TYSON HAS LONG BEEN IDENTIFED WITH THE DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
Tyson Foods Faces Boycott After Firing 1,200 Americans, ‘Would Like to Employ’ 42,000 Migrants - AND BIDEN - MAYORKAS - SCHUMER HAVE USHERED OVER THE BORDER 15 MILLION TO PICK FROM.
“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal
aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an
assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor,
uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens
and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit
California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any
meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE
BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
GLOBALIST FOR BANKSTERS, THE SUPER RICH and
OPEN BORDERS
ADVOCATES TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN
MIDDLE-CLASS.
There’s a reason why Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg,
Bloomberg, Gates and the Koch Brothers love the Obomb!
Vice News received approval to publish Facebook ads in the names of every U.S. senator in a further illustration of the weakness of the social media giants “paid for” attribution system for political ads.
A recent report from Vice News showed how easily Facebook’s new political advertising tools can be manipulated with little to no verification by Facebook. The social media giant added a mandatory “Paid For” disclosure to political ads in May, which aimed to provide further clarity to the origin of political advertisements on the website. Instead, it appears that this mandatory field can be used to spread misinformation.
Vice first successfully placed ads on Facebook using the name of a number of prominent political figures and groups including Vice President Mike Pence, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, and even the terrorist group ISIS. All of these ads were approved by Facebook with the names of these political figures and groups included within the “Paid For” disclosure.
Now Vice News has shown once again how easily the political advertising system can be fooled, this time by posing as 100 U.S. senators and successfully running advertisements indicating they were “paid for” by each senator.
Vice News reports:
But on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, a VICE News investigation found the “Paid for by” feature is easily manipulated and appears to allow anyone to lie about who is paying for a political ad, or to pose as someone paying for the ad.
To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads “Paid for by” by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook’s approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as “Paid for by” by a major U.S. politician.
What’s more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as “Cookies for Political Transparency” and “Ninja Turtles PAC.” VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include “Paid for by” disclosures for potential ads.
Vice news contacted Facebook for comment on their most recent test, the company admitted that they had indeed made a mistake in approving the ads but still defended their verification system:
“If Facebook is going to claim to verify who’s paying for political ads, they need to actually do the work,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, in a statement to VICE News. “Clearly it needs to do far more to combat fraudulent and false content, both in paid advertisements and viral posts.”
Facebook confirmed that the 100 “Paid for by” disclosures in the names of U.S. senators should never have been approved. But the company argues that its “Paid for by” feature has brought a new level of transparency to political advertising, and cautioned it’s just one piece of its efforts, along with a searchable Ad Archive.
“We know we can’t do this alone, and by housing these ads for up to seven years, people, regulators, third parties and watchdog groups can hold these groups more accountable,” said Facebook Director of Product Management Rob Leathern in a statement.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan_ or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
BARACK OBAMA’S CONSPIRACY FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE
HE PARTNERS WITH ZUCKERBERG, SOROS AND LOUIS FARRAKHAN
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros
really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
“Hillary was always
small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do
you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in
the event that Hillary became disabled?”
“Obama has the
totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have
Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway.
The courts stopped him.”
“The bottom line 2 is
this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is
anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is
what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper
behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro
brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!”
“Hillary
kept a secret server overflowing with national security info which, more than
likely, was hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be
prosecuted.”
“Obama, of course, covered
up his own role, depicting his presidency as eight years of heroic
efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial crash. At
the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial
oligarchy were fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while
working people were poorer than before, a widening social chasm that
made possible the election of the billionaire con man and Demagogue in November
2016.”
David Bernstein & The Heritage Foundation - “Lawless: The
Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule
of Law.”
“The
Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.” Michael Barone
– American Historian – Washington
Examiner
President Trump has publicly expressed concerns about the nature and nationality of the individuals heading towards the U.S. in the supposed “Caravan of Migrants.” Consequently he ordered that the military provide active duty members of the Army to assist with efforts to secure the U.S./Mexican border.
