BORDER PATROL CATCHES A DREAMER

Montes had left his wallet in a friend’s car, so he couldn’t produce his ID or proof of his DACA status and was told by agents he couldn’t retrieve them.” First of all who leaves a wallet with DACA status in a friends car. Go to Russia, get stopped by the police without identification and you are jailed for life. Lame excuse; never had DACA status. Check the picture of his relatives home – looks like a palace. Most Americans would give their right arm to live in such a place. Supposedly he suffered a brain injury in his youth and despite those challenges, he made it through special education courses and graduated high school in 2013. We paid for it, most likely at $50,000 per year cost, say $250,000 or more. He claimed that papers signed by him were not understood; then why did he sign them? “da”. 

 He lived with his mother and a younger brother, who was born in the U.S. and, thus, is a citizen. His mother did not want to be named or reveal her immigration status. Mother is also a criminal illegal who dropped an anchor baby. This must be addressed by the Supreme Court ASAP. Believe us when we tell you that this story is not unique, but typical of the illegal scum denigrating our country. 

And his rap sheet! How many Americans have been stopped three times for driving without a license? How many Americans have been arrested for shoplifting? Very few. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

First protected DREAMer is deportedunder Trump

Federal agents ignored President Trump’s pledge to protect from deportation undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by sending a young man back to his native Mexico, the first such documented case, a USA TODAY examination of the new administration’s immigration policies shows. Oh wait, four convictions, one for shoplifting and three motor vehicle offenses – driving without a license. We have a criminal here in the making.

Juan Manuel Montes, 23, speaks in a relative’s home in western Mexico after he was deported by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Feb. 17, 2017.

After spending an evening with his girlfriend in Calexico, Calif., on Feb. 17, Juan Manuel Montes, 23, who has lived in the U.S. since age 9, grabbed a bite and was waiting for a ride when a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer approached and started asking questions.

Montes was twice granted deportation protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created by President Barack Obama and left intact by President Trump.

Montes had left his wallet in a friend’s car, so he couldn’t produce his ID or proof of his DACA status and was told by agents he couldn’t retrieve them. Within three hours, he was back in Mexico, becoming the first undocumented immigrant with active DACA status deported by the Trump administration’s stepped-up deportation policy.

“Some people told me that they were going to deport me; others said nothing would happen,” Montes told USA TODAY in his aunt and uncle’s home in western Mexico where he’s been staying. “I thought that if I kept my nose clean nothing would happen.” He asked that the exact location of their home be withheld.

Since taking office, Trump has followed through on his campaign pledge to crack down on illegal immigration by signing executive orders to step up enforcement against the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The new policy calls for expanding the criteria for detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants and hiring thousands of new agents.

Yet Trump declined to revoke the DACA protections Obama had granted to more than 750,000 undocumented immigrants, repeatedly saying he had a soft spot for these young people who are leading productive lives and have few, if any, ties to the countries of their birth.

“They shouldn’t be very worried,” he told ABC News in January. “I do have a big heart.”

Even so, DACA enrollees are being targeted by immigration authorities.At least 10 are in federal custody, according to United We Dream, an advocacy organization made up of DACA enrollees and other young immigrants.

The group’s advocacy director, Greisa Martinez, who has DACA protection, said Montes’ case is proof that people like herself are at risk despite what Trump said.

“We’ve seen Trump and (Department of Homeland Security Secretary) John Kelly say, ‘The DACA program is alive and well.’ We’ve seen (House Speaker) Paul Ryan look straight into the eyes of one of our members and say, ‘You have nothing to worry about,'” she said. “And then this happens.”

Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday it could not discuss Montes’ case because of the department’s privacy policy.

After USA TODAY published the story, the Department of Homeland Security — which had refused a request for comment for 24 hours — said it could not confirm details of Montes’ deportation. Spokeswoman Jenny Burke said the department had no record of him renewing his DACA status after it expired in 2015, even though Montes’ attorneys provided a copy of his work authorization card that showed his DACA status was valid through 2018.

A group of attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court in California on Tuesday requesting that a judge force Customs and Border Protection to release details of the agent’s encounter with Montes.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, part of Montes’ legal team, said it has requested information for months but has gotten no response.

“Even in this administration, because of Trump’s comments about loving these people, the integrity of the government’s promises are at stake,” Hincapié said. “How does an immigrant family today know that this is not going to happen to them?”

Read more:

The shy Montes was never a poster child for the DACA program. He wasn’t his high school’s valedictorian or a prominent advocate for fellow DREAMers.

He suffered a traumatic brain injury as a child that left him with learning disabilities that meant a constant struggle to keep up in school and everyday conversations, according to Hincapié. Despite those challenges, he made it through special education courses and graduated high school in 2013. He started taking welding classes at a Southern California community college and paid for it by picking crops in California and Arizona.

He lived with his mother and a younger brother, who was born in the U.S. and, thus, is a citizen. His mother did not want to be named or reveal her immigration status.

Court records show he has four convictions: one for shoplifting in January 2016, and three for driving without a license, most recently three months ago.

Those convictions are not serious enough to disqualify him from DACA protections, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that approves DACA applications.

Montes received renewed DACA protections in January 2016, which keeps him enrolled through 2018. That is why Montes was confused when he was approached by the federal officer in February.

“They detained me, they took me to a center, they asked me a lot of questions, and I signed a lot of papers,” he said.

Montes said he couldn’t understand anything he was signing and was not given any copies. Officers walked him to the U.S.-Mexico border and released him into Mexicali.

There, he found a friend who put him up for the night. He called another friend, who drove across the border to return his wallet and bring fresh clothes. Then things got worse.

