TIME FOR THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO REACH THE SUPREME COURT

RBG, doesn’t stand for REDBLUEGREEN, it stands for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yeah, you read about her breaking a few ribs, this isn’t the first time, but it stands to reason that she is reaching the end of the line. What keeps her going is the progressive expansion of “rights” not implied in the Constitution. Beating cancer twice and recovering is a sign of her resolve, however time takes its toll and her time to retire has come. This will give President Trump the once in a life time opportunity to appoint one more Justice to the Supreme Court – 3 in all.

The 14th Amendment is a RED LINE and we hope that once and for all the Court ceases the opportunity to adjudicate it.

by TED HILTON   The San Diego Union-Tribune

“All persons born and naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

Related: Birthright citizenship: Bedrock principle is good for America

President Trump is correct to challenge birthright citizenship. As we commemorate 150 years since the 14th Amendment’s passage in 1868, it is long overdue for our nation to conform to the true intent of the “subject to the jurisdiction clause” which confers United States citizenship.

It is unknown to most Americans that prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, United States Attorneys General Caleb Cushing in 1856, and Jeremiah Black in 1859, both wrote that “the doctrine of perpetual allegiance,” or citizenship determined by the soil, is inadmissible in the United States. They concluded, at the time of the Revolution our nation’s founders rejected regal government and feudal law.

Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard, the chief authors of the 14h Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction clause,” stated it grants citizenship for a birth to a parent who is under complete jurisdiction, who owes allegiance to our nation. They stated the clause does not apply to someone who is subject in some degree to the political or civil jurisdiction.

Five years after the amendment’s passage on Dec. 1, 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed in his State of the Union address, “The United States… had led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance.”

President Trump is upholding President Grant’s and the nation’s original understanding that the 14th Amendment ended birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizen births to Chinese parents who, under the Emperor of China, were prohibited from becoming citizens of other countries. The Ark decision concluded, “…the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Fourteenth Amendment must be presumed to have been intended by Congress …, to mean the same as the words in the case of The Exchange.” This case precedence confirms inadmissible aliens are not subject to complete jurisdiction.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the principal founder of our constitutional law system, authored The Exchange decision in 1812. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of the distinction between civil and territorial jurisdiction; persons residing with the nation’s “consent” are under civil jurisdiction. Justice Marshall clarified, “But if the property of an alien, be forcibly… carried within the territory, no consent is implied, and consequently there is no ground for jurisdiction.” The case confirms jurisdiction over things and persons is the same.

Wong Kim Ark cited defining precedence from The Exchange, “…the whole civilized world concurred that a foreigner is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction absent his document proving the nation’s consent.” The justices understood an alien under territorial jurisdiction, without this document, is subject to “arrest and detention.”

Compliant with that legal precedent, Wong Kim Ark decided, “Chinese persons … are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here …” In the 2012 Congressional Research Service report to Congress, Margaret Mikyung Lee omitted this crucially significant section, imprecisely writing, “The holding does not make a distinction between illegal and legal presence …”

Clearly, the justices conditioned granting citizenship to children whose parents were residing lawfully with permission, signifying doubt this ruling would be granted to aliens without legal presence.

Six Wong Kim Ark justices wrongfully declared the congressional debates that govern the accurate meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” were inadmissible. Opposing that misjudgment, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan, a renowned civil rights activist, dissented from this ruling. They concurred with the government’s case, to grant citizenship to children of parents ineligible to become citizens defies the Constitution’s evident meaning of jurisdiction.

President Trump’s administration can also initiate a court challenge concerning citizen births of “birth tourists” and inadmissible aliens, which can ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is confidence a majority of the justices will comply with the 14th’s original intent, and the conclusive jurisdiction decisions of John Marshall, the most revered Supreme Court Justice in American history.

Congress must follow the relevant words of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

All Wong Kim Ark justices concurred a citizen is born to a parent who is, or is eligible to become, a U.S. citizen. This is how Congress can legislatively define citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to follow the correct intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors.

When Congress adheres to this intelligent, common-sense intent, the United States of America will at last, no longer practice feudal law and no longer silence the Founding Fathers.

Hilton, a San Diego resident, advocates for entitlement and immigration reforms.