Trump warned that embedded within that organized mob of foreign nationals are members of transnational gangs such as MS-13 and individuals from the Middle East who may be involved in terrorism.
The talking heads on the supposed “journalists” from the mainstream media, and such brilliant television personalities as the panel on the television program “The View” have derided the president, claiming that he had no justification for making those statements and, essentially accused him of lying to fire up his base of right wing conservatives.
In reality, President Trump is connecting the dots, but the globalists and the radical Left don’t like the picture that the connected dots create, so they attack him.
By now this tactic of attacking the President is not a surprise. If President Trump were to say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is likely that the Radical Left would trot out a supposed astrophysicist who would find a way to claim that the President was wrong.
Each day the President is given a security briefing where he is provided with intelligence from the intelligence community. It is entirely likely that during those briefings the issue of the nature of the foreign nationals heading to the United States was a topic.
Of course I am only speculating about whether or not the President’s Daily Briefing has provided President Trump with information about the nature of the members of the caravan. What is not speculation is the fact that the Border Patrol has been encountering and arresting illegal aliens from countries from around the world who attempted to enter the United States without inspection when they were apprehended.
Here is an excerpt of the testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe; and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.
This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.
Khan is a citizen of Pakistan who had established himself as a permanent resident in Brazil and then smuggled numerous illegal aliens from the Middle East into the United States through Mexico. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case, Foreign national extradited and pleads guilty to human smuggling conspiracy.
On April 17, 2018 the Washington Free Beacon published a report with the unambiguous and disconcerting headline, Iranian-Backed ‘Sleeper Cell’ Militants Hibernating in U.S., Positioned for Attack.
On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a disturbing report predicated on a Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military operations in Latin America, Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela. Here is an excerpt:
The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.
On March 18, 2015, during the Obama administration, The United States Institute for Peace published a primer on Iran, Iran's Influence in Latin America, that began with the following excerpt:
On March 18, the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere held a joint hearing about Iran and Hezbollah’s involvement in Central and South America. The committees discussed Iran's attempts to expand its influence in Latin America during the last 30 years, as well as the Islamic Republic's alleged involvement in attacks in Peru and Uruguay and the mysterious death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman. The following are excerpted statements from the subcommittee chairmen and testimony of the witnesses.
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Jeff Duncan
“Given the impending deadline for nuclear negotiations over Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I believe it is critical for the U.S. to re-examine Iran and Hezbollah’s activities in our own neighborhood. Congress has conducted sustained, rigorous oversight on this issue with multiple Committee hearings, classified briefings, and the passage of legislation I authored, the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act, into law in 2012. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration continues to ignore this threat even while Iran and Hezbollah expand their reach. Following a September 2014 Government Accountability Office report that found the State Department failed to follow this law, the Administration has taken no concrete action to address these problems.”
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
“Iran and Hezbollah’s history of involvement in the Western Hemisphere has long been a source of concern for the United States. Given the nature of transnational criminal networks existing in Latin America and the rise of terrorism ideology being exported worldwide from Middle East, it is disturbing that the State Department has failed to fully allocate necessary resources and attention to properly address this potential threat to our nation. It is well known that Iran poses a security threat to regional affairs and has expanded its ties in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador. The United States needs a comprehensive understanding of Tehran’s efforts in Latin America in order to thwart any potential risk to our allies and U.S. national security.”
While the thousands of aspiring illegal aliens who have become a part of the caravan now heading north have captured headlines and much attention as they make their way northward, in point of fact, each and every day, 24/7, illegal aliens enter the United States by evading the inspections process at ports of entry along the northern and southern borders of the United States, by stowing away on ships or finding other means to evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry.
Other aliens enter the United States legally, through the inspections process as temporary (non-immigrant) visitors and then remain in the United States after their authorized period of admission expires and/or otherwise violate the terms of their admission.
I would compare the impact to the United States of the onslaught of the thousands of aspiring illegal aliens in the caravan to a person trying to shovel out his driveway during a blizzard getting hit by a snowball. That snowball may well get his/her attention, but the vast majority of the snow in his driveway is the result of hours of constant snowfall.
