The Legality And Suitability of President Obama's Immigration Executive Actions

Introduction

On November 20, 2014, the President announced a series of executive actions in order to address our broken immigration system. This series of executive actions entails a broad array of initiatives, including expanding upon the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the establishment of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, the expansion of usage of provisional waivers, and a series of initiatives which aim to improve, clarify and modernize immigrant/nonimmigrant programs and promote education and awareness of the naturalization process [1]. This series of initiatives have not yet been implemented. They also do not aim to permanently establish immigration law; rather, it is a temporary solution until a comprehensive reform is passed by Congress and signed by the President; as the President stated the night he announced his actions: "And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill" [2].

Nonetheless, the President's actions have stirred up much disapproval (as is to be expected), with people claiming the actions as unconstitutional and, as of the time I'm writing this article, a coalition of 17 states intending to "sue" the Obama administration [3][4]. Arguments against the President claim that his unilateral action is an unprecedented seizure of power, are unconstitutional, and are even contradictory, citing past times where the President stated he would not and could not constitutionally change immigration law. Others anticipate the legal, political and demographic consequences of the President's actions with reproachfulness. Just as many reflect on how few people approve of these initiatives. Ultimately, the President's actions have sparked much controversy, and people are trying to make sense of the whole ordeal, all the while keep up with the latest political retaliations.

I will address all of these concerns and accusations within the contents of this post, as well as provide my own take on the situation. Prior to doing so, however, I must organize this into something that will actually make sense to people who aren't familiar with the issue. This post will order as such:

"We've got some shit to clear up." - President Barack Obama, Dec. 3 [Joke]

1: The background and history preluding the President's actions.
2: The case for the legality and suitability behind the President's actions.
3: The details of the initiatives set forth by the President's actions
4: The misconceptions and arguments against the President's actions.
5: The predicted/suggested actions Republicans in Congress will/should take.

This post will not be comprehensive. It will be a summation of what I personally believe to be the most important points to bring up regarding the issue in a way that sheds light on the current situation and may help people come to their own conclusions. Likewise, this is not definitively the 'answer' to the issue. This is just my take, which will naturally have its own flaws and shortcomings. I do not expect to end any debate on this issue, and I hardly expect anyone to completely change their mind; however, I have seen many people slowly become more sympathetic to the President's initiatives after healing all the details that seem to elude the common public/media limelight. I anticipate this shall be no different, and am hoping to hear from people who have benefited from this post.

I welcome discussion and critique. Please remain cordial and read the Comment Guidelines before continuing.

Background And History

As of 2013, the Obama administration reached a record number of 438,421 undocumented immigrants deported [5]. Many see this as a good thing, but many bad as well. To me, this is a reflection of flawed immigration policy. It's a desperate effort to reconcile the growing number of undocumented immigrants in the United States, the public and political unrest in response, and the lack of any comprehensive immigration reform being passed by Congress. Buchanan would call it a "State of Emergency," and I might agree, but for different reasons. The Obama administration's record deportations has resulted in major constituency disappointment, with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus criticizing the administration's actions and the majority of the Hispanic electorate expressing disapproval [6][7]. While some people might not appreciate this sentiment, it is of political importance. Any President, Obama not excluded, must gain 36-40% of the Hispanic vote in order to win. By winning that segment, the President owes a lot of responsibility for catering to his Hispanic constituents. Not doing so would lead to a devastation of the Democratic Party's success in the next presidential election. I will touch up on why and how this applies to the Republican Party as well later on.

All things considered, immigration policy is a national issue. It is a source of division among the American public and represents a pressing issue regarding how we handle our international constituencies as well as the electorate at home. Playing the wrong cards can lead to a dramatic failure for the party held responsible by the public at large. That said, reform is urgent, and attempts have not succeeded in recent years.

It didn't work.

Consider the DREAM Act, which in all of its manifestations has been lingering around since as early as 2001. The aim of the DREAM Act was to give permanent residency to minors who were of good moral standing, had graduated from U.S. high schools and had lived in the United States for at least five years prior to its enactment [8]. There also existed provisions for temporary residency and other benefits for alternative qualifications such as serving in the military. Many renditions of the bill up until 2012 had been debated, altered, batted around the Senate and the House with one version of the bill being passed in the House in 2010 [9], but ultimately nothing being done; thus in response to the DREAM Act's failure, on June 15, 2012, the President announced that his administration would stop deporting young illegal aliens who fit the criteria that would have been applied by the act [10]. Exactly two months later, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications under the DACA, which shares great similarities with the DREAM Act.

Complaints about this move were made by many who opposed the Obama administration's policies on immigration, and the criticisms were similar to what we see today with the issue in question. After the President stated that he would not try to change immigration law, many supposed that that's exactly what he did. Many thus claimed illegality, hypocrisy, attempts to circumvent the law-making process; the Arizona state governor even passed his own executive order in response [11]. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano sent out a memo to immigration, borders and customs officials stating to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the criteria set out by the DACA. The same exercise of selective enforcement is being used now to justify the President's executive actions.

We will get to this in the critique section; for now, it is only important to note that this up and back is not a recent phenomenon. Dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's immigration policy and means of implementing it are engrained in his presidency, and this comes from both the left and right. The legality of the DACA is not my concern, although this academic consensus (from personal experience and research) is that it was within the confines of the law. This post is only addressing the concerns of legality over the President's recent executive actions, which is the case I will make in the next segment.

Legality Of The President's Executive Actions

Break open the books!

Before we address the legal basis for the President's actions, I should first clarify on one point that I see many conservatives bringing up. Piecemeal quoting of the President has been passed around and even used to question (interrogate) the current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson on the legality of the executive actions [12]. Johnson expressed his own skepticism of the quotes being used, and I can see why. The most common one in question is where President Obama stated to dissenters "I just took action to change the law." Many are interpreting this as the President's explicit admittance that, despite him saying before that he can't change the law, he did it anyway. This is not what this means. "Taking an action to change the law" is not the same as "changing the law," much in the same way that "taking an action to end world hunger" is not the same as "ending world hunger." The President fully acknowledged that what he is doing is not changing the law, but is instead providing an incentive for Congress to pass their own bill. This is a temporary solution - one that Republicans in Congress would be smart to revise or replace, and again I will explain why later on. For now, it just seemed important for me to get this semantic debate out of the way and get to the substantive part of the legal arguments.

So the question stands, are the President's actions legally defensible? My answer is yes. One can use both a theoretical yet pragmatic basis for this argument, or a literal, legal one. I will begin with presidential theory.

Theoretical Justification

The history of the President's unilateral action in policy making is not recent. The President has always acted unilaterally; one only needs to look at the Louisiana Purchase, emancipation of slaves, Japanese internment, military desegregation, affirmative action or regulatory review to get the most well-known and understood examples of this [13]. The reason for this is that the unilateral powers of the presidency are not explicitly stated in the formal structure of the American government, which has led most people to associate the presidency with only the expressed powers granted to it by the Constitution. This lack of specification allows the President to act in ways that he assumes powers which are not explicitly granted to him, but are abdicated by the other branches of government in times where broad delegations of authority may be seen as preferable by lawmakers. Situations where this may happen include when their policy goals are consistent with the president's, when they are dependent on the experience/expertise of the administration, when they find it fashionable or preferable to shift responsibility and accountability to the executive, when Congress fails to come up with any specific preferences for policy action, when decent policy is impossible to design without assigning broad powers to the executive, or when certain policies require the speed, flexibility and secrecy that can only be found in unilateral presidential action in order to be successful.

