EL SALVADORANS

 

UPDATE FROM THE  PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

(click)”shithole countries” “Go back to where you came from.”

Trump administration to protected Salvadoran immigrants in US: It’s time to go home

The Trump administration said Monday that conditions in El Salvador have improved enough since a series of earthquakes hit the country in 2001 that 200,000 people who fled to the U.S. must now go home.

But advocates say revoking temporary protection status for Salvadorans – including an estimated 5,900 living in North Carolina – would be disastrous for those immigrants and their children who were born in the U.S., and would disrupt the U.S. economy by removing business owners, workers, homeowners and consumers who have become deeply invested in the places where they live.

Salvadorans are the largest group of TPS recipients. Announcing the decision on El Salvador, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, secretary of Homeland Security, said, “The decision to terminate TPS for El Salvador was made after a review of the disaster-related conditions upon which the country’s original designation was based and an assessment of whether those originating conditions continue to exist as required by statute. Based on careful consideration of available information, including recommendations received as part of an inter-agency consultation process, the Secretary determined that the original conditions caused by the 2001 earthquakes no longer exist. Thus, under the applicable statute, the current TPS designation must be terminated.”

THE LIBERAL INVECTIVE:

The economic contributions of TPS holders, particularly their entrepreneurial skill, high employment levels and the taxes they pay to our government, are notable. If TPS for El Salvador is not extended, those financial impacts will be directly felt by our communities; (ALL LIES) certain industries, such as home health care and construction, will be directly and negatively affected. While the financial contributions of TPS holders are noteworthy, to me what is even more compelling is the fact that these Salvadoran TPS holders are parents to an estimated 192,000 U.S.-citizen children.

What is happening in America is the outright mass denigration condoned by the liberal excrement to bring our country down. 192,000 children are U.S. citizens by birth. This is an outrage. How does something like this happen?

Why the Supreme Court has to rule on and clear up the 14th Amendment. It was not meant to allow this from happening. We are outraged? And we hope you are too. America is home to 20 to 30 million anchor babies because of the criminals who broke into our country, crossing  the border and procreating.

READ BELOW

 

“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law

Started by Jim Delaney

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.

Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better– have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O’Reilly’s characteristically bombastic–and wholly erroneous–claim that “the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period”.  Poppycock! He couldn’t have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. In short, I was unable to find any convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress–and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.

Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill’s language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word ‘jurisdiction’, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien’s physical presence alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship–when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States”, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the childand not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child’s birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. 

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers’ themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can’t trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th’s framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I’d say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledeg***, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of “birthright citizenship”, Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that’s precisely what it should do.

37 thoughts on “EL SALVADORANS”

  1. 951718 358825Hello, Neat post. There is an issue along together with your internet site in internet explorer, could test thisK IE still will be the marketplace leader and a huge portion of other individuals will miss your magnificent writing because of this problem. 468491

  2. 202674 229774Hey! Im at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone! Just wanted to say I really like reading through your weblog and appear forward to all your posts! Maintain up the outstanding work! 316137

  3. My wife and i were really thankful that Peter could conclude his researching from your ideas he received out of the blog. It is now and again perplexing to simply always be handing out ideas which often men and women might have been trying to sell. We figure out we have got the website owner to be grateful to because of that. The specific explanations you have made, the simple web site navigation, the friendships you will make it easier to foster – it’s got mostly fabulous, and it is leading our son and our family reason why this content is entertaining, which is certainly really important. Many thanks for everything!

  4. Excellent items from you, man. I have be mindful your stuff previous
    to and you’re simply too fantastic. I actually like what you’ve got right here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which by which you say it.
    You’re making it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it sensible.
    I can’t wait to learn much more from you. That is actually a terrific
    website.

  5. Howdy would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with?
    I’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I’m having a difficult time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.
    The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most
    blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.
    P.S Apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!

  6. I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought
    this post was great. I do not know who you are but certainly
    you are going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

  7. Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog
    loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
    Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

  8. Hi, this weekend is nice in support of me, for the reason that this moment i am reading this impressive educational piece of writing here at
    my house.

  9. My brother suggested I might like this blog.
    He was entirely right. This post actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info!
    Thanks!

  10. Hi, Neat post. There is an issue along with your web site in internet explorer, could check this?
    IE nonetheless is the market leader and a large section of people will leave out your great writing because of this
    problem.

  11. I’m really enjoying the design and layout
    of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer
    to create your theme? Great work!

  12. Amazing blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download
    it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog stand out.

    Please let me know where you got your theme. With thanks

  13. Link exchange is nothing else however it is simply placing the other person’s blog link on your page at suitable place
    and other person will also do same in favor of you.

  14. It’s actually very complicated in this full of activity life to listen news on TV, so I only use world wide web for that
    reason, and take the latest information.

  15. Hey there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my
    twitter group? There’s a lot of people that I think would
    really appreciate your content. Please let me know.
    Cheers

  16. Howdy very cool site!! Man .. Excellent .. Superb .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take
    the feeds also? I am happy to find so many helpful information right
    here in the post, we need work out extra strategies in this regard, thank you for sharing.
    . . . . .

  17. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book
    in it or something. I think that you could do with
    some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is excellent blog.
    A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

  18. Currently it seems like Movable Type is the preferred blogging platform available right now.
    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?

  19. Magnificent goods from you, man. I have take note your stuff previous to and you are just too wonderful.
    I actually like what you have received right here, certainly like what you’re saying and
    the way in which in which you assert it. You are making it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to keep it wise.
    I can not wait to read much more from you. This is actually a terrific web site.

  20. Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The
    words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer.
    I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to
    do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know.
    The style and design look great though!
    Hope you get the issue fixed soon. Thanks

  21. After I initially left a comment I seem to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and from now on every time a comment
    is added I receive 4 emails with the same comment. Is there an easy method you
    can remove me from that service? Kudos!

  22. Hey There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. That is a really smartly written article.
    I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of your helpful
    info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly return.

  23. Wonderful web site. A lot of helpful info here. I’m sending it to several friends
    ans additionally sharing in delicious. And naturally, thanks on your sweat!

  24. Hi, I wish for to subscribe for this weblog to obtain newest updates,
    thus where can i do it please help out.

  25. Undeniably believe that that you stated. Your favourite reason seemed to
    be at the internet the simplest thing to consider of.
    I say to you, I definitely get irked at the same time as people think about concerns that they plainly don’t know about.

    You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and outlined out the whole thing with no need side-effects , other people could take a
    signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Comments are closed.