Category Archives: immigration

On Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed insists that President Donald Trump’s (R) Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship—which says that children born to illegal aliens or birth-tourism mothers are not ipso facto entitled to American citizenship—is unconstitutional. Galston correctly hangs his argument on the 14th Amendment’s first clause phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof (of the United States). He’s also correct in that some case law could serve as impediments to enforcing Trump’s EO and that some Supreme Court precedential rulings that touch on birthright citizenship also could so serve.

Here’s the importance of that phrase, albeit it’s an importance that Galston and others objecting to the EO completely miss. Illegal aliens have held themselves outside our legal jurisdiction from the very beginning—their illegal entry into our nation in violation of the laws, the jurisdiction, of our nation—and they continue to hold themselves outside our jurisdiction by their continued status as illegal aliens.

A similar case applies to those birth-tourism mothers. They have no intention whatsoever of remaining—legally—and so submitting themselves to our nation’s jurisdiction. They have every intention of remaining citizens, subject to the jurisdiction, of their home nation.

Because these two groups refuse our nation’s jurisdiction, birthright citizenship can never, legitimately, apply to their children for all the accident (deliberate or not) of the geography of their birth.

Here is an instance where the over-sanctification of precedent could be corrected in the specific instance: overturn the wrongly decided case law and correct those past Supreme Court precedents. Recognize via Court ruling the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the 14th Amendment’s phrase. That’s a requirement the Supreme Court has emplaced a number of times.

Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article—and this news outlet is not at all alone in this—centered on ICE arrests of those in our nation illegally who have criminal histories, the newswriter, Michelle Hackman, insists on calling them “immigrants,” even as she acknowledges in her lede that they’re here illegally.

…targeting immigrants in the country illegally with criminal backgrounds, including minor offenses.

And

…the agency [ICE] is still conducting arrests by pursuing immigrants on so-called “target lists” of criminals developed by the agency….

No. These folks are not “immigrants,” nor are they, as they are often referred to, “migrants,” illegal or otherwise. They are illegal aliens. On the matter of criminal history, that includes their crime of entering our nation illegally.

They cannot be immigrants under any circumstance unless and until they enter our nation legally. They ceased to be migrants when they entered Mexico (or Canada) illegally by those nations’ laws. Even those who entered Mexico or Canada legally, and so might be migrants there, ceased to be migrants and became illegal aliens when they entered our nation illegally.

Nor does the gaslighting stop there. Abeer Ayyoub, Jared Malsin, and Anat Peled have a piece centered on the return of Gazans to northern Gaza and the destruction wreaked there by Hamas in its war of extermination against Israel. These newswriters—and they’re not alone on this, either—determinedly refer to Hamas as Palestinian militant group Hamas. Again, no. These thugs are not militants; they are terrorists.

As long as newswriters insist on gaslighting us about these, neither they nor their journalism guild in general, will have any credibility at all on these subjects, and by extension, on any other—they might be gaslighting on those subjects, too.

Aside: by entering our nation illegally, illegal aliens have placed themselves outside the boundaries set by our law. By doing that, they have denied our nation’s jurisdiction over them. That has serious implications regarding birthright citizenship and our 14th Amendment, with its requirement of subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States] in order to become citizens.

Citizenship and Birth

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has issued his Executive Order (see below a few posts to see a related one) that seeks to apply an alternative interpretation to the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that eliminates birthright citizenship. His EO can be read here, and the currently implementing law he references in his EO can be read here. His argument centers on the subject to the jurisdiction thereof phrase in the clause.

This is the first clause of the 14th Amendment:

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 order strongly implies, IAW “plain language” that folks are citizens of the nation first and citizens of the State in which they reside second. Further, that citizen of the State aspect follows them from State to State as they declare (and take some steps to demonstrate) their residency in the subsequent State(s). That, in turn, strongly suggests that a person’s State citizenship exists only as derivative of their national citizenship.

The law may give this EO some legs, even though the “subject to jurisdiction” part has been tried before.

A Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Joe Biden (D) thinks he can enact an Amendment to our Constitution by tweeting it into existence: his announcement that the ERA Amendment is now the law of the land, he says.

With that precedent, President Donald Trump (R), who has some tweeting experience, can tweet out of existence other Amendments, or parts thereof: vis., part of the 14th Amendment.

All persons, born to parents at least one of whom is a citizen of the United States, 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.

That ought to saucer and blow the matter.

Update: Oh, wait….

Detention Beds?

Posted on by
Reply

ICE thinks that, were the Laken Riley Act, which mandates immediate detention pending deportation of illegal aliens who have been arrested for theft of one sort or another, to be enacted, they would need, among other things, an additional $3 billion due to the agency needing an additional 60,000 detention beds.

That cost is heavily impacted by the fanciness of the beds.

Sixty thousand army cots from a big-name store would cost just $8.7 million, assuming no discount for such a large buy.

Other cots are available through big-name general marketer Amazon.com for prices around $55 each, or $3.3 million, again assuming no large buy discount.

Military surplus cots can be had for as low as $31—$1.86 million for the 60,000.

A 50ftx100ft Quonset hut can be had for $29,000 in construction kit form that, when assembled, provides a complete, weather tight shelter. That hut could easily shelter 120 illegal aliens on those cots. That works out to some 500 huts for $14.5 million. Add porta-potty latrines and a couple of Quonset huts for food preparation and eating, and we’re bringing in the detention facilities for less than $20 million.

Of course, those numbers make no allowance for segregating the detainees by sex. Having male- and female-only huts, though, would add only trivially to the cost, and most of that increment would be in added personnel to enforce the segregation.

If those $3 billon really are committed, the remainder should be for personnel. At an estimated $80k salary plus $13k payroll tax per additional ICE, CBP, and ESO agent, those remaining $2.8 billion could hire 28,500 more.

Whether an additional 28,500 are needed or not, the larger point is that the money should go toward the men and women who put their lives on the line going after these thugs, and not in housing them in unneeded luxury.