The latter is exactly what we see, for example, when we look at presidential war powers. Congress, despite having made efforts in the past to provide clear outlines for presidential war powers and under what situations they require deference to Congressional authorization [14], has slowly abdicated powers greatly to the president. At the same time that House Speaker John Boehner is stating that the President should seek Congressional authorization before initiating military action against ISIS, Congress is failing to come to any agreement on authorization [15][16]. The reason is because Congress does not want such liabilities to be returned to them, and despite the claims by Republican leaders, they would rather him simply act on his own. Besides that point, the President has historically acted unilaterally in his exercise of war powers [17].

Why are war powers relevant to this discussion? This is part of a consistent tug-o'-war between the branches of government for unilateral power which is inherently a part of the checks and balances system. Unilateral presidential action can be considered a theoretically viable, legal and preferable course of action in current times. One might disagree with the current imperative, but it can be argued on this basis that the President's executive actions are justifiable in accordance with the way the institutional presidency operates. This is the theoretical argument. Now we will turn to the legal one.

Legal Justification

Here, we will return back to the concept of enforcement discretion. Enforcement discretion is the power of government officials to choose whether or how to punish an individual who has violated the law. Enforcement discretion is implemented most often for practical reasons. The most commonly used example of this is traffic violations, specifically speeding. Many people drive over the speed limit, and this goes to such an extent that police officers would find it impossible to ticket every individual who commits this particular traffic violation. Thus it behooves a police officer to only go after individuals who commit it to the most dangerous extent in the most extreme examples of reckless driving. Enforcement discretion exists in this way - where action is taken against some individuals and not others - or in such a way that enforcement of the law is only applied to some parts of it, but not others. In this case, we have millions of undocumented immigrants and a broken immigration system which cannot address the problem; thus, it may be reasonable for the DHS to exercise enforcement discretion in executive action. But is this legally justifiable? Again, the answer is (mostly) yes.

With the number of people in the United States, all immigration violations cannot be addressed or prosecuted with the limited resources available. In such situations, going by historical precedent dating back as early as 1975, the Secretary of Homeland Security may defer to enforcement discretion [18]. Said precedents were made in the context of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), but these powers were transferred to the DHS in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. As such, since these powers were transferred to the DHS - an executive agency - Congress also grants permission to the DHS to take discretionary action in the prosecution of the law, which is rooted in the President's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" [19], which reflects a recognition that "faithful" execution of the law does not necessarily entail "act[ing] against each technical violation of the statute" that the agency is charged with enforcing [20], consistent with the conditions of enforcement discretion. In the absence of legislative direction by Congress, an agency's non-enforcement determination is "a special province of the Executive."

There are many legal conditions and precedents for the application of enforcement discretion and non-enforcement determination as it applies to immigration law, and clarifications on how deferred action differs from other enforcement discretion actions, but I won't get into that here. The DHS released a memorandum opinion on the matter to display the legal justification for the President's executive actions, which provides more detail [21]. Suffice it to say, however, that there exists clear legal justification for the Executive to implement enforcement discretion when treating immigration law. This justification covers the DHS's proposed policies to prioritize removal of certain groups of illegal aliens in the United States as well as its proposed deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents There was actually another proposed deferred action, which would extend eligibility to parents of DACA recipients; however, this deferred action differed from others and did not seem to pursue precedents set by Congress, thus the DHS did not find it permissible under enforcement discretion. They did retain their authority, however, to issue such eligibility on an ad hoc basis.

Executive Actions on Immigration

So now we know that the executive actions were legally justifiable. But what were they? The President's wording in his address to the American public didn't exactly clarify what the details were of the policy initiatives being set out. One thing I would like to comment on approvingly, however, is the President's use of Scripture, which conservatives criticized but were not overwhelmingly in agreement on to what extent they disliked it [22]. It was a bold move which got a lot of attention, both approving and disapproving, from the public, but it was a genius one. Ed Henry is right that it was political salesmanship; but unlike Henry, I'm not stating that as a bad thing. It reveals how meticulous Obama and his speech writers were in paying attention to the precise wording of his public statement. I give kudos to him for that.

Getting back on topic, what most people probably aren't familiar with are the specific actions set out by these initiatives. I'm going to cover those here, but if you want the same summary from a different source, please see the first link under "Sources" at the bottom.

The first initiative expands upon the population which is eligible for deportation relief under the DACA. It allows individuals born prior to June 15, 1981 to apply for DACA eligibility provided they meet all of the requirements. These requirements are that they must have had continuous residence in the United States since January 1, 2010 - an extension of the previous June 15, 2007, must not be an enforcement prior, either be the parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident or be an individual who arrived in the U.S. prior to turning 16 years old, and there must not be present any factors which would make grant of deferred action inappropriate [23]. Applications are not being accepted yet and will not be for several months. This also encompasses the second initiative, which I will not detail separately to save time.

The third initiative expands the provisional waiver program of 2013 to sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or the spouses, sons or daughters of lawful permanent residents. It also plans to clarify the meaning of the "extreme hardship" standard required for a waiver, which has been somewhat ambiguous and problematic up until now. Said clarification has not been made yet, but it is suggested to consider factors such as "family ties to the United States and the country of removal, conditions in the country of removal, the age of the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, the length of residence in the United States, relevant medical and mental health conditions, financial hardships, and educational hardships" [24].

The fourth initiative seeks to "modernize, improve and clarify immigrant and nonimmigrant programs to grow our economy and create jobs." I will also not review this initiative in full detail as it's rather long. The fifth and final initiative aims to promote the naturalization process by promoting citizenship education and public awareness for lawful permanent residents, allowing applicants to use credit cards to pay for the application fee, and assessing the potential for partial fee waivers in the next biennial fee study. In addition to these initiatives, the White House also notes that recent border crosses will be a deportation priority, and that you will not qualify if you commit fraud.

Out of context, but appropriate. He should be a lawmaker.

Misconceptions And Arguments

Now that we have reviewed what the actions entail, we should address what misconceptions people have of them and the reasons people don't like them. These include issues of legal context and precedence, demographics, etc. Again, this will not be comprehensive nor exhaustive. I will only be rebutting the misconceptions and arguments I have personally heard and feel important to address.

Amnesty

A big one that I have to address constantly is the claim that the President is granting amnesty. The term "amnesty" has been applied to just about every action the President has taken in immigration policy. It just isn't the case.

Amnesty, by definition, is the pardoning of a group or class of individuals who have committed a crime and are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted. It can be described as "giving something for nothing," where the party in question goes without punishment and receives the pardon without taking any action on their own. This is, even admitted among conservative media, not what Obama's immigration initiatives are [25]. Setting aside the fact that the applicants must apply, pass background checks and meet other qualifications, they also have to pay an application fee of $465. This is inconsistent with what amnesty implies by definition. The term is used to describe immigration policy in order to invoke rejection and fear from the American public.

Executive Order

This misconception may not be intended, but I see consistent confusion among media outlets between the terms "executive action" and "executive order." This may not seem like an important point to cover, but there is a very clear distinction between the two.

An executive action is an opinion or nonbinding statement made by the President usually as a suggestion to Congress or his agencies to take action. Anything the President says can, in one way or another, be defined as an "executive action" of sorts, because it is just some proposal for action by the Executive. As stated, these are not legally binding, although it should be noted that the word of the President carries a great amount of weight even if it isn't de facto legally binding.