The biggest issue where the caravan is concerned is that by surging at the border, the Border Patrol may well find itself overwhelmed. This is the most dangerous part of the problem, that the Border Patrol might not be able to deal with the huge numbers that suddenly confront them. The Adjudications Officers will also likely be overwhelmed when these aliens proclaim that they are seeking asylum. With limited resources to detain these asylum seekers and with limited resources to interview them and then conduct investigations into their claims for asylum, many of these aliens will either not be stopped or will have to ultimately be released.
It has been estimated that only about 2% of aliens who are released ever show up for their immigration court dates. 98% disappear into communities across America.
These aliens demonstrate little fear of repercussions for not appearing when ordered. In the game of “hide & seek” that they play with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), there are precious few ICE agents who are available to try to find them and take them into custody when they fail to show up. Furthermore, if they can make their way to the increasing number of supposed “Sanctuary Cities” that have been created around the United States by Democratic mayors and Sanctuary States created by Democratic governors, they know the their chances of escaping detection by ICE increases exponentially.
Of course the Republicans who refuse to provide funding for the Border Wall and for adequate numbers of ICE agents also adds to the immigration crisis, making certain that illegal aliens have no reason to fear the consequences of their violations of our borders and our laws.
John Adams was right, “Facts are stubborn things!”
Days before the midterm elections, President Trump has sparked another controversy regarding his hardline position on illegal immigration. The president said, during an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," that he is considering issuing an executive order to end what some have called the “anchor baby” loophole. The president says that it is time to take on the claim of an unfettered constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," President Trump said. "It's in the process,” he added. "It will happen with an executive order." White House and Justice Department attorneys are reportedly studying the legal issues involved with such an executive order. Thus, at this point, it is only an idea that may find political resonance, especially among voters concerned with the Central American invasion forces continuing to make their way towards the United States.
Many legal experts believe that an executive order by President Trump to end citizenship for children born in the United States to aliens in this country illegally would be unconstitutional. They cite the first sentence of the 14thAmendment to the Constitution, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The phrase “all persons,” the argument goes, literally means any babies born within the sovereign territorial boundaries of the United States. The foreign nationality or legal status of the parents is irrelevant, according to this expansive interpretation, unless a change is made via a constitutional amendment.
We can expect court challenges from progressive lawyers to any executive order seeking to curtail birthright citizenship. The ACLU tweeted: “The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order.” The radical left group accused President Trump of engaging in “a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.”
However, progressive lawyers are not the only ones raising concerns. Even some conservative lawyers, who deem themselves originalists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, have declared that the president cannot change by executive order the birthright to citizenship of any “persons” born in the United States as enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Dan McLaughlin, an attorney and online contributor to National Review, for example, argued that “a proper originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as presently written, guarantees American citizenship to those born within our borders, with only a few limited exceptions.” He based his argument on both the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, as well as on Supreme Court precedent. Mr. McLaughlin added that any exceptions would be limited to instances considerably narrower than all babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants, such as babies of foreign government officials who still owed their allegiance to foreign governments.
The leading Supreme Court case cited by birthright citizenship advocates is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This case was decided back in 1898, but still stands as a binding precedent unless and until overruled. In Wong Kim Ark, it should be noted, the Supreme Court was dealing with a child born in the United States to Chinese parents in the country legally, not to illegal immigrants. “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent,” the Supreme Court majority opinion stated, “who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil (sic) and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The Wong Kim Ark case reasoning, at least with regard to the broad interpretation of the term “persons” as used in the 14th Amendment, was extended by the Supreme Court to apply to illegal alien children in a case decided in 1982. “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” the Supreme Court held in the 1982 case, Plyler v. Doe. “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The 1982 case did not involve the citizenship birthright issue itself, but the case extended 14thAmendment rights to illegal immigrant children relating to free public education that Texas was offering to other children residing legally within its borders. The majority opinion held that Texas had not shown a sufficiently substantial state interest to justify discriminating against children who happen to be illegal aliens.