Copyright © 2018, The San Diego Union-Tribune

 

LET THE WAR BEGIN – WE CAN PLAY THE GAME TOO – LOCK THEM UP

First casualty was Jeff Sessions, but don’t be surprised if others will follow. Our guess is that members of the FBI will be sure to join them. The enemy uses gorilla tactics that stretched beyond the norm, it is now Trump and company to bring in the big guns. We expect a wrecking ball type to enter the fray. As we have alluded to previously, the talk now is to bring in former Attorney General Chris Christie to replace the pink Sessions. As Christie said when referring to criminals in New Jersey, “it was like shooting fish in a barrel.” “So let it be written so let it be done.”

The question we all have is why not one Democrat has been indicted. That in itself is prima facie evidence of a cover-up which goes beyond the pale.

To rehash the previous FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton we give you James Comey a progressive liberal sympathizer. “Exremely Careless”, but not “gross negligent” were his words.

YOU WANT WAR – WE WILL GIVE YOU WAR – BRING IT ON

FROM THE NY POST – TRUMP HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TURN THE CARAVAN AWAY

US has every reason to turn the caravan away

Former President Barack Obama is ridiculing President Trump and Republicans for vowing to stop the caravan of 4,000 Central American migrants heading toward our border. Republicans are “trying to convince everybody to be afraid of a bunch of impoverished, malnourished refugees,” says Obama. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blasts Republicans for stoking “baseless fear” in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election.

Baseless fear? Democrats aren’t leveling with youabout the welfare, health benefits and education resources these migrants will consume, if they’re allowed in.

Democrats are also claiming the US has to let the migrants in, because they’re seeking asylum. The truth is, the US Constitution and federal law give the president the authority to block their entry.

Trump’s critics portray migrants as families fleeing for their lives. Don’t believe it. Few are truly legitimate asylum seekers. Mexico launched a “Make Yourself at Home” program, offering migrants shelter, food, work and schools for their kids. Most turned it down. They’re heading to the US for a lifestyle upgrade, knowing that uttering the words “asylum” and “credible fear” to a US border agent is a get-in-free card.

More than half never apply for asylum, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They just melt into the US interior. Of those who apply, only a minuscule 8.3 percent qualify.

These migrants are making a mockery of asylum.

Trump is halting this hoax. At the White House last Thursday, he previewed an executive order expected this week. Step One: targeting migrants who cross the border illegally.

Every month, thousands wade across the Rio Grande or scale fences, then plead asylum to a border agent. They’re taken into custody briefly, released and told to appear at an immigration hearing. Surprise: They almost never do.

Trump announced an end to this “catch and release” fiasco. Soldiers are laying barbed wire to deter illegal crossings, but those who get through will be detained in tent cities until their claims are heard.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Amazingly, attorneys for six Hondurans in the caravan sued the Trump administration last week for violating their constitutional rights. History shows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
In 1981, President Reagan deployed the US Coast Guard to turn back boatloads of migrants trying to enter illegally and claim asylum. Reagan called the attempted mass migration “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”Attorneys for the seafaring migrants sued, but the US Supreme Court backed up Reagan, ruling the Executive Branch has the “discretion” to grant or not grant asylum (Sale v. Haiti). Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to come in, period. Even to seek asylum. Whether they’re on boats or in caravans on land.

What about migrants who line up at official border entrances instead of sneaking in? Trump skirted the issue on Thursday but he has the authority to deny them entry, too. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad discretion, even in the case of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court confirmed that the president can turn away aliens who are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Using that test, who can doubt the right thing to do? Already, there may be 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to new research by Yale and MIT statisticians, double what is commonly acknowledged. Federal taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year to fund community health clinics primarily used by illegal immigrants, while local taxpayers foot school bills for their children.

When migrant children lacking English skills and school experience are placed in public schools here, they require enormous resources. Too bad for the rest of the kids.

Worse, dozens of Central American migrant children have been arrested as “suspected gang members” of the violent MS-13 street gangs, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

How can anyone so easily dismiss the problems migrants bring to our nation?

 

Former President Barack Obama is ridiculing President Trump and Republicans for vowing to stop the caravan of 4,000 Central American migrants heading toward our border. Republicans are “trying to convince everybody to be afraid of a bunch of impoverished, malnourished refugees,” says Obama. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blasts Republicans for stoking “baseless fear” in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election.