An executive order is different. An executive order is a legally binding mandate ordered by the President and published in Federal Register, which holds the weight of law. It can be repealed by the courts or Congress or by another president, but it is law until such repeal. As such, we can tell clearly by the difference between "executive action" and "executive order" whether or not the President has actually changed or created immigration law.

Executive Action is Inconsistent With Public Will

Some argue that the actions taken by the President are unjustifiable in the sense that the American public rejects it, and that the exercise of enforcement discretion in this scenario is not consistent with that of the public will. Firstly, I have not seen in any legal document that enforcement discretion must consider public approval, especially in the case of immigration law. I would be happy to hear from anyone who has such documentation.

That's not how it works, America. Well, not necessarily...

But the idea that this is inconsistent with the public will is ill informed to begin with. There aren't any clear numbers on the approval of the President's executive actions. Recent polls show that 48% and 38% of the public disapprove and approve of executive actions regarding immigration respectively, but these are divided among party lines [26]. 63% of Democrats support the President's executive actions, while only 11% of Republicans and 37% of Independents support it; but these numbers rise when informed of the substance of the initiatives. At the time of this poll, Hispanic approval of the President's executive actions (while the sample size was small) was at about 43%; however, recent data shows that President Obama's approval rating among Hispanics has risen to 68% in light of these recent initiatives [27]. The ultimate numbers for approval change from poll to poll [28], and so making any claim on these grounds is difficult.

The thing is, however, that it doesn't even matter. While it's important to consider public opinion in politics, especially in America, the President's executive actions can be seen as a response to years of inaction by Congress. The people may seem to prefer that the President negotiate with Congress on immigration reform, and so his actions may actually promote that and be consistent with public approval. All in all, however, this is a pragmatic issue and cannot be held back by considerations of whether or not the majority of Americans are on board with this. The institutional presidency warrants actions which may not be consistent with public opinion, and this cannot be helped in most cases, including this one.

Anchor Babies And Immigrant Youth

I personally love these two.

As is tradition, it is suggested by some that these recent actions the President has taken will increase the number of immigrants coming into the United States. The grounds for this are that the recent actions grant citizenship to parents of United States children, and thus further promote "anchor babies." Anchor babies are babies who are born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, intentionally so that the baby will automatically gain citizenship in accordance with the Constitution, and the parents will be automatically granted a pathway to citizenship.

The problem with this is that parents or guardians are only eligible, as stated earlier, if their child is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident who has continuously resided in the country since January 1, 2010. This eliminates any possibility for parents to have their children now, since they will not be eligible; in fact, they will be prioritized by the new executive actions. The same applies for young immigrants who come to the United States now after the President's statements have been made public.

One might make the counterargument that these immigrants will be given the impression that if they act now, the date will be extended again in the future and make them eligible. I will admit, at a visceral level this sounds plausible. Intuitively it makes sense that people will see this as a slippery slope, and in fact there may be some noise near the border (mostly by groups who would benefit from it, i.e. smugglers) that this will be the case; however, intellectually it would be hard to back up with evidence. Most people, in my experiences, do not consider these types of things when changing locations, even within the U.S. Most people are unfamiliar with how the law affects them, and so I do not see this (intellectually) as a huge possibility, although my gut feeling will always tell me there is some truth to the statement.

The President Has Set Legal Precedent

This will be the last argument I address in the post, although I encourage more (in moderation) in the comments section. Opponents of the President's executive actions argue that the President has now set a legal precedent, by acting under enforcement discretion, for the government to do anything it wants in enforcing the law, undermining the rule of law [29]. This is another slippery slope argument that I like to address, because it doesn't make any sense. As established, there are clear legal precedents in the context of immigration law and the execution of the law by the Executive that justify and provide legal basis for the President's actions. These do not apply universally to all aspects of the law, and does not suggest the undermining of the rule of law any more than does the traditional example of enforcement discretion of traffic violations. We have this discretion for a reason, and exercising it does not imply that pardons or excuses will be given to all people for all reasons.

What Should Republicans Do?

This is the most crucial question to be asked regarding the President's executive actions. What should Republicans do in response to the President's initiatives? It's a tough decision to make, and here is why.

As stated earlier, winning the presidency is contingent upon gaining 36-40% of the Hispanic vote. This means that no matter what, Republicans must pander to their Hispanic constituencies if they want to win the next presidential elections. This is problematic given the current state of affairs. In 2013, 89% of Hispanic voters supported a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants meeting certain requirements [30], but specifically 55% stated that deportation relief is their primary concern [31]. Republicans are now faced with the challenge of coming up with a comprehensive immigration reform to replace the President's executive actions.

But opposing "amnesty" hasn't stopped Republicans in the past, so why would it now? This is where the tangled web is woven. Consider what I think are the three primary reasons conservatives oppose granting citizenship to unauthorized immigrants:

1: Depression of wages.
2: It's not fair.
3: Change of voter demographics.

- John Boehner, circa right now -

All of them have their fair bases, but they've all been addressed, if not by past research then by the current actions. The immigrants who will be gaining a path to citizenship by these executive actions will have work visas, and thus will be eligible and probably will be working already in the United States. This will not have any drastic effects on the supply of labor as they will already have jobs (i.e. they were already in the work force). But what about the competition this poses? Well, immigrant competition does not constitute a significant portion of job competition [32]. Is it fair? Of course it is, since these immigrants have to wait months before applying, have to meet certain qualifications, are not likely to be committing crimes and will have to pay the application fee. The change of voter demographics? Well as shown, Hispanic/Latino support for the President didn't change until he addressed the issue of immigration, and so such action among Republicans should have the same effect, yes? Not quite, since for anything that Congress passes and the President signs, we know who will get credit.

So what is the Republicans' best course of action? I think the midterm elections offer some interesting predictions for this. Although the Republicans are traditionally a defensive, obstructionist party, especially when it comes to the Obama administration, inaction now will lead to complete loss of constituency support for the next elections. The new Republicans coming into the Senate, however, are mostly coming from states which voted for President Obama in 2012 [33]. Why is this the case? Because these states have large independent electorates. Pandering to the conservative electorate, then, will not do as much good as Republicans would want for these new Senators. They have to cater to their independent constituencies now, which means they will want to steer clear from any hard-right solutions to immigration reform, or the possibility of a government shutdown [34]. Likewise, with the new support Obama has from Hispanics, the will want to create legislation which can compete with President Obama's executive actions in appeal.

Conclusion

The conclusions to be drawn here are numerous. The President's executive actions are legally and practically defensible, and they offer some good (but temporary) solutions to our broken immigration system. Nonetheless, many will oppose these actions as being illegal, unconstitutional, monarchical, etc. The good news however is that we have some good pressure for the new Republican majority Congress to write up legislation to compete with President Obama and reaffirm Congressional debate and negotiations over this issue. Perhaps we will see an end to Congressional gridlock on immigration reform as a result of this. Perhaps not.

All I can say is that this will be very, very interesting to observe in the future.

Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you all next time!