Supreme Court case holdings are binding precedents but are not immutable. They can also be distinguished. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case applied to a baby born in the United States whose foreign parents were in the United States legally at the time of their baby’s birth. It could be argued that the Wong Kim Ark holding should not apply to the happenstance of a birth in the United States to parents here illegally at the time of the birth. The wrongful circumstances under which the birth occurred in the United States to illegal aliens who should not have been in this country in the first place to give birth would arguably negate any finding that their children so born in the U.S. are legally "subject to U.S. jurisdiction" as required by the 14th Amendment or automatically entitled to its protections. Under this line of reasoning, the illegal presence of a pregnant parent should not be rewarded with citizenship for the parent's children because it would encourage circumvention of the basic principle and purpose of the United States' jurisdictional sovereignty. This is especially the case where it can be shown that aliens have entered the United States illegally for the express purpose of having their babies in the United States in order to game the system.
As for the 1982 Supreme Court case extending the definition of “person” in the 14th Amendment to illegal aliens in the context of equal rights to education, it may not survive if a similar case comes before the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court. It could be overruled altogether on the grounds that the majority opinion did not take sufficient account of the state’s interest in making reasonable distinctions between legal and illegal residents in allocating scarce resources for public education. Even if the Supreme Court would not go that far, the 1982 case was dealing with a different portion of the 14th Amendment involving equal protection rights. It did not deal with the specific issue of defining the scope of birthright citizenship under the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. It did not address the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark case directly at all, which only applied the birthright citizenship clause to children born in the United States to parents who were domiciled in the country legally at the time of the child’s birth.
However, even if the Supreme Court would be inclined towards a narrower interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause as only applying to the children of parents residing in the United States legally, the question still remains whether President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order on this matter. Section 5 of the 14thAmendment vests in Congress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Congress has not legislated on the enforcement of the birthright to citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Nor has Congress passed a bill to limit its scope, which the Supreme Court could then adjudicate as to the constitutionality of such a law. A congressional statute setting parameters around the birthright to citizenship clause for enforcement purposes would stand a far better chance of surviving judicial review than an executive order alone. It would also have more permanence.
That said, Congress has legislated regarding immigration more generally, including delegation of certain powers to the president, which Congress can do pursuant to its own constitutional authority.
In upholding President Trump’s temporary ban on travel of foreigners to the United States from certain countries, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the president of the United States has broad discretionary authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to issue a proclamation that would “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). It may be a stretch, but President Trump could possibly issue an executive order suspending entry of all aliens from Central America until an orderly process for handling asylum requests can be established at established ports of entry. In that connection, the executive order could include a directive to the executive branch that no birth certificate listing birth in the United States of a child born in the United States to illegal aliens who managed to get into this country despite the suspension order will be recognized by any executive branch agency. That could mean barring the issuance to the child of a social security card or a U.S. passport, refusing to grant visas to family members of the child based on chain migration, or the refusal of federal government benefits.
Whether President Trump decides to issue such an executive order remains to be seen, as well as its timing if he does decide to go ahead. He may simply be using the “anchor baby” issue to make a political point in advance of the midterm elections and is baiting the press and Democrats to holler and scream. If the president does follow through with what many legal scholars would consider to be a long shot idea, he can expect an all-out legal challenge. But who knows? The challenge would inevitably have to be resolved by the Supreme Court, which thankfully now includes Justice Kavanaugh.
Washington, D.C. (October 31, 2018) - A Center for Immigration Studies analysis of new Census Bureau data shows that 1.75 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in 2016, matching the highest single year of immigration in American history. The new numbers represent a continuation of the dramatic rebound in new arrivals since 2011, when annual immigration bottomed out after the Great Recession. Newly arrived immigrants include new permanent residents (green cards), long-term “temporary” visitors (e.g. guest workers and foreign students), asylum seekers, as well as new illegal immigrants.