Baseless fear? Democrats aren’t leveling with you about the welfare, health benefits and education resources these migrants will consume, if they’re allowed in.

Democrats are also claiming the US has to let the migrants in, because they’re seeking asylum. The truth is, the US Constitution and federal law give the president the authority to block their entry.

Trump’s critics portray migrants as families fleeing for their lives. Don’t believe it. Few are truly legitimate asylum seekers. Mexico launched a “Make Yourself at Home” program, offering migrants shelter, food, work and schools for their kids. Most turned it down. They’re heading to the US for a lifestyle upgrade, knowing that uttering the words “asylum” and “credible fear” to a US border agent is a get-in-free card.

More than half never apply for asylum, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They just melt into the US interior. Of those who apply, only a minuscule 8.3 percent qualify.

These migrants are making a mockery of asylum.

Trump is halting this hoax. At the White House last Thursday, he previewed an executive order expected this week. Step One: targeting migrants who cross the border illegally.

Every month, thousands wade across the Rio Grande or scale fences, then plead asylum to a border agent. They’re taken into custody briefly, released and told to appear at an immigration hearing. Surprise: They almost never do.

Trump announced an end to this “catch and release” fiasco. Soldiers are laying barbed wire to deter illegal crossings, but those who get through will be detained in tent cities until their claims are heard.

Amazingly, attorneys for six Hondurans in the caravan sued the Trump administration last week for violating their constitutional rights. History shows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
In 1981, President Reagan deployed the US Coast Guard to turn back boatloads of migrants trying to enter illegally and claim asylum. Reagan called the attempted mass migration “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”Attorneys for the seafaring migrants sued, but the US Supreme Court backed up Reagan, ruling the Executive Branch has the “discretion” to grant or not grant asylum (Sale v. Haiti). Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to come in, period. Even to seek asylum. Whether they’re on boats or in caravans on land.

What about migrants who line up at official border entrances instead of sneaking in? Trump skirted the issue on Thursday but he has the authority to deny them entry, too. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad discretion, even in the case of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court confirmed that the president can turn away aliens who are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Using that test, who can doubt the right thing to do? Already, there may be 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to new research by Yale and MIT statisticians, double what is commonly acknowledged. Federal taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year to fund community health clinics primarily used by illegal immigrants, while local taxpayers foot school bills for their children.

When migrant children lacking English skills and school experience are placed in public schools here, they require enormous resources. Too bad for the rest of the kids.

Worse, dozens of Central American migrant children have been arrested as “suspected gang members” of the violent MS-13 street gangs, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

How can anyone so easily dismiss the problems migrants bring to our nation?

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

FILED UNDER       

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

 

COLUMNISTS

VOTE DEMOCRAT IF YOU ARE FOR ILLEGALS HAVING ANCHOR BABIES – IF YOU SUPPORT MS-13

VOTE TRUMP – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN 

VOTE CONSTITUTION – VOTE DEMOCRACY – VOTE AGAINST HYPOCRISY – VOTE AGAINST SOCIALISM – VOTE AGAINST OBAMA – VOTE AGAINST TYRANNY – VOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY – VOTE AGAINST THE GREATEST DANGER TO AMERICA THAT BEING THE DEMOCRAT AGENDA TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE

The MS-13 Caravan threat supported by Pelosi and Schumer
A National Assessment

 

MS-13 Tatoos Mara Salvatrucha

They perpetrate violence—from assaults to homicides, using firearms, machetes, or blunt objects—to intimidate rival gangs, law enforcement, and the general public. They often target middle and high school students for recruitment. And they form tenuous alliances…and sometimes vicious rivalries…with other criminal groups, depending on their needs at the time.

Who are they? Members of Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, who are mostly Salvadoran nationals or first generation Salvadoran-Americans, but also Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American immigrants. And according to our recent national threat assessment of this growing, mobile street gang, they could be operating in your community…now or in the near future.

Based on information from our own investigations, from our state and local law enforcement partners, and from community organizations, we’ve concluded that while the threat posed by MS-13 to the U.S. as a whole is at the “medium” level, membership in parts of the country is so concentrated that we’ve labeled the threat level there “high.”