Sources:

[1] Executive Actions on Immigration - USCIS

[2] Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration - Office of the Press Secretary

[3] Obama's Executive Action 'Not Constitutional' - CBN News

[4] Texas Leads 17 States Suing Obama Administration Over Immigration Action - CBS News

[5] U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013 - Pew Research Center

[6] Under pressure, Obama calls for immigration-enforcement review - The Washington Post

[7] Americans split on deportations as Latinos press Obama on issue - Pew Research Center

[8] S.729 - Dream Act of 2009 - 111th Congress

[9] House OKs bill aimed at illegal youth immigrants - MSNBC

[10] Obama administration to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants - CNN

[11] Arizona Responds to Deferred Action Program by Blocking Privileges for DREAMers - National Law Review

[12] Jason Chaffetz Confronts DHS Secretary Johnson On Immigration: "Did Obama Change The Law?" - Real Clear Politics

[13] Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory - Moe & Howell

[14] War Powers Resolution - Yale Law School

[15] Boehner: 'I'd Bring The Congress Back' If Obama Asks For War Authorization - Huffington Post

[16] Congress in No Rush to Return for ISIS War Authorization - Roll Call

[17] "Generalissimo of the Nation:" War Making and the Presidency in the Early Republic - Adler

[18] Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion - Department of Homeland Security; see, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Operation Instructions § 103.1(a)(1)(ii)(1975)

[19] U.S. Constitution Article II § 3

[20] Heckler v Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831

[21] The Department of Homeland Security's Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others - Department of Homeland Security

[22] Bill O'Reilly Has To Call Bullsh*t On Ed Henry's Obama Immigration Speech Attack - The Daily Banter

[23] Five Things to Know About How President Obama's Executive Action Impacts Undocumented Immigrants - The White House Blog

[24] Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program - Department of Homeland Security

[25] Megyn Kelly Admits Obama's Executive Action Isn't Amnesty, Fox News And Republicans Purposefully Lie - Addicting Info

[26] NBC/WSJ Poll: Nearly Half Oppose Executive Action on Immigration - NBC

[27] On heels of immigration executive action, Obama's approval rating among Latinos rises sharply - Fox News

[28] How Much Support Does Obama Have On Immigration? - Huffington Post

[29] Boehner: 'We Will Not Stand Idly By As President Undermines The Rule Of Law' - NPR

[30] Views of Current Immigration Policy Proposals - Pew Research Center

[31] Relief from Deportation or Pathway to Citizenship? - Pew Research Center

[32] Immigration, Offshoring And American Jobs - Ottaviano et al.

[33] Riding Wave of Discontent, G.O.P. Takes Senate - New York Times

[34] Who's Dreaming Now? Obama Opponents Do A Weapons Check On Immigration - NPR

Further Reading:

- Immigration Action Key Facts - DHS

- The difference between executive actions and executive orders.

Cultural Marxism, Cultural Conservatism and the Frankfurt School: Making Sense of Nonsense

This post is going to be a lot different from my other ones. It's going to be analytical, experimental, and probably very boring. If you're not interested in politics, philosophy or history, then I highly recommend you go back to whatever you were doing before you came across this post. Fair warning.

Introduction

I'm no stranger to the depths of the internet. It's a place where many perspectives can meet together and either have thoughtful discussion, or (more frequently) duke it out verbally over things they know they'll never come to agreement on. The internet is frequently described as the "free market place of ideas," and with good reason - on the internet, you're not very much restricted on what you can say or do. It's a place where even the smallest of voices can be heard, and be much louder than they ever would have been in "the real world." This can be good, because it can offer dissent and debate over things that would never have seen the light of day otherwise; it can serve as a floor that is conducive to open discussion over any topic, and in many ways, provide equal weight to all of them.

Yet this can also be very bad. Particularly, it makes sense out of nonsense, or at least gives nonsense the appearance of sense. Uninformed parties can also shout from the rooftops of the internet and convince the ignorant masses that what they say is true, or at the very least backed up by substantial evidence or reason. I use "ignorant" mildly here. There's nothing particularly wrong about being ignorant on any given subject, because different pieces of knowledge are useful for different things. Being ignorant has nothing to do with personal value, but merely with what a person has been exposed to and what they're familiar with, and it's very context specific.

I'll give the subject of this post as an example, which we'll further examine. The term "cultural Marxism" has recently gained a lot of popularity in usage among cultural conservatives. While I'll be discussing the "true" meaning of the term throughout this post, a very basic summary is that it is an easy-to-use description of leftism and its influence on culture, adherent to the principles of Marxism. Proponents of the term often claim that these things, starting as early as World War I, have slowly crept their way into Western culture in order to uproot its traditions and values, and is thus a real threat to our way of life.

Now, at an initial glance, this seems like it makes sense, but I'll spoil the surprise for you: it's nothing more than propaganda, utilizing a seldom understood "foreign" concept as a target through which cultural conservatives can mobilize their supporters against a narrative scapegoat. The use of this term, at least within academia, will ultimately never find favor due to its sheer ridiculousness (although proponents will argue that it's being avoided because of "political correctness"); however, this means that its most common occurrences are found within the works of published authors or the internet, and will gain much favor amongst the adhering public. Very few people are truly aware of what Marxism actually is, and so when they see the term, they don't immediately recognize its flaws. This is why it only shows itself at night: because only the ignorant masses, or the uninformed but generally educated public, will buy it.

It's actually kind of funny. Last year, I read a work by one published proponent of the term, Patrick Buchanan, specifically his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America for a project on how to recognize propaganda in rhetoric. This year, it seems Lex (the coauthor of this blog) has been getting hammered by fans of Kevin MacDonald, another author who has frequently used this term to describe a hypothetical Jewish group evolutionary strategy. Quickly we can see that its favor amongst cultural conservatives has led to its application to immigration, Jews (and most likely anti-Semitism), and in general the political left. Now I get to examine its implications and explain why it's of no value.

In this post, we'll first take a look at the meaning of the term "cultural Marxism," its history and usage, and its rising popularity in America. I'll then explain its association with the Frankfurt School and the related conspiracy theory. Next, in order to be able to make any sense of what I'll be talking about, I'll review a few fundamental tenets of Marxist theory. I'll then use the available information and critical analysis to pick apart the term and explain why it doesn't make sense. Likewise, I'll explain why it has nothing to do with the Frankfurt School. Finally, after dispelling all misinformation and propaganda surrounding the issue, I'll try to explain why this term has found common usage, and argue why it's preferable to keep it around instead of eradicating it from the public thesaurus with an atomic bomb.

By the end of this post, I plan on having accomplished the following:

1: Thoroughly examining and refuting the term "cultural Marxism."
2: Pissing off every ideologue that supports the use of this term.
3: Giving people a better understanding of Marxist theory and methodology.

However, I do not plan on accomplishing the following:

1: Convincing anyone who finds favor with this term that it's of no value.
2: Educating those who just want to argue with me.
3: Stopping the use of this term.

I am not here to debate those who are already convinced of their righteousness. I'm here to provide information for those individuals who are seeking it, and want to know more about Marxist theory/methodology without it being confounded by conspiracy theories and political dogma. This is a pedagogic discussion, not a platform for people to promote their ideologies.

Likewise, I don't expect that this will be the end of "cultural Marxism," nor do I want it to be. Although it's admittedly stupid, the use of the term serves as a very powerful and important political tool, and even if it were to be eradicated from the political lexicon, a new term paired with a new conspiracy theory (or the same one for that matter) would quickly replace it. It seems apparent to me that if any term were to find favor with radical conservatives, it's fortunate it was this.

