The popular meme about citizenship is if you are born here then you are a citizen of this country. That’s not the law. The law in the 14th Amendment says . . .
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Naturally, illegals who run across the border are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from. The 14th Amendment was written so that freed and emancipated slaves would become citizens, the same as other “free people” like their former owners.
But for argument’s sake, let’s say that a child born (in an American hospital paid for by American taxpayers, or not) a week after his mother ran across the border is a citizen. Proponents of open borders, sanctuary cities, and general all-around lawlessness will say “well, you can’t deport the mother because that would break up the family.” Hence the term “anchor baby” was also born.
There is no compelling reason to split up this family. Only a compelling reason to send them all back across the border they came from. You deport the parents, and the parents take their minor child with them. They have a distinct choice. Either be deported with your whole family or go to jail for a few years for child abandonment for not taking your infant with you. Followed by losing custody of the child. But, the illegal birth parents will go one way or the other. With or without their child.
The whole notion of an anchor baby is one part of the “welcome mat” that needs to be pulled if we are ever to regain control of our borders and sovereignty.
For years, and through multiple administrations, the pols in Washington have been driven to appeal to illegal aliens in this country. The meme being that if you want to expand your party (this is aimed at the Republican Party), you have to include some kind of amnesty. Bush 43 totally bought it and, he called it Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Since that time, the only thing we are told about illegals flooding the border is that the immigration system is broken. And we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. Obviously, changing the demographics of the country to turn all those undocumented democrats into a voting block in perpetuity.
Reasonable people, not interested in pandering to illegals, but interested in preserving our sovereignty and security contend that the system is not broken. It’s that the laws on immigration are not being enforced. The president, any president, can’t claim the system is broken if they are not willing to find out by enforcing the law. Oh by the way, like they took an oath to do.
Now, the Obama administration is in full-fledged crisis building on illegal immigration. Sanctuary cities, importing illegals and spreading them all over the country, letting illegals out of jail, not securing our borders, and now this . . .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States, a key agent testified Thursday.
What’s more, the stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals released are not to be tracked.
“We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether,” suggested agent Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
It is indeed, a manufactured crisis. And it is no accident. It’s exactly what the Coward-Piven Strategy is all about. Who advocates doing that? Barack Hussein Obama, that’s who.
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
When all the media, ABC included, opine how Donald Trump has brought the country to focus on issues important to most Americans, wouldn’t you have liked to hear the three Democrats running for president weigh in? Didn’t happen.
Democrat Debate Missing Words: Border Security, Illegal Immigration. Media shield: ON. Not one question about what is important to 70 percent of Americans. There was no mention of the words, let alone questions about either.
After the cage matches (the Republican debates), in response to the meme of the media,’s provocative and leading questions, their answer was, well, if you can’t handle (insert debate moderator), how can you handle the Democrat nominee in the general? Or, how can you handle Putin?
It’s not just media bias and hypocrisy. This is what circling the wagons looks like.
It was only few weeks ago, that Speaker Ryan said he was going to do ‘regular orders.’
We need to let every member contribute, not once they earn their stripes, but now. The committees should take the lead in drafting all major legislation: If you know the issue, you should write the bill. Let’s open up the process. In other words, we need to return to regular order.
There was not going to be these huge bills presented with no time to read what’s in them. Never mind have a debate on what’s in them. He assured Republicans in the House that he wasn’t going to do, what he just did.
Aside from that, what he just did, if approved, is fund the entire Democrat agenda. With few exceptions, there’s no difference between the tax, borrow, and spend Democrats and this Republican party. Senator Sessions (R-AL) is one of those exceptions.
So now Speaker Ryan says that’s for next year. No it’s not. Kill the bill now. Pass temporary spending at current levels, nothing added, until the bill can be put through regular orders.
So what’s the big deal you ask? Ask the minorities in this country how their employment situation is? Isn’t 50% of Black youth unemployment high enough? Do we really need to bring in 4 times as many unskilled and low-skilled (aka entry-level) alien workers next year as we did this year? Has the average family income of American middle class citizens not fallen enough that we should make it tougher on them to live and raise a family? Is bringing in not 10,000, but 175,000 Syrian refugees, with work permits and visas, with path to citizenship, who our own government acknowledges can not be vetted, good for American citizens? Is it good for our nation’s safety and security? That’s all in this omnibus bill.
Then there’s the bigger picture. This country is already broke. We already have in excess of $200 Trillion in unfunded mandated spending with no plan on fixing that. So we may as well make it worse? Is it better to go over the cliff at 100 miles per hour than at 50 miles per hour?
This bill is a raw attack on America’s future. It is a raw attack on the incomes of people who are not yet born. People born today are inheriting massive personal debt thanks to the irresponsible actions, regardless of political party in power, of this government. But irresponsible actions of Republicans in particular. They control the House. They have the power of the purse. They control (or not) government spending.
Which explains why the “outsiders” in the Republican primary are getting hit just as hard from the establishment Republicans as they are from Democrats. Our only hope to turn this ship around is to put one of them in The White House. And in subsequent elections, start cleaning house.
Vote the people who created this problem out of office. Replace them with people who won’t lie to you about how they’re going to cut the debt, fix the unfunded mandates problem, keep our country safe, and protect Americans first.
Did you see CNN’s “Fact Check” say FALSE to the Republican candidates statements about DHS failing to vet immigrants, refugees, and terrorists? Of course, they’re wrong. It’s like, it depends on what the definition of ‘vet’ is.