Here are some other highlights from our threat assessment:  

MS-13 operates in at least 42 states and the District of Columbia and has about 6,000-10,000 members nationwide. Currently, the threat is highest in the western and northeastern parts of the country, which coincides with elevated Salvadoran immigrant populations in those areas. In the southeast and central regions, the current threat is moderate to low, but recently, we’ve seen an influx of MS-13 members into the southeast, causing an increase in violent crimes there.

For More Information

– Going Global on MS-13
– MS-13 Up Close
– FBI Violent Gangs Website

MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity,including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism. Most of these crimes, you’ll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent. And while most of the violence is directed toward other MS-13 members or rival street gangs, innocent citizens often get caught in the crossfire.

MS-13 is expanding its membership at a “moderate” rate through recruitment and migration. Some MS-13 members move to get jobs or to be near family members—currently, the southeast and the northeast are seeing the largest increases in membership. MS-13 often recruits new members by glorifying the gang lifestyle (often on the Internet, complete with pictures and videos) and by absorbing smaller gangs.

Speaking of employment, MS-13 members typically work for legitimate businesses by presenting false documentation. They primarily pick employers that don’t scrutinize employment documents, especially in the construction, restaurant, delivery service, and landscaping industries.

Right now, MS-13 has no official national leadership structure. MS-13 originated in Los Angeles, but when members migrated eastward, they began forming cliques that for the most part operated independently. These cliques, though, often maintain regular contact with members in other regions to coordinate recruitment/criminal activities and to prevent conflicts. We do believe that Los Angeles gang members have an elevated status among their MS-13 counterparts across the country, a system of respect that could potentially evolve into a more organized national leadership structure.

One final word about MS-13: the FBI, through its MS-13 National Joint Task Force and field investigations, remains committed to working with our local, state, national, and international partners to disrupt and dismantle this violent gang.

Note: the assessment is law enforcement sensitive and is not publicly available.

Vote for Democrats

IF YOU LIKE ILLEGALS VOTING

If you like illegals raping your daughter

If you like illegals murdering your daughter

If you like Pelosi’s support for gang rapists and murderers entering our country

If you like Schumer who supports the caravan making its way through Latin America

If you like to see illegals getting free welfare, hospital care, education, housing and legal advice that you pay for

If you like illegals terrorizing neighborhoods

If you like illegals threatening your child to join a gang

If you like illegals having anchor babies (click here for Laura Ingraham)

President Trump on Wednesday reached back 25 years to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s comments that “no sane country” would support birthright citizenship to bolster his effort to strip that guarantee from the 14th Amendment.

Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane and started with the Open Borders (which brings massive Crime) ‘stuff.’ Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies. I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!,” Trump wrote on his Twitter account

WE HAVE YOUR BACK PRESIDENT TRUMP

President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar. But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.

An executive order by President Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.

Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.

Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.

Most countries around the world do not provides birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed.

Many Republicans, Democrats and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.

Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction – which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws – and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.

So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.

Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.

The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens. Those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants – only permanent, legal residents.

U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The federal government has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports and other benefits to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

As a result, the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

POSTED IN 2015 BY  the NBTP – CHECK THE PARAGRAPH HIGHLIGHTED IN RED

WHY AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP

Is Trump Our Last Chance?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 20, 2015

TrumpInSC
Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.

Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.

But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.

But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.

Mr. Trump’s positions on immigration are built on three principles: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. It’s startling to hear a politician even talk about what defines “a nation,” much less get it more or less right. The idea that immigration should benefit Americans rather than foreigners is revolutionary by today’s standards.

Many of Mr. Trump’s specific proposals could be implemented without much fuss. He would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers, which would make it impossible for illegals to work for anything but under-the-table cash. Anybody caught hiring illegals would be punished. He would end the Earned Income Tax Credit for illegals, and would stop granting visas to any country that refuses to take back citizens we want to deport. He would kick out every criminal alien who has served his sentence, unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to like keeping them here.