History and Background

When I first looked at the term "cultural Marxism," I nearly spat out my water. First of all, what the heck does it mean? Secondly and lastly, where did it come from?

Perhaps the first popular use of the term "cultural Marxism" in its modern conception is found in an article entitled What is Political Correctness? by cultural conservative pundit William S. Lind. In an Accuracy in Academia (a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting against perceived liberal bias in education) conference, Lind explained:

"Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."

These are from around the turn of the century. Now, the term has found increasing favor with conservative movements such as the Tea Party movement in 2009. In his manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik placed a copy of Lind's 2004 pamphlet on the subject, further popularizing the term. Less dangerously, the term has been picked up in its extreme by white nationalist movements. If we look at Metapedia, which is basically an encyclopedia for racists, the definition of cultural Marxism begins as follows:

"Cultural Marxism or Cultural Bolshevism (degenerate culture) seeks to destroy everything good about a society, what holds it together, what helps it to advance, what promotes intelligence and beauty. It seeks to degenerate society and take it to a lower form where people are less intelligent and more animal. It's based on the Marxist lie that everything good about society is all a form of oppression."

In this definition, we can see the practice as being instrumental in some type of conspiracy, and even in promoting "degenerate culture-" a term which finds its roots in the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, and refers to a lower quality of culture, specifically modern art. Of course, we now know that culture can't be seen as being part of a hierarchy or set of stages, but is instead plural and adaptive.

It's not fair, admittedly, to associate all found usage of the term "cultural Marxism" with these more radical (and admittedly uninformative) interpretations and applications. Given what we know, and what we can see on Wikipedia, cultural Marxism is essentially the application of Marxist theory to culture, and "conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized."

This was once, perhaps, a legitimate intellectual practice, but in its modern usage it not only doesn't make sense, but it probably doesn't exist. However, when something doesn't make sense, it's usually attributed to a contentious source, or a conspiracy theory. This incites not only a sense of legitimacy, but fear as well, and serves to mobilize people who are afraid of its lasting effects.

The Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School is a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory. It's actually not a physical school, but refers to any thinkers associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. The term was rarely used by the thinkers themselves. The Frankfurt School arose from dissident Marxists who thought that some of Marx's followers were narrowly interpreting his teachings. In addition, they thought these Marxists were spending too much time discussing the "base" of human society, and not enough time discussing how the "superstructure" functions to support it. We'll discuss what these two things mean in our overview of Marxist theory.

The foundations and teachings of the Frankfurt School, however, are seldom examined by those who use the term in question. A conspiracy theory has arisen around the Frankfurt School, suggesting that they "deliberately subverted traditional Western values through interventions into culture, leading to what is called political correctness." The critical theory of the Frankfurt School, then, is an intentional destruction (or deconstruction) of Western culture, values and traditions to those who buy into this conspiracy theory. Such groups include the Free Congress Foundation and, as mentioned, white nationalist organizations and movements.

While it has found popularity amongst those who, politically, can utilize its societal ramifications, this isn't the common scholarly understanding of the Frankfurt School. This understanding argues that while some individual thinkers from the Frankfurt School did engage in social critique in America, they had no unified theory, nor collective political agenda. This actually makes a lot of sense, given the tenets of Marxist theory and the scholarly foundations of the Frankfurt School.

The alternative interpretation served and continues to serve as an explanation for the idea of "political correctness," originally suggested by the Schiller Institute (a branch of the LaRouche Movement) in 1992, and further promoted in 1994. They charged that the Frankfurt School promoted modernism as a form of cultural pessimism, which contributed the counterculture of the 1960s. The counterculture was a counter mobilization effort primarily amongst proponents of the black civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the anti-Vietnam student movement in America. Opposition to the counterculture, seeing it as trying to subvert and destroy the traditional values and foundations of America, is what eventually led to the election of the conservative president Richard Nixon. Already, we can see why the term "cultural Marxism" could be of political significance.

But before we look at any of that, we have to be able to make sense of all of these associations - by that I mean we have to look at fundamental tenets of Marxist theory to see why none of these associations make any sense at all.

Marxist Theory

In this section, we'll be discussing two important facets of Marxist theory in order to explain the relationship between culture and society that it envisions, and later apply it to the subject at hand. The first is the dichotomy of human society according to Marxist theory, base and superstructure. The second is the analytical framework and theoretical foundation of Marxism, called dialectical materialism (or, as we will refer to it, dimat).

According to Marxist theory, human society is divided into two parts: the base and the superstructure. The base of society consists of the means and relations of production. The means of production include the tools, factories, land, raw materials, etc. which are all instrumental in the substance of the society. The relations of production are the capital, commodities, private property, etc. which are the social relations and interactions within a mode of production.

The superstructure, or the phenomenon, on the other hand, consists of everything not directly to do with the production. This includes (but is not limited to) the law, media, education, religion, philosophy, and namely the culture. At the center of all of this is ideology, which provides the justification for it all - that is, after the superstructure interacts with the phenomenon. Marxist theory sees culture as being part of the phenomenon, and states that it comes into existence from the base, or the substance of society. It is then, after interacting with the base, justified by the ideology of the society in the superstructure, which also rises from the base. It is a spiral dialectic where the base is most often the domineering force in society.

Outside of this dialectic is the overarching analytical framework of Marxist theory - dialectical materialism. As the term implies, it is a combination of dialectics and materialism. Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity. It approaches things with static definition, and is informal in its mode of thought of ordinary understanding. It goes beyond the formal appearance of something and examines its essence.

Materialism emphasizes the material world as the foundation and determinant of thinking, especially concerning questions of the origin of knowledge. Simply put, it is the belief that at the end of the day, the material conditions' existence shape consciousness, not vice versa.

Dimat, then, is the combination of the two. It's a way of understanding reality by applying the informal mode of thought of ordinary understanding that is dialectics, along with the determinist approach of materialism, to make sense of everything, whether it be the material world, or thoughts and emotions. It is an overarching analytical framework, not a specific analytical framework.

These are fundamental to Marxist theory, and are key in understanding why "cultural Marxism" makes no sense. Learning these dialectics is important because it allows us to know when something can be "applied" or, when it does, if it makes sense. If we look at the fundamentals of Marxism, we see that "cultural Marxism" is a poorly framed interpretation of Marxist theory and is flawed in its conception.

Cultural Marxism

To reiterate, cultural Marxism can be considered the application of Marxist theory to culture. Immediately, knowing what we do, we can make sense of this nonsense and explain why the concept is flawed. It may not be obvious right now, but in a moment it'll make nonsensical sense.

Let's start with the Frankfurt School. As was stated, the Frankfurt School thought that the Marxists of the time were paying too much attention to the base, and not enough to how the ideology functions to support it. They, like the other Marxists, saw the ideology as rising from the base of society, and then justifying it in the superstructure, but sought to emphasize this. Dimat is materialism - the belief that material is the determinant of consciousness - and dialectics - an informal method of understanding things concretely - as an analytical framework for making sense of reality. Why, then, would the Frankfurt School apply the dialectics of Marxism to culture? They sought to emphasize how ideology functions to support the base, not the other way around. "Cultural Marxism" would be a contradiction to this purpose, because it places the same emphasis on culture as traditional Marxists (or the narrow-minded followers of Marx, from which the Frankfurt School dissented).