Steven Camarota, the Center’s director of research and co-author of the report, said, “The enormous number of new immigrants settling in the United States in recent years primarily reflects the nation’s generous legal immigration system. Like taxes or spending, the level of legal immigration can be changed. But for too long the system has run on autopilot, with little regard for the interests of the American people.”
The arrival of 1.75 million immigrants (legal and illegal) in 2016 continues the post-2011 surge in immigration. In 2011 it was 1.08 million; in 2012 it was 1.21 million; in 2013 it was 1.28 million; in 2014 it was 1.5 million; and in 2015 it was 1.62 million.
Half of the increase in new arrivals (legal and illegal) since 2011 has been from Latin America, which doubled from 335,000 in that year to 668,000 in 2016.
Latin America surpassed Asia (East Asia and South Asia combined) as the top sending-region in 2016. Asia had been the top sending-region since 2010.
Annual immigration from Central America alone has nearly tripled, from 46,000 in 2011 to 133,000 new arrivals in 2016. This reflects in part the dramatic increase in illegal immigrant families from Central America crossing the southern border.
Compared to 2011, new immigration (legal and illegal) from South America is up by 250 percent, to 171,000 in 2016, and new arrivals from the Caribbean roughly doubled to 168,000 over the same time period.
Other regions showing a large increase in new annual arrivals since 2011 are South Asia (Indian subcontinent), up 54 percent to 244,000 in 2016; East Asia, up 30 percent to 355,000 in 2016; and the Middle East, up 78 percent to 137,000.
Mexico and India are in a statistical tie as the top sending countries, with 196,000 and 194,000, respectively, arriving in 2016. China was third, with 171,000 new immigrants.
While the number of new arrivals from Mexico has increased nearly 50 percent since 2011, the number coming remains well below the annual level of more than a decade ago, when 400,000 to 500,000 new arrivals (legal and illegal) came from our southern neighbor each year.
The dramatic increase in new immigrants settling in the United States in recent years is primarily driven by the nation's generous legal immigration system, both long-term temporary visa holders (e.g. guest workers and foreign students) and new permanent residents (green cards).
There is evidence that the arrival of new illegal immigrants may also have rebounded in the last few years. The number of new less-educated Hispanic immigrants increased 76 percent between 2011 and 2016. However, the level remains well below what it was before the Great Recession.
The decision to admit large numbers of unaccompanied minors and families at the southern border likely accounts for some of the increase in new illegal immigration since 2011, particularly from Central America.
While complete data for 2017 will not be released until next year, in the first six months of 2017, 930,000 new immigrants settled in the country. This is less than in the first six months of 2016, and may indicate that new immigration fell somewhat between 2016 and 2017
The falloff in arrivals in the first part of 2017 may reflect increased enforcement, lower refugee admissions, and more robust vetting of applicants undertaken by the Trump administration.
Based on past patterns, when the data becomes available for all of 2017, it may show 1.61 million new immigrants arrived in all of 2017, though that projection is only preliminary. If correct, it would mean that new arrivals in 2017 were lower than in 2016, but still higher than any year since 2000, with the exception of 2016.
President Trump reveals plan to use executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals
Expect an explosion of media outrage and high powered lawsuits, especially in jurisdictions with Trump-hating federal judges. President Trump has launched an October surprise.
Last night in an interview granted to Jonathan Swan of Axios, President Trump announced his plans to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born on American territory to illegal immigrants and foreign citizens, presumably at least those “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as required by the 14th Amendment.
Swan does not seem pleased, at least to my eyes (HBO screen grab)
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump said during an interview with Axios scheduled to air as part of a new HBO series starting this weekend. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”
Trump, who has long decried “anchor babies,” said he has discussed the move with his legal counsel and believes it can be accomplished with executive action, a view at odds with the opinions of many legal scholars.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Axios.
When told that view is disputed, Trump asserted: “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”
“It’s in the process. It’ll happen . . . with an executive order,” he said, without offering a time frame.
