Category Archives: immigration

The Only Even Remotely Legitimate Move Re TPS

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court heard last Wednesday in an expedited manner (“certiorari before judgment” for the judicial nerds among us) oral argument in a case centered on whether a President’s Executive Branch agency can withdraw, on its own recognizance, Temporary Protected Status from immigration populations who remain here under that status. Several District and Appellate courts have said no, not without (judge-determined) sufficient interagency review of the matter.

The governing statute is quite clear: granting, withdrawing, extending, or not extending temporary protected status for folks from particular nations is not a justiciable matter; courts have no standing to adjudicate these decisions.

The only legitimate recourse those demanding TPS be extended/maintained for Haitians (for instance) is to argue that that governing statute limit is unconstitutional and should be struck. Even this, though, is itself doomed to failure. Here’s Art III, Sect 2, Clause 1 on judicial jurisdictions:

The [Supreme Court] judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity…to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party….

DHS, which is the agency with TPS responsibility within the United States, most assuredly is “the United States” in this context.

Here’s Art III, Sect 2, Clause 2 on judicial jurisdictions:

…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Under the Immigration Act of 1990 as amended, which created the Temporary Protected Status facility, there “is no judicial review of any determination” of the DHS secretary “with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”  That’s a pretty clear act of setting such Regulations—limiting the courts’ jurisdiction—here withdrawing TPS actions from judicial scrutiny.

And Art III, Sect 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Federal District and Appellate courts, being inferior to the Supreme Court are bound by those same jurisdictional limits.

For good or ill, US courts have nothing to say regarding any aspect of Temporary Protected Status settings.

The Act, as amended, can be read here. The Act withdrew references to court jurisdiction and placed that jurisdiction within the State or INS district, or in the main, within the DHS.

The Editors’ Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

In writing Wednesday about the (later that day) Wednesday Supreme Court oral arguments for Trump v Barbara, the Wall Street Journal‘s editors have badly misunderstood the situation. Leave aside that the editors completely ignored the matter of birth tourism in the US, wherein pregnant women enter the US, legally or illegally, to give birth and then to return to their home country, with their purpose for being present for birth being wholly and cynically confined to gaining US citizenship for their newborn. The editors’ argument only concerned the children of illegal aliens and the current automatic conferring of US citizenship to those newborn.

The editors correctly argued that the nub of the matter concerns the 14th Amendment’s reference to children born to parents in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and they agreed with the plaintiff argument that

Under the longstanding definition, undocumented immigrants are domiciled in this country: they reside here, with “an intention to remain[.]”

This, though, is an incomplete definition of “jurisdiction.” The illegal aliens certainly do intend to remain, but by having entered our nation illegally and refusing to correct that illegal status, they continue to hold themselves apart from our laws, outside our legal strictures, and so outside our government’s jurisdiction—making themselves only subject to our government’s power. These people, in the words of the government’s argument, are incapable of and do not owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the Nation, and so they both may not and cannot claim its protection.

The editors did acknowledge that

the place to fight [illegal immigration] is at the border, and Mr Trump has virtually halted migrant flows.

A place to fight illegal alien influx is at the border, but that’s not the place. Other necessary battlefields exist, too, battlefields that contain incentives for continued efforts at illegal entry, and these include the birth wards of hospitals and our courts. The present courtroom battlefield is an arena in which birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens (and of birth tourists) must be ended. That, in turn, will facilitate the successful outcome of the birth ward battlefield.

Not Just Vetting

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and subheadline laid out the problem; the article expands on it.

Naturalized but radicalized: Recent terror attacks expose glaring problems with citizenship vetting
After four attacks on the U.S. with one common thread—immigration—the time may have come to make transformative changes to the system that decides who comes in.

That’s a mostly accurate description, but only that; Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R, WY) identified the other critical dimension of the problem.

Throughout history, we have expected people who immigrated here to become assimilated to the American culture. And I think over the last 30 years or so, there’s been this idea that we no longer need to do that, and this is an example of the consequences of those kinds of bad policies[.]

Our vetting does nothing to assess a potential immigrant’s interest in or willingness to assimilate into American culture, a culture that prizes individual initiative, individual responsibility, and acceptance of, or at least willingness to, live under American values of free speech and religion, keeping and bearing arms, and the rest as illustrated in our Bill of Rights.

Once in the US—legally, mind you—and on what amounts to probation, remaining here on a green card or while on the green card working toward citizenship, potential immigrants are not pushed to learn American English (or even British English) beyond taking a few simplified English as a Second Language courses, nor are they required to learn about American culture and values beyond what it takes to pass a dumb-downed citizenship test.

English needs to be specified as our official language, and government officials at all levels of our hierarchy need to interact with citizens and immigrants in English. Beyond that, their children need to be taught in American English in school, not in their native language, and that schooling needs to include more American history and civics (as it must for the children of us citizens, come to that).

With no incentive to assimilate anywhere along the way, potential immigrants, staying separate from us, gain a sense of isolation even in their enclaves. Of course they’re easily radicalized.

Lowered Going Away Fees

Posted on by
Reply

The State Department has greatly reduced the cost to an American citizen of renouncing his citizenship.

The US State Department has cut the fee all the way down to $450 from $2,350.

Even though this just restored the I Quit Fee to its 2010 level, it’s still a big deal.

It’s also not all bad. The quitters shouldn’t let the door hit them in the fanny on the way out. We won’t miss them.

Even better: our nation will get a little bit more conservative and a little bit less Precious- and Progressive-infested with each departure, since those who love our nation, Left or Right, will be staying and continuing to work to improve it.

It Hinges on the Meaning of….

Posted on by
Reply

Missouri’s Attorney General, Katherine Hanaway, has gone to court to

bar the federal government from counting immigrants living in the country illegally when determining congressional representation and federal funding….

She added,

We are confident that the Census Bureau is going to start to plan for a census in 2030 where we don’t count illegal immigrants….

None of us American citizens believe illegal aliens should be allowed to vote. Counting their presence in apportioning 435 seats in House of Representatives among the several States is a different matter, though, and it’s not entirely up to the Census Bureau. Here’s what our Constitution has to say on House representation:

Article I, Section 2: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative….

And

14th Amendment: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion….

Every thirty thousand what, though? Citizens? Residents, which would include legal aliens? Anyone present at