Moving on, however, the whole idea of "applying" Marxist theory/dimat to a specific facet of superstructure or base, such as culture, is fundamentally flawed. Dimat is an overarching analytical framework that serves as the base for Marxism. It's not a specific framework. Culture always has a place in the framework, as it's a part of superstructure in the relationship we've established above. You can't apply Marxist theory specifically to culture (as is proposed by cultural Marxism) because culture is already an element of Marxist dialectics, and is already examined via the theoretical framework.

Furthermore, even if we were to examine culture specifically using dimat, this is contradictory in nature. Marxist theory is deterministic, where Marx emphasized that ideas have no significant consequences. To examine culture deterministically would be a fundamental contradiction to Marxist theory - it would be a dialectic idealism, not a materialism.

The term "cultural Marxism," then, is either redundant, or self-contradictory in nature. Certainly the Frankfurt School would have nothing to do with such an application of dialectic materialism, but even if they were, they would quickly run into problems. Beyond the Frankfurt School, framing of the term "cultural Marxism" is inherently flawed because it fails to grasp a basic understanding of Marxist dialectics, and this is why it serves no position in scholarly debate, but in propagandizing.

Why is This Important?

Phew, that was a bit of a headache. Now we have to expand upon what was just said and ask the question: why did this flawed term gain so much popularity, and why is it important?

Simply put, I believe it's because it's a foreign concept. Not many people are familiar with Marxism, and the idea of it is seen as the antithesis of Western values, especially democracy. Using Marxism is an easy scapegoat because it incites anger and fear out of people; and then, when you tack "culture" onto "Marxism," it makes it seem like a very specific attack on the culture and traditions of Western society. It's an illustrated conspiracy theory intended to make people afraid of anything that seems to resemble critical theory. In reality, dialectic materialism is merely an analytical framework - it doesn't seek to "do" anything, merely analyze it.

But as flawed as the term is, I think it's important to keep it around. For one, it's very stupid, and thus it won't become too dangerous in its popular usage. More importantly, though, it serves as a method by which radical conservatives can mobilize and consolidate their interests, playing an important part in the political process. As we mentioned, such a rapid mobilization is what resulted in the election of Nixon and the ensuing election of several Republican presidents in the United States. This was a pretty important period for American history where a lot was done, and a lot of modern government operations are founded in that era. While it qualifies as propaganda, "cultural Marxist" fear may actually play enough significance in society that it warrants the very analysis it opposes.

Thank you everyone for reading, and I'll see you all next time!

Chiggers: Why They Suck & How to Get Rid of Them... Kinda

Where I go to college, I'm pretty much surrounded by wilderness. I'm right out in the Pine Barrens where there's, besides the campus, nothing but trees, foliage and dirt. Hell, even some of the campus is pretty much just trees, foliage and dirt. In addition to that, we've got a giant lake which lends a marshland to the otherwise already wild woods. That makes it mosquito country, and that makes it bad for me.

Back at home, all I got were mosquito bites. If I so much as lifted my arm and my sleeve fell too far past the cuff, my wrist turned into a biscuit tray (i.e. really bumpy and perfect for baking). I'm the only one in my family who really has this problem, and none of us are entirely sure why. I've read that mosquitoes like warmer things, and the color black, both of which I tend to fit perfectly with (I wear a lot of black and my body is always warm). I dunno about blood types, but maybe that has something to do with it too. Anyway, that's pretty much the extent of what I'd have to deal with though. Nothing too bad elsewhere, besides occasionally finding a tick searching my body.

Last year, however, I couldn't help but see the vast wildlife around me and think "well shit, this would be great for an adventure!" I'd stock my pockets with my tool knives and head out into the woods just to see what cool crap I could find. These efforts didn't go unrewarded: I've found my fair share of cool fruits from trees I never knew about (mostly ornamentals), and I came across some moss-covered bridges, marshes, and even some weird picnic-like area where someone had carved out turtle shells. Sorry, but I think that's pretty cool, and totally worth contending with mosquitoes and ticks.

Well, little did I know that was the worst of my problems.

I was plagued with the most rotten devils in the world: chiggers. They're these tiny little parasites that you can barely see, and will only find if you actually check for them, usually around your ankles. They like to go into tight spots, so your ankles are definitely at risk, as are your privates. No I'm not kidding.

Usually you get them by walking through brush, and a clump of them smacks onto you, and they start searching your body for a good place to start biting you. They can wander for as long as 3 hours without biting, but when they bite, it's horrible. My record number of bites at any given time is 27. Yes, 27 bites, exclusively on my ankles (and 5 or less on my legs). The first time I got bitten, though, it was only 21 (yeah, only). These bites never typically got to anything bad like an infection, but they itch. They itch bad. You've never really experienced an itch until you've had multiple chigger bites, and are as vulnerable to their little secreted fluids as I am.

But when I first got them, I thought it shouldn't be a problem. Whenever I got a bad mosquito bite, I just got some After Bite and soaked it up. I tried the same thing on my chigger bites, but it didn't work. I'll tell you, the first time I dealt with these fuckers, I tried everything. Ice, heat, Cortizone, After Bite, nail polish, and a few other things including but not limited to scraping the blistered heads off my bites and burning them with alcohol. Yeah, it got that serious for me. I was desperate, and for a while I had convinced myself that worked, but the itching never ceased. The first time this happened, it lasted for two weeks, and I had no idea whether anything I was doing had caused the itching, burning and pain to go away. I was just glad they were gone and I was done with sleepless nights of torturous itching on my feet.

Then I got them again this year.

I was more prepared this year, though. I knew that once I noticed chiggers on my skin, I should take my clothes off and wash them in soap and hot water. That's fine and dandy, but what about the ones on my skin? My girlfriend and I have gotten used to just plucking them off our skin, and whenever I go into the woods I spray myself with bug repellent for good measure, but this time it didn't work. My preventative measures didn't work, and I got my record number of bites only a week and a half ago, or so. The semester just started and I've already been eaten alive. So, what did I do? I refined some of my choices and tried something new, since none of my medications were working (I tried After Bite again, along with Chiggerid). I went into the shower, broke all of the bites open thoroughly, and then scrubbed them down with hot water and soap.

Now, I'm not going to lie to you, this hurts like a bitch, but after 5 minutes of intense burning, it can actually provide you with a few hours of relief if you leave the afflicted areas alone. This is where I started to discover bad things you can do to your bites that make them itch/burn worse:

1: Walking. Sorry, but if you can, you should stay off your feet for a few days.
2: Wearing socks. The fabric of your socks will irritate the bites.
3: Scratching. Do not scratch. The autonomous itching has stopped right now, but if I ever get tempted to scratch the area around the scabs of my ex-bites, the itching sensation comes back instantly, and as bad as before.

After a few days, I was at a loss. I have to walk to classes, and one of my classes this semester warrants me to continuously go to locations where chiggers are likely to screw me over. I continued to ask around for advice on how to handle this horror. I had no luck, but I did find out a few things about chiggers that you should know.

First, the nail polish trick, while it can relieve itching, is stupid. The premise is that chiggers dig into your skin and then leave a hole to breathe, but that they stay there until they decide to leave; so if you cover the bite with nail polish, they suffocate and die. It's not true. They don't burrow, they just bite. If they did burrow, however, why the hell would you want to keep them in your skin? Do you want your skin to look like the inside of a dragon fruit, laden with black dots? Do you want the source of the irritation, something you could be highly allergic to, to just stay in your skin? The whole idea is just ridiculous.