The move, which many legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution, would be the boldest yet by a president elected to office pledging to take a hard line on immigration, an issue he has revived in advance of next week’s midterm elections.
The Constitution says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants – or tourists on vacation in the US -- being entitled to citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The key words are “subject to the jurisdiction.” As far as the “many experts” that the WaPo cites, the only experts that will matter in the end are those in the majority of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.
Although Trump is not detailed in his remark, I assume that children of immigrants who are in the process of obtaining US citizenship would have citizenship passed along to their children, either immediately upon birth, or when their parents are naturalized. I leave it to legal eagles in the White House to work out the exact wording of the executive order/
This lengthy and detailed article by P.A. Madison explores the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and by subsequent legislators who drafted citizenship legislation. There is no evidence that they wished to grant citizenship to children anyone who wandered across the border, however temporarily or illegally.
Trump’s dropping of this bombshell 8 days before the election is obviously intended to fire up both his base and his opponents, who will denounce him and – we can safely assume – go over the top and say things that defy common sense.
The stakes could not be higher. With millions of illegals, poorly educated and unable to obtain lucrative employment, in this country and having children who will be set up for a lifetime of dependency, the Democrats’ plans to change the electorate to a majority of dependents is succeeding.
Sen. Graham Says He Plans to Introduce Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced plans Tuesday to introduce legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship following President Trump’s announcement that he plans to end it through executive order.
In a series of tweets, Graham praised President Trump’s comments in a recent interview with Axios that he believes he can end birthright citizenship and plans to do so. Sen. Graham announced that he will be introducing legislation “along the same lines” as Trump’s planned executive order.
"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump argued in his interview with Axios. “It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end.”
"You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order," he claimed, adding that “it’s in the process.”
There is still an active debate among constitutional scholars about whether President Trump can change the 14th amendment which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The American Civil Liberties Union pushed back on Trump's proposal Tuesday.
"The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee is clear," Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, argued. "This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms."
Harry Reid: It’s Insane To Reward Illegal Immigrants By Giving Their Children Birthright Citizenship
He would have reversed himself eventually even if electoral pressures in his home state hadn’t forced him to. It’s hard to imagine a modern Democrat supporting any meaningful disincentive to illegal immigration but it’s completely unimaginable to imagine one backing a tweak to the Constitution(!) that would deny something as momentous as citizenship(!!). If we haven’t yet reached the point where open borders are as sacrosanct to liberals as feticide, we’ll get there. His logic in the clip is perfectly sound, though: Inescapably, if you grant citizenship to children of parents who have no lawful right to be in the United States, you’ll get more would-be parents attempting to enter the United States unlawfully. And that’s never been truer than it is today, as the Democratic Party veers ever further towards radicalism on immigration. Hillary Clinton wanted to preserve Obama’s (now defunct) DAPA program, which would have granted de facto legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of natural-born U.S. citizens. That is, if you snuck across the border and gave birth here, the last two Democratic nominees for president were prepared to not only uphold citizenship for your child but to reward you with the right to stay too. “No sane country would do that, right?” says Reid in the clip below. Correct. No sane country.
But birthright citizenship ain’t getting changed by executive order. I doubt even Trump thinks it might. Today’s news is likely nothing more than a trial balloon or a shiny object to get all the chatter about his “tone” off the front page. Paul Ryan laughed off the idea:
.@SpeakerRyan responds to Trump: "Well you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. We didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution."
Reid’s own proposal in 1993 was to try to change the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment via an Act of Congress. Even a conservative Supreme Court would be leery of letting Congress enact de facto constitutional amendments via simple legislation by “clarifiying” certain parts of the Constitution (that’s the Court’s job!) but a statute is sturdier stuff than an executive order. Reid’s proposal:
TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
If your mom is a U.S. citizen when you’re born here, you’re a citizen. If your mom isn’t a citizen but *is* here legally when you’re born here, you’re a citizen. If your mom broke the law and had no right to be here when you were born, you’re a citizen of the same country she is. That’s a perfectly equitable arrangement, one which I think a heavy majority of Americans would support if we were hashing out a citizenship scheme for illegals from scratch. But we’re not, so it’s dead on arrival. The open-borders party would never countenance it.