Montes said he was jumped from behind, mugged and beaten. At that point, he decided he needed to get back home. He saw some people using a rope to climb over a section of the border wall and joined them. He was quickly captured by federal agents, questioned again and deported again.

Burke, the DHS spokeswoman, said the department had no record of Montes being arrested and deported from California as he described. Instead, it only had a record of him being caught after climbing the wall on Feb. 19.

Last week, the department suspended publishing weekly reports on cities it accused of failing to cooperate with federal deportation efforts because it acknowledged the reports had been riddled with errors.

Today, Montes has reconnected with his estranged father and works in a gas station and a tortilla mill. But he’s counting the days until he can return to the U.S. and continue building his life.

“There I worked and studied at the same time. I only had six more months to finish (my studies),” he said. “I liked it there more than here.”

CAVE MAN vs HIT MAN

The 2018 shootout at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Big guns were ablazing with one man left standing.

His bluff was called, an empty chamber resulted in this CAVE MAN shooting himself in the foot.

“Start packing” are the words of America’s toughest sheriff.

“Big win for Republicans as Democrats cave on Shutdown,” Trump tweeted, after he kept a low profile during the weekend. “Now I want a big win for everyone, including Republicans, Democrats and DACA, but especially for our Great Military and Border Security. Should be able to get there. See you at the negotiating table.”

TRUMP HAS THE ACE IN THE “S”HOLE

CLICK UPDATE: 

President Trump on Sunday argued again that Democrats and their demands — not him or fellow Republicans in Congress — have throttled negotiations to provide permanent legal protection for young illegal immigrants and made clear that any such deal also must end the United States’ lottery-immigration program.

“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military,” said Trump, in one of several tweets on the issue of immigration reform and on the related Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

The president and Congress are attempting to reach a deal on comprehensive immigration reform as part of a federal spending bill that Congress must pass by Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was at the meeting with Trump and others. She told “Fox News Sunday” that she didn’t “recall him using that exact phrase” about people coming from Haiti and some African nations, but that he did use “strong language” on the lottery issue.

 

WHERE IS THE GRATITUDE? We let these people flee a natural disaster and do they thank us? No, they spit in our face. Trump is right, the TPS program has gone on long enough. They say we work hard, pay taxes, are entrepreneurs. Then go back to your country and employ your skills there, build it up, bring the lessons you learned here to your homeland. Oh, you don’t want to do that because you have the good life here.

Because of the grace of our country you were provided safe haven, now is the time to go back to yours. And breaking up the family, you knew when you came here that this was not a remote possibility but a probability. So when reality hits you cry like a baby in soiled diapers. 

The Democrats are on the verge of getting what they asked for, a rock and hard place. Trump submitted a legitimate offer; they will never get a better one, but they rejected it out of hand. The Democrats think they hold the cards, but in reality they hold a Dead Man’s hand. Trump is the President, the Republicans control Congress.

Trump’s position, WALL, the Democrats say NO WALL.  The real story has not been told by the press, but it needs to come out. Forget the shithole controversy, we don’t get into the minutia, but Trump is right, the Salvadorans, Haitians, Hondurans have to go. The bleeding hearts are crying foul. Let’s look at the real story here; only the facts.

The 200,000 Salvadorans are among the nearly 1 million immigrants whose lives in the United States have been upended and set to a deadline under President Trump. The largest group, nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were protected under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, are set to begin losing their temporary work permits in March at the rate of nearly 1,000 per day.

On Monday, however, DHS officials resisted suggestions that the decision by Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was part of a broader anti-immigrant agenda. They described it in narrower legal terms, as a recognition that conditions in El Salvador have improved enough since the earthquakes to no longer warrant the TPS designation.

Others urged Nielsen to consider the approximately 190,000 U.S.-born children of Salvadoran (CLICK)TPS recipients. Their parents must now decide whether to break up their families, take their children back to El Salvador or stay in the United States and risk deportation.

Americans should be outraged at the TPS program. How does our government go against the will of the people. Why weren’t these people sent back fifteen years ago? Additionally the TPS designees proliferated like rabbits. Their offspring numbers over 200,000, who by the way are now U.S. citizens and potential Democrat voters to boot. This should not have happened.

TPS let us down, the law should have been written to exempt citizenship to those under the TPS program. But that is not all, the 200,000 offspring are now U.S. citizens and they have offspring which are not counted. In total the numbers are in the millions. 

But most nonwhite immigrants get on welfare at rates far exceeding that of European immigrants, but this is precisely what we are not allowed to debate. The whole point of the media hysteria is to avoid any discussion of what kind of society Third World immigration brings.

BUILD THE WALL – SEND THEM HOME

Dick Dubin is a worse than a  mouse. Can you hear him squealing now?

from AMREN:

According to Senator Dick Durbin, President Trump questioned why the United States continues to accept immigrants from “shithole” Africa countries and Haiti. Senator Durbin took it upon himself to leak these comments to the press, which duly reacted with outrage. “Shitholegate” may be the single largest scandal of President Trump’s administration, at least in terms of media reaction.

It is revealing that Senator Durbin felt justified in releasing comments from a private conversation. Such an action, as Senate Republicans have pointed out, show Democrats were never serious about negotiating an immigration compromise.

It is revealing that Senator Durbin felt justified in releasing comments from a private conversation. Such an action, as Senate Republicans have pointed out, show Democrats were never serious about negotiating an immigration compromise.

We don’t even know if President Trump used the exact words Senator Durbin says he did, since no Republicans seem to be backing his account, and the White House has denied it.  What word would you use in describing this  country?

 

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.