Second, chiggers (and similar mites) have this unique characteristic that they like to bite the same person even if another person is available. In this case, I sleep in the same bed as my girlfriend; yet despite being infested by chiggers myself, my girlfriend never got any from me. The chiggers, after biting someone, just like to stick to them. Why? Because they love you, that's why! Ain't it great?

Anyway, speaking of my girlfriend, that's how I eventually ended up overcoming my bites. My girlfriend brought me Benadryl anti-itch cream, and it worked miracles for me. Really, this is the only thing that's actually confidently worked. After Bite doesn't do anything. Chiggerid just leaves a flaky, sometimes painful (because it sticks to your hair) coating on your skin. The other methods are just generally ineffective. For anyone else who has had chiggers, you're welcome to disagree and explain why, but here's what I recommend for people who suffer from these bites:

1: Immediately take off all your clothes and wash them in hot water and soap.
2: Try to find as many of the chiggers on your body as you can and pluck them off, putting them in a pot of boiling water to make sure they die (or just scrape them to death).
3: Try to endure the pain of breaking your bites open in the shower, then scrub them maybe two or three times with soap and hot water, thoroughly.
4: Dry the areas, then apply Benadryl anti-itch cream.
5: Avoid irritating the afflicted areas further.

If you can medicate the bites before they get bad, you can usually prevent this disaster; however if you're not fast enough like me, this seems to work. Again, it takes a while for you to fully recover, but hopefully this'll speed up the process. If it doesn't, or even makes things worse, I'm sorry. (But I'm not accountable).

As far as preventative measures go, I'd advise the following:

1: Find a good bug repellent and spray yourself before you go around any areas with tall grass/bushes, or is humid, damp or swampy. I use Off!.
2: Wear long pants and sleeves, with preferably tall socks to further protect your ankles.
3: Try to only spend around an hour (maybe two) in the areas where chiggers are more likely to get you, just to make sure they don't bite you before you can check yourself safely.
4: When you get home, make sure you change clothes and check yourself, and wash whatever clothes you were wearing.

But most importantly:

Don't let this deter you from exploring out in the wilderness. Wildlife is incredible, and a few mites shouldn't hinder your ability to enjoy that. Just be aware of some of the risks you're taking, take the proper precautions, and be sure that if you encounter a situation such as this, you're prepared to deal with it.

Thank you all for reading, and I'll see you all next time!

How to Remove a Hornets' Nest: The Tale of a Patriot

On August 7th, 2014, something happened that would change the lives of every citizen in my neighborhood forever.

...

Alright so a few days ago, I wake up and I go outside to get in my car because I was hungry and I like chicken. As I'm getting in my car, I hear an irritable buzzing above my head, so I instinctively duck out of the way and dive over the roof of my car, taking cover behind it. This isn't unusual: I'm parked within a 2 foot vicinity of a tree that my neighbor's planted back when the house next door was still occupied. It grows a lot of flowers and berries, so it's commonplace for bees to hover around the tree to harvest. This time was different, though. I peered over the hood of my car like a neurotic prairie dog, and I get a glimpse of this mother fucker:

I know right? This thing was about the size of a basketball and highly active. It's about 7 feet above the ground, and lord knows I ain't cutting the branch on that thing. One of my biggest fears is of wasps, and this was just a giant bald faced hornet nest, so my "shit myself" levels were off the scale. Lately in New Jersey, at least as far as I've seen, our bees/wasps/hornets have been getting bigger and bigger each year. It's probably something in the water, since (as Lex put it) the Jersey shore  is particularly disgusting (as is the show), and it probably causes autism too (as does the show).

Anyway, so this isn't my first time dealing with wasp/hornet nests before. About a month ago my shed was plagued with three of them, although none were this big. Two were the size of golf balls and one was the size of a water bottle. I did the common sense thing to do: I went to Lowe's and bought a value pack of hornet killer. I sprayed both cans in the pack at the nests, and then inside the shed, and voila: the next day, everything was dead. Actually, at the time, I didn't even know the water-bottle sized nest was in the shed. It was blocked by one of my bikes and so I didn't see it, but I ended up killing them out anyway just from my spraying of the other two nests. Talk about luck, right? I was totally satisfied when I learned that I had another colony of confirmed kills.

This one is different, though. It's so big, and so batshit crazy, there was no way I was going to run the risk of spraying at it and pissing off its inhabitants. We called the township and asked them to take care of it, since it's not on our property and hangs over a public sidewalk, and they said they wouldn't because they only covered stray cats and dogs. My thoughts were this: fork over the money and hire an exterminator. The hive isn't on our property, it's on the property of an abandoned house that's seldom taken care of. Another person on the block called in and complained, sending them a picture of the nest, and they said they'd call the mortgage company of the house next door and have them take care of it, which would take up to ten days.

Here's the thing: last time I heard something like that is when we called the mortgage company and asked them to take care of the siding that was breaking off the house and at risk of flying into our windows. It's been months now, and we've had no response. So this "ten days" thing not only sounds like bullshit, but probably is. So, we decided we'd take matters into our own hands, although we probably shouldn't, since it's not our problem.

My dad suggested cutting the branch and leaving a trash can underneath it, but I was thinking of all the possible ways the trajectory of the slice in the branch could cause it to fall outside of the trash can and make our lives miserable. I wasn't about to let that happen. After a bit of musing over potential ideas, I got one:

Just to be clear, what I did was this: I cracked my window open a bit, covered the outside in plastic wrap, cut a hole in it, parked next to the hive, and then launched two cans of hornet killer at it from the hole. It was the best way to ensure that I didn't get stung, and that I could get the most accurate shot possible. I soaked it pretty well, as you can tell if you can hear the soaked pummeling of hornet killer flowing down from the hive. The instructions said wait 24 hours, and thus I did. I went back the next day.

The hive was still active.

Literally, it was maybe even more active than before. Aside from a few dead ones that were lying on the ground, it seemed like the spray had no effect. That scared me, but not to worry. I decided to buy another few cans of the spray, and over the course of the next few days, I kept soaking it up in hornet killer. By yesterday, it seemed that it was finally starting to work, but still, the hive was active.

I was at a loss. I didn't have any other ideas on how to kill a hornets' nest without getting stung, and I figured if a chemical that was specifically engineered to kill wasps/hornets/bees and their nests couldn't do the job, what was left besides to bash it with a baseball bat and knock it into the street, then run over it with a car repeatedly and wait for the swarm to calm down before coming anywhere near our block? Again, the idea of cutting the nest down occurred, but something just told me that these hornets were waiting for something. They were waiting in their hive for something genuinely dangerous to happen, and at that moment, they would strike. Having their nest cut down would very easily give them all access points to leave the hive and come attack us. I know that's what they were planning, but I wasn't about to give them that satisfaction. I texted my girlfriend with the following message:

"This damn nest has cost me $20 in spray and 4 hours of time. Only a dozen have died and the fortress still stands. Do you know what I call that?"

When she asked what, I responded again, but with a very telling picture of the supplies I would be using for my next attack:

"Personal."

That night (so they'd all be a little bit more sleepy), I sprayed the hive with two more cans of the spray, and then came back today to check up on my progress. There were maybe four or five of the little bastards still actively flying around the hive, and so I readied my weapons. That's right guys, I did what any patriot would do. This is America, dammit, there are thousands of men and women willing to die for this country, so hell if I'm gonna let a few buzzing bugs get the best of me. This is how we take care of a fucking hornets' nest in America.