Here is DHS’s guidelines on “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training. It says, don’t see what you see, and don’t conclude what you conclude about terrorists, or where they come from, or what they believe. But if you see them with a bomb in their hand, then you can do something. Basically, it is the terrorist protection act as practiced by the Department of Homeland Security and directed by the Obama administration.
I call your attention to the Don’ts in section C under Goals. Projecting our Constitution to the global war on terror is not a winning strategy. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Who is being protected here? Us, or the terrorists?
Big in the national and local news as well as on the campaign trail is the plight of, among others, the Syrian refugees seeking asylum in this country. Only, they’re not seeking refuge in this country. This administration is hell-bent on bringing them to the United States instead of supporting/protecting them in and around Syria. Some are coming here to Northwest Florida.
When asked if they would rather be home or here, they prefer to be home, or close enough to home so they can return after the civil war is over and ISIS is destroyed.
NGO’s are bringing the “refugees” and embedded terrorists here, financed with grants from the federal government. Attempts to speak to Catholic Charities CEO Christopher Root have fallen on deaf ears. Neither phone calls or in-person requests for a meeting on the subject of the refugees have been returned or acknowledged.
Mr. Root is hold up in a secure office building on Garden Street, just what you might expect for a non-profit Catholic charity. What?
In an attempt to get some transparency, and for Mr. Root to justify why, in spite of administration officials (and the terrorists themselves) saying that there will be terrorists among them, why he feels sacrificing our national security is necessary? I think the reason can be summed up in money. As in grant money. National security? Not the Catholic Charity’s problem.
Below is a letter-to-the editor submitted Dec 1, 2015. It has not been published yet. Meanwhile, there have been plenty of articles and other letters published that are sympathetic to bringing the refugees here. And, at the same time, disparaging those, like many in the country, who want no part of them coming here. Only the leading Republican candidates are talking about helping them in and around their own country in safe zones. People like President Obama are quick to say, “that’s not who we are.” Sorry, but importing terrorists to do us harm is not who we are. Democrats are all-in for bringing them here. After all, Muslims tend to vote 80% Democrat. What he means is, just like illegals flooding our borders on foot, building a permanent voting block is who he is. But that’s not who America is.
It is not just Christopher Root, but the talking heads at UWF who must justify why Syrians must come here, knowing of the high risk of terrorist embeds, and also how plucking them out of their country, continent, culture, and language will be more beneficial, for the refugees.
Letter to the editor follows.
For the U.S. to participate in helping refugees from anywhere when they come here is one thing. But to take them out of their country, continent, culture, and language, to bring them here is not only presumptuous of us to know what’s best for them, but is endangering ourselves in the process.
They need help there, in safe zones, so they can return home when their civil war is over and the dust settles. We had our civil war and no-one left the country. For the Syrians to leave their own country would be taking the opposition to ISIL away. Taking Syria’s future away. That’s not compassion.
What the media and academe won’t tell you is, it’s not the U.S. government bringing them here. It is NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are getting government grants who are bringing them here. Money talks. And money tends to change focus and re-arrange priorities from more important factors like our homeland security from the terrorist hotbed, Syria.
How about someone from an NGO like Catholic Charities, or a university like UWF, make their case that Syrian refugees are better helped with a one-way ticket here, instead of in and around their homeland?
This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president… Everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out.
In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.
A direct quote from the law:
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Donald J. Trump managed to bring illegal immigration into public discourse and among all presidential candidates. Right out of the gate. It’s a national discussion we absolutely must have.
Now, Trump is leading the timid and weak again when it comes to asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration from terrorist-infested countries. As insensitive or Politically Incorrect as he sounds, his point is real, serious, and, real serious.
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says the enemy’s intent is to infiltrate the refugee populations. The enemy has announced that it seeks to infiltrate the refugee population. The head of the FBI says there is no good data with which to vet the refugee population.
People from both parties from the President on down continue to shift the emphasis away from the real enemy (radical Islam and Sharia Law) and onto Donald Trump, saying that what Trump proposed is UN-constitutional. It is not.
The religion clause pertains to public officials. This has nothing to do with public officials.
The equal protection clause has to do with the states. This has nothing to do with states.
The 1st Amendment is not extra-territorial. You don’t project it overseas.
Trump does not live in the PC world. He lives in Realville. And when an enemy declares war on you, ignoring the threat and their actions is not a winning strategy.
Until all those who are quick to criticize Trump and call for him to drop out of the race get serious about our national security, you can rely on the fact that they don’t have a solution to this problem. Instead, they want to import them. So far, only Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do.
The amendment wasn’t based on a religious test, it was based on geography. The moratorium on accepting refugees from the “high-risk countries” listed in the bill would end once the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates compliance with six stipulations intended to weed out potential terrorists posing as refugees.
These are the countries and territories covered in the amendment, also known as the SECURE Act.
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, The Palestinian Territories.
These are the only YES votes for the amendment. Good for them. They are the only senators that hold national security as a priority. Not one Democrat voted for it.
Although I’m not holding my breath, I’m waiting for some Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, or anyone, to make the case for bringing terrorists into this country among the refugees which, administration and DOD experts, not the elected ones, say will happen.
And also, to make the case about why their help can not happen THERE instead of bringing them HERE, to a country that is predominately Christian (they are predominately Islamic) and that does not share their language or culture. And most likely, if Dearbornistan is any indication, a country that they probably don’t like very much. . . .