that had obligated themselves as indentured servants to pay the costs of travel here as immigrants. No matter a common humanity, those property owners constructed a "white-race-label" for European nationals with presumptions of human rights endowed by the Christian god, and path of immigration to American citizenship. In contrast, they constructed a black-race-label for African kidnapped victims without the presumption of human equality, or option for immigration. Eventually, Amendments 13 and 14 to the U.S. Constitution established citizenship for my ancestors and their descendants the same as other persons born here.  

Obama also claims falsely that for more than 200 years America had a tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world. History contradicts this claim. Instead, American domestic policy and immigration law reflected the rampant prejudice and jingoism of race, ethnicity and religion.

America's founders approved a Constitution granting full citizenship and right to vote only to property-owning white-race-labeled males. The Naturalization Act of 1790 specified that "any alien, being a free white person," could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years." It excluded indentured servants, free black-race labeled people and slaves.

The Chinese Exclusion Acts / Immigration Exclusion Act (1882) prohibited citizenship for Chinese immigrants. Other immigration laws including those of 1917, 1924 and 1934 excluded immigrants from China, Japan, India and the Philippines as members of an Oriental race now categorized racially Asian-American. Laws during this period also excluded immigration from Africa. Perhaps many people wrongly conclude that immigration laws prior to 1965 qualified all white-race-labeled Europeans for immigration. But immigration laws during those periods also restricted immigration to America of Jews and Catholics from Central and Eastern Europe.  

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and subsequent law set out a more inclusive immigration policy and path to American citizenship with less exclusion based on constructions of human-race difference. Nevertheless, from misunderstanding of history or intention to deceive, Obama asserted a false 200-year American tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world that he suggested was a precedent for amnesty provisions in his executive order. But, the logical and historical fallacies he relies on are better evidence why he should not have sole authority to impose changes to immigration policy. 

 Obama's executive order protects from deportation a foreign national that lived illegally in the United States for more than five years and has an American born child. But, it does not protect a foreign national that lived here illegally four years eleven months and has an American born child. Nor does it protect a foreign national living here illegally for more than five years who does not have an American born child.

I do not see a fair, practical or uniform basis for this standard such as protecting interests of all American born children; treating all people the same that lived here illegally more than five years; or treating all people the same that came here illegally before this notice. This is why those arbitrary standards for deciding amnesty generate more unfairness and disrespect for law than it cures and why general amnesty is impractical.

The belief that more people lead to a richer society for all members is a capitalist assertion that encourages acceptance of immigration. However, the economic principle that a commodity's value decreases with abundance should warn workers about the hazards of unregulated immigration. Business owners encourage immigration that brings in more workers that increase production and wealth in society. Then, they treat the abundance of labor as a commodity of lesser value that justifies paying workers lower wages. Therefore, high immigration rates and more people do increase wealth in society but only for capitalist investors. Nevertheless, appeals to prejudice and jingoism of race, ethnicity and religion among salaried workers encourages them to deny the fact of a common humanity and that renders them unable to  to recognize and protect their common economic interests. 

U.S. Department of Defense attacks tight-curly hairstyles.

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 08-27-2014 | in Freedom, Human Relations, Race, Government,

The U.S Navy discharged a sailor for refusing to cut off her natural tight-curly hair or cover it with a wig. Jessica Sims had been a sailor for 12-years. She wore the same style since 2005 without problems. However, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued new hairstyle regulations in March that mostly centered on the natural tight-curly hair texture styles. It prohibited dreadlocks and twisted, matted hair as unkempt, but allowed cornrows as long as they were conservative. Sims said that her hair swept into a bun met the two-inch regulations and that she could don a gas mask without leakage. Nevertheless, the Navy discharged her for "failing to obey an order when she refused to cut her hair, straighten it, or wear a straight wig. 

Dr. Kristie Mitchell is another former member of U.S. Armed Forces troubled by the new DOD hair regulations. She had been a Major in the U.S. Army as a psychiatrist. She reported having to change from neat natural tight-curly hairstyles to those more like straight hairstyles. She complied with the regulations by cutting her hair. However, she found the experience humiliating having to style her hair short like a man, use hazardous chemicals or use hot irons to straighten her hair.  DOD regulations describing "dreadlocks" and "twisted styles as unkempt were particularly demeaning. The restricted hairstyle regulations motivated her to leave military service although she previously found treating military members rewarding. 

The DOD regulation describing tight-curly hairstyles as unkempt is an example of the many seemingly innocuous attacks on self-image endured by Americans society classifies a black-race minority. This particular type attack is not new. DOD reintroduced or continued them from the 1960s when military and civilian authorities used them against black-race-labeled Americans. 

Those attacks were and are against the self-image of an oppressed group of people and not about the hair in and of itself. Society should not deny opportunity for employment and education to people or general acceptance in society unless they reject their natural physical traits as unattractive. 

At one time society considered American females with dark-brown skin coloring and tight-curly hair unattractive unless they straightened their hair with heat or chemicals. Members of oppressed groups that adopt their oppressors' image for a standard of attractiveness have been demoralized.They are unlikely to achieve personal autonomy. They lose all sense of personal identity when the self-described "white majority" names them its "black minority" foil. A foil is anything that serves by contrast to call attention to another group or item's good qualities. 

The, "I'm black and I'm proud" movement of the 1960s suggested an evolving sense of self-determination among society's oppressed black-race-labeled Americans. I never accepted "black" to describe my dark-brown skin color, nor for a racial identity. Nevertheless, change requires a beginning. People's new awareness of their physical attractiveness and dignity was the beginning of change no matter how they labeled it. They expressed their new self-determined identity with natural tight-curly hairstyles in place of artificially straightened hair. American society responded to this self-determined image as an attack on its values. DOD, civilian employers, school authorities and law enforcement treated tight-curly hairstyles as belligerence they must suppress.   

Earth's life forms mostly change slowly over time and not suddenly over weeks. This rule proved true for a high percent of the 1960-70 era claims of "black" pride and self-determination. Many of them yielded to the social and economic pressure, exclusion and threats to employment, and reverted to straight-hairstyles. Others had only donned the new hairstyles as a fad. Not fully convinced of the physical attractiveness of their natural features they returned to straight-hairstyles. The mass reversion to a confused, demoralized view of self by so many people saddened me. I doubted that a second awakening would happen during my lifetime. 

Decades later, a growing number of self-determined individuals show ownership of their self-images like those people that persisted from earlier times. They are not a movement. Instead, they are autonomous persons aware of the attractiveness of their physical traits and of nature's many attractive combinations of human body, skin color, and hair textures. 

This month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered changes in the enforcement of the hair regulations to allow female service members to have a wider range of hairstyles. Perhaps remarks of service members like Sims and Mitchell influenced this decision. Maybe President Obama, Commander in Chief expressed an opinion. 

Nevertheless, the Navy found that Sims hair still violated their guidelines and that she had disobeyed an order.  


<< month,year >>
SunMonTue WedThuFri Sat


RSS 2.0: Articles | Comments
ATOM 1.0: Articles | Comments