Oh, and because it isn't visible in the video, the tips of the arrows had American flags hanging from them. No joke. Here is what the hive looks like now (flags slightly visible):

So what did that do? Hell if I know! There's a gaping hole in the side of the nest now, and that's good enough for me. I'm gonna end up buying more spray and making use of that gaping hole to get them more directly, but other than that, I think they got the message. Don't fuck with America. We know how to handle 'em.

Thank you to everyone for reading, and I'll see you all next time!

Gamestop, Punch Out, and "Hot Deals"

I would've gotten to writing this sooner, but these past few days have been really hectic, including but not limited to getting sent to other dimensions, getting a car and going to IHOP. There was plenty of insanity beyond this, but if I had to chalk up the top 3 craziest things that happened in the past week, those would be my picks, in ascending order.

So about a week ago my brother and I are trailing around the middle of Scenic Nowhere, New Jersey (my home town) on a gaming raid. This happens every now and again, with great success: we do a drive by of every game store in a 10 mile radius of our house in an effort to find things we would really like to buy just so we can complain about how poor we are and how we can't afford them. It's actually one of the most productive parts of my monthly escapades because it reminds me to renew the superglue in the mouth of my wallet, since the flames of summer-after-semester-season remove it in less time than it takes to lick the glue off a postage stamp; a challenge, mind you, that I have been timing and testing for a longitudinal study of my own mental handicaps, which I have submitted to the Journal of Bumfuckology. Hopefully my paper will be published by September.

Back to the story, we're on this adventure because a few days before, my brother told me that there was a used copy of Punch-Out!! for $12 or $14 (he couldn't remember which) in the "HOT DEALS!" bin. This is big because usually they're $20 online, not including shipping, and my brother is a big fan of punching - that is, he's a fan of Punch-Out!! and boxing, making him a punching aficionado. At the same time, we were looking into splitting the cost of a $25 gift card for our cousin's birthday, so he asked if while I was out, I could pick up the copy if it were under $13, and then he would pay for the gift card on his own some other time. Fair trade. I get there, however, and see that it's $14, and so I didn't get it.

But that evening he decided he wanted to go get it anyway, and so we drove to Gamestop to pick it up. The game is still there, and it's $14, and so my brother takes out his wallet in preparation to go to the counter. I'm looking over at the Wii U games because I'm waiting for the day Nintendo 'gets good.' I'm inspecting the back of the case for ZombiU as I hear the faint voice of an inevitably pissed off grown-ass man who's probably already wrapping his knuckles and slipping the gloves on: "Wait a minute."

I walk over to see that he's pointing at another tag on the case, which says that the game is $30 used. His finger then trails to the sticker that had $14 on it and to its edge, where the wording is cut off halfway, but we can both very clearly read what it was supposed to say:

Bandit Video

Bandit Video is a mom and pop shop that buys/sells/trades video games and movies. They're located literally right down the street from this Gamestop: probably a 5 minute walk away. It was clear, then, that somebody had bought a copy of Punch-Out!! from Bandit for $14, then sold it back to Gamestop for the $0.30 that Gamestop tickles your belly button with for used games, and then Gamestop put it back on the shelf without taking the sticker off. But it was still listed for $14, right? And it was even in the "HOT DEALS!" case, so we figured it would behoove us to ask the employee there how much it was being sold for.

"Oh, no, it's $30. That must have already been there. Some people like to print off stickers for yard sales and stuff and I guess whoever was handling the games forgot to take it off." Okay, so obviously this employee wasn't prepared to read the name on the sticker, so we did it for him. Hey, maybe he'd realize he's being an ass and sell it to us for the price it's listed for.

"Well no, it says Bandit Video on the sticker."

"Oh, well I guess that's what they were selling it for."

Not another word.

So this Gamestop decides they're not going to check their game cases for competitors' stickers before putting them on the shelf, and then they're going to mislead you by throwing the game in the "HOT DEALS!" case when, in fact, it's no more of a "HOT DEAL!" than if they put it in the regular used game pile. Not only that, but when a customer points out that the price is listed for cheaper than what they intended, Gamestop just ignores it. Not only that, but when we point out that it's their competitor's sticker, they just say "oh, well I guess that's what they were selling it for. Not us, though. We're charging double for it, despite having listed it differently (middle finger)."

Seriously? I'm unsure of how ballsy an employee has to be to not say to themselves "oh, this person saw an item in a discount bin for a discount price, but somebody forgot to take the discount sticker off and charge them the regular used game price. Maybe that was a bit misleading, and maybe it's on us to own up to that and give them that game for the listed price, then do a check of our other games."

I'm talking about two principles here. The first is that when an item is listed for a certain price, it seems like bullshit (at least to me) that the employee at the register can just say "oh, ignore that discount sticker. This is the actual price." The other is that the price they were actually selling it for wasn't a discount price, when it was labelled as though it should've been. It was the used price. Why was it in the "HOT DEALS!" bin, then, in the first place? If by "hot deal" they mean "I'm ramming a rip-off up your ass until your rectum turns hot, deal?" then I can understand that. On that note, I should repeat that it sells online for $20 used. So, yeah, quite the "hot deal," if they're talking about the scorching hole in your wallet.

Sure, sure, they're not obligated to sell the game for the misleading, false price, but it takes some pretty large cojones to sit there and flat out tell your customer: "we're selling it for $30. Our competitor sells it for half of that. Take it or leave it." It also takes some weird logic to sell an item labelled as a discount when it's... not discounted? What else could "HOT DEAL!" mean, besides this, or the aforementioned ass-ramming?

An anal-targeting fireball of "fuck you!"

I've only ever encountered this situation twice before. One was at an Old Navy, where there was an outfit on the 75% off shelf, but it wasn't supposed to be there. The cashier, however, sold it for that discounted price because it was misleading for it to have been there in the first place, aside from the fact that it was an accident on the part of one of their employees (the employee even readily owned up to it, then went through the shelf to make sure they didn't do it for any other items as well).

The other situation was at a Walmart, where the employee accused my mother of intentionally putting a discount sticker on a non-discounted item and then lying about it. That was a battle to be put on video, but maybe that's a story for another day. Point being, even in this situation, it ended up being sold for the discount price.

We thought about saying something, and we ended up not doing so, but we definitely regretted it after. It was fine, though: I got back at them in another way the next day. I'll save that for mystery, though. After the ordeal, we went to Bandit, and my brother found another used boxing game for $14, and so he bought it.

So what's the take away here? Simple: Gamestop's filled with sleazy penny pinchers who aren't afraid to flat out tell you they're marking their price up 100% compared to their competitor right down the block, and aren't willing to own up to their mistakes in a way that might actually feel like you're not getting flipped off. That's really all there is to it.

Well, at least, that Gamestop is. But please, have you ever heard of Gamestop not being this way? If you have, please share. I'll move to your state.

On that note, if any of you reading this are in the area I'm talking about, I think you should go check out Bandit Video. They sell games for the NES, SNES, N64, PS1, etc. too, which is pretty awesome, and they give you some really good prices for the games/movies you want to sell to them. I've been going there for years now, and I can attest to their high quality and the friendly atmosphere. Here's their website:

http://www.banditvideo.net/

And if you aren't in the area, consider looking into their selection on Amazon.

Thanks for reading, and I'll see you all next time!