Mr. Trump would triple the number of ICE officials and end the policy of catch-and-release, under which ICE often tells local authorities who have caught an illegal to let him go. He would make H1-B visas harder to get, and would enforce a policy of hiring Americans first. He would set up a tracking system to catch and deport anyone who overstays his visa. He would deport any illegal alien who is a gang member, and would stop all federal payments to so-called sanctuary cities. All immigrants would have to prove they have the means to support themselves. Although this is not included in his policy paper, Mr. Trump has also said ininterviews that he would scrap all of Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties. All these things could probably be done just by enforcing laws on the books or by changing regulations.

ICE

Some of Mr. Trump’s other ideas would take more work: his call for an end to birth-right citizenship, for example. Arguably, he could simply order agencies to issue passports and social security numbers only to children born of citizens and permanent residents. Or he could get Congress to pass legislation to this effect. In either case, the tangled  interpretations of the 14th Amendment would guarantee a legal challenge. Courts would probably find that the children of illegals are not citizens. Ideally, they would find that the 14th Amendment, which was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves, gives no child born of foreigners automatic citizenship.

Mr. Trump has also suggested in interviews that he wants to deport all illegals, not just criminals. This is by no means “impossible,” as critics claim. With E-Verify and employer sanctions, plenty of illegals would “self-deport,” just as Mitt Romney said they would.

The key, however, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. The vast majority of illegals would quickly decide to get their affairs in order and choose their own day of departure rather than wait for ICE to choose it for them. The main thing would be to convince illegals that ICE was serious about kicking them out. Ironically, the more ICE was prepared to do, the less it would have to do.

Deportation

But those same images of Mexican families would raise a world-wide stink. They would send the libs and legals into a gibbering frenzy, so a Trump administration would have to have backbone. Deporting illegals–even tearful families with “deep roots in the community”–is entirely consistent with current law, so there could be no court challenge. It would be a simple matter of ignoring the gibbering, and getting on with the job. If churches harbored illegals, ICE teams would have to haul them out. Getting serious about deportation would set a marvelous example for the Europeans and would bring illegal immigration to a dead stop.

We might not even need the wall Mr. Trump plans to build, though it’s certainly a good thing to have. The trick would be getting the Mexicans to pay for it, as Mr. Trump promises they will. The position paper says a Trump administration would divert remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants, but it would be hard to verify which payments were from illegals, and plenty of them would love an excuse to stop sending money home anyway. The paper also says we could increase fees on visas issued to CEOs and diplomats, charge more for border-crossing cards, levy an entry fee at the Mexican border, and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. Making every Mexican who crossed the border pay a stiff fee until the wall was built sounds like a fine idea, but the others probably would not raise much money or would violate treaties.

One way Mr. Trump says he would make Mexico pay for the wall is to cut off foreign aid. Depending on how it’s calculated, handouts to Mexico runs to as much as $900 million a year. It’s hard to understand why Mexicans deserve even a dime of our taxes. Turning off the tap would be instant savings, whether to pay for a wall or not.

BorderWall

 

Finally, Mr. Trump’s “pause” in issuing green cards would be a wonderful thing, but it would probably require legislation. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual number of visas passed out each year from 290,000 to 675,000 (not including refugee or H1-B visas and all kinds of other dubious waivers and exemptions) and set up the diversity-visa lottery that lets in another 55,000 a year. Every year there are about one million people who become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or “green card holders.”

Of course, Mr. Trump could take a leaf out of Mr. Obama’s book and legislate by executive order. If President Obama can simply decide not to enforce the law against minors who were smuggled into the country–and then decide also to exempt the parents who smuggled them–President Trump could probably shut down the lottery and cut way back on family reunification.

There is no end to the good a president could do if he were really convinced that immigration should benefit us rather than foreigners. Today the executive branch is thick with people who make no secret of wanting “diversity” of every kind, and think immigration is the best way to get it. Imagine an executive run by people who were as sick of immigration–legal and illegal–as real Americans are. Imagine regular executive briefings on crimes committed by foreigners, on monthly deportation figures, on new miles of border wall completed, on frauds and criminals turned back at the border. Imagine an executive branch that cuts off funding to La Raza and MALDEF and all the “refugee” resettlement groups. Imagine a government that laughs at editorials in the New York Times, and that actually cares about the welfare of Americans.