If you subsidize something, you’ll get more of it. We’ve chosen to subsidize illegal immigration with citizenship. Reid once cared, until his interest in retaining his Senate seat convinced him not to.
Immigration Reformers Thank Trump for Challenging ‘Outdated Concept’ of Birthright Citizenship
Pro-American immigration reformers are praising President Trump’s announcement that he is readying an executive order to end the nation’s birthright citizenship policy.
During an interview with Axios, Trump revealed that he is planning to executively end the birthright citizenship policy — which rewards the children of illegal aliens with United States citizenship.
“It will happen–with an executive order,” Trump said of ending birthright citizenship.
The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the country, a population that exceeds the total number of annual American births.
Subsequently, when given birthright citizenship, anchor babies are also rewarded with the privilege of bringing their foreign relatives to the U.S. through the process known as “chain migration.” Every two new immigrants to the U.S. bring an estimated seven foreign relatives with them.
With Trump’s announcement, pro-American immigration reformers who have been advocating for the end of birthright citizenship for decades are applauding Trump.
NumbersUSA President Roy Beck told Breitbart News in a statement:
We applaud President Trump for challenging the practice of bestowing automatic citizenship on foreign visitors and illegal aliens, an outdated concept that has been abandoned by most of the world’s nations, including all but two of those with advanced economies. [Emphasis added]
It not only serves as an incentive for illegal immigrants but has even generated an entire ‘birth tourism’ industry. NumbersUSA has advocated for two decades that this federal practice that adds hundreds of thousands of people to the United States each year be ended. [Emphasis added]
Executive Director of the Immigration Reform Law Insititute (IRLI) Dale Wilcox called the “faulty interpretation” of birthright citizenship a “magnet” for “large-scale” illegal immigration, saying that it has “caused great harm to our sovereignty.”
“The Trump administration is right to correct this error,” Wilcox said.
“The Supreme Court precedent on birthright citizenship has been ignored or misstated for 120 years,” Wilcox continued. “Citizenship via birth was intended under the 14th amendment for those born in the U.S. to a U.S.-resident parent who has permission to be here at the time, and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S.
“The rule clearly excludes the children of both illegal aliens and tourists,” Wilcox said.
It remains unclear as to when Trump will introduce his executive order ending birthright citizenship. Reformers say the order should come sooner tather than later.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration. As Breitbart News recently reported, there are more anchor baby births in the Los Angeles, California metro area than the total U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Colombia. Every year, American taxpayers are billed about $2.4 billion to pay for the births of illegal aliens
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
United States, Canada Only Nations in Developed World with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship
The United States and Canada are alone in the developed world when it comes to offering unrestricted birthright citizenship that rewards even the children of illegal aliens.
The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the country, a population that exceeds the total number of annual American births.
Subsequently, when given birthright citizenship, anchor babies are also rewarded with the privilege of bringing their foreign relatives to the U.S. through the process known as “chain migration.” Every two new immigrants to the U.S. bring an estimated seven foreign relatives with them.
Data compiled by NumbersUSA notes that the U.S. and Canada are the only two developed nations — as defined by the International Monetary Fund — which give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, developed nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland have all repealed their birthright citizenship laws within the last 15 years. Even some of the most immigration-maximalist countries in the Western world like Germany, the United Kingdom, and France do not offer birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
On Tuesday, President Trump announced that he is readying an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. The unilateral move would carry the U.S. into the future on the issue, putting the nation more in line with similar Western countries.
The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration. As Breitbart News recently reported, there are more anchor baby births in the Los Angeles, California metro area than the total of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Colombia. Every year, American taxpayers are billed about $2.4 billion to pay for the births of illegal aliens
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
“The lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars, according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.”