USA/

A change in tone would be as dramatic as a change in policy because a president and his cabinet have tremendous influence that goes well beyond policy. They can put a subject on the national agenda just by talking about it. They can make it respectable just by continuing to talk about it. Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high-IQ, English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so. A Trump presidency could completely change what is said about the difference between a crowd and a nation, and what it means to be an American.

So far, Mr. Trump has said little about race, but President Trump would certainly be no pushover for blacks. Al Sharpton–whom Mr. Trump has called a “professional conman”–would never darken the White House door again, and the Black Lives Matter frauds would get the cold shoulder.

And a Donald Trump presidency is no longer pure fantasy. He continues to widen his lead over Republican competitors. He is the first choice of 24 percent of registered Republicans—11 points ahead of his closest rival, Jeb Bush. He also comes in first as a second choice: 14 percent to Jeb Bush’s 10 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Mr. Trump, which is eight points more than the 61 percent who view Mr. Bush favorably. A majority of Republicans who are likely to vote–57 percent–now think Mr. Trump will be the Republican candidate.

TrumpRally

Just as important, according to a CNN/ORC poll of potential voters, Mr. Trump has pulled to within 6 percentage points (51 to 45) in a theoretical contest with Hillary Clinton. Just last month he was 16 points behind. Mr. Trump would get 55 percent of the white vote and 53 percent of the male vote; only women and non-whites continue to be strong Hillary backers.

The coming election is a combination of circumstances that will never repeat itself. Mr. Trump is a brand new face in politics, at a time when public trust in the federal government is close to a record low. His Republican opponents are nonentities. The most likely Democratic candidate is a shopworn harridan even her supporters don’t entirely trust.

Mr. Trump is also prepared to spend up to $1 billion of his own money to win the election. He says he turned down $5 million from a lobbyist, because he doesn’t want to owe favors to anyone. As the campaign continues, more and more voters will be impressed by his complete independence from special interests. Finally, when the time comes for street-level canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives, Mr. Trump will have armies of committed volunteers instead of the party hacks who are pushing his rivals.

There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and for their country.

 

MOB WARFARE – PROGRESSIVE CRIMINALS AND THEIR INCENDIARY DEVICES AIMED AT OUR PRESIDENT

Empirical evidence has provided us with answers to a problem we face today and into the foreseeable future. The lame stream media has regressed to a point that even the facts don’t matter. One thing must be addressed first off, that is the dynasty of political families who have consolidated power through the government. For instance the collusion of the FBI and the Clinton campaign which ended so abruptly that further investigation is mandatory. But for now we leave it at that because the time is fast approaching where the collaborators will see the iron bars close behind them.

Back to our initial bomb throwers thesis. Take Chris Cuomo, who like his brother and father, woven of the same cloth, are guilty of incitement. They do this through mis-information, propaganda and outright lies.  How so? Their networks provide the fodder for them to attack free speech, free thought and last but certainly no least, they attack the U.S. Constitution through mass media. Their audience believes everything they say, truth or lie.

Click here as Cuomo weighs in on the Christmas presents sent to progressive democrats. Cuomo blames Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump. Cuomo doesn’t understand the truth, never did.  He still, along with the libtard media, still can’t get over the fact that “lock her up” got beaten badly two years ago. Don’t forget vitriol and divisiveness is not because of Trump, but Obama is the originator of class welfare. A Muslim sympathizer condoned the killing of 400,000 plus in Syria. You hear nothing about that though. And how about the two pukes, who got what they deserved, justice. Obama inflamed the populace with his racist remarks, didn’t he?

Listen to Cuomo, form your own opinion, and no doubt the majority of people who don’t have a screw loose will agree, that these political low lifes, the low IQ types, are ANTIFA criminals in their own right. No American  will believe what they say, ever, because of their bias, vitriolic invective, and pure propaganda that comes from the gutter politics they preach.

CUOMO AND HIS BROTHER ARE VERY DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

Texas Flag Come and Take It.svg

CLICK HERE FOR MORE CUOMO

CLICK AGAIN FOR MORE CUOMO

CLICK FOR ANDREW CUOMO GOING ON LIKE A RABID DOG FOAMING AT THE MOUTH

CLICK HERE FOR ERIC HOLDER ON “KICK HIM”

OBAMA SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

FROM THE LYING LIPS OF THE FORMER EX-PRESIDENT:

Trump tweeted a 2005 video in which Obama, then a senator, made a statement against illegal immigration, accompanied by the comment “I agree with President Obama 100%”.

“We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States,” Obama says in the 31-second clip. “But those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE LIAR IN CHIEF OBAMA

CRIMINAL ELEMENT -THE GANG RAPE OF AMERICAN BY SANCTUARY CITY DEMOCRATS AS THEY FULLY SUPPORT ILLEGALS, MURDERERS AND RAPISTS – FUTURE DEMOCRAT VOTERS

Criminal pro gang Democrats go to bed with MS-13 gangs.Image result for ms 13 gang  PELOSI AND SCHUMER DEMOCRATS WANT TO RAPE AMERICA by condoning violence. We can shoot them at the ballot box on November 6, 2018, at the ballot box. Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, all crime invested cities taken over by the criminal illegal element from Latin America. Murderers, rapers, killers, drug pushers, gang bangers, they all have one thing in common, they are supported by Democrats.  And that is not all these Democrat slime candidates up for reelection and those who collude with them are in violation of the law by not only condoning their action, but by supporting sanctuary cities. The cost to taxpayers is in the billions; we don’t even know how much it really cost, but if they were tossed out of our country, our bet is $100,000,000,000. One more Supreme Court Justice and the 14th Amendment will be history for these criminals and their anchor babies.

Since 1975, emigration from Honduras has accelerated as economic migrants and political refugees sought a better life elsewhere. A majority of expatriate Hondurans live in the United States. A 2012 US State Department estimate suggested that between 800,000 and one million Hondurans lived in the United States at that time, nearly 15% of the Honduran population. The large uncertainty about numbers is because numerous Hondurans criminals having broke into our country and live in the United States without a visa. In the 2010 census in the United States, 617,392 residents identified as Hondurans, up from 217,569 in 2000.

Take the worst of the worst criminal socialist commies who want free health care, free food, free education (Governor Cuomo for one) free housing and voting for all, no matter if you are a citizen or not, they must be stopped in their tracks. Thousand of criminals from Honduras are on their way to trespass our borders. Trump is expected to bring in the army. And we sincerely hope that, as the Patriots did back in 1773) shoot when they see the whites of their eyes. This is the only way to teach a lesson; others will then be forewarned that the next drop of blood will be theirs.

Trump must set an example; open borders are not United States borders. Our borders are closed to illegal aliens and the crime they bring to America.

CLICK HERE FOR FRIENDS OF PELOSI AND SCHUMER

 

PREVIOUS INFO ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT:

Two years after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts, where new state governments, based on universal manhood suffrage, were to be established. Thus began the period known as Radical Reconstruction, which saw the 14th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1866, ratified in July 1868. The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”

AN UN-GOING CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED – THE SUPREME COURT MUST ONCE AGAIN MUST STEP IN AND ADJUDICATE

the jurisdiction thereof.”

Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But 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.”

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS BLOG

DIARRHEA FLOWS FROM HILLARY CLINTON’S FILTHY TRAP

Imagine this,  HRC, a lying dirt bag who got her ass handed to her on November 8, 2016, still can’t get over the pounding she received. And so, what does she do, she shoots diarrhea from the mouth hoping it will stick. Fat chance! The latest; She rejected the idea that Democrats should be “civil” with Republicans in the age of Donald Trump, embracing a more confrontational and aggressive political approach.

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton said.

Is she calling for a civil war? It seems like it, doesn’t it.

Imagine this putrid con artist, a product of the Saul Alinsky school of confrontation and personal take down and a sore loser to boot, threatening physical violence. A dastardly woman who had no guts to address her constituents on election eve because she was dead drunk with pants gone yellow.

During the heat of the campaign, way back in September 2016, Donald Trump said that he would not necessarily accept the results of the presidential election in the event that Hillary Clinton defeated him, reversing his statement four days earlier that he would “absolutely” respect them.

Come full circle, Hillary “jail the bird” Clinton runs with “da mout.”

CLINTON: There are lots of questions about its legitimacy, and we don’t have a method for contesting that in our system. That is why I have long advocated for an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened.

Look, this is the first time we have ever been attacked by a foreign adversary, and then they suffer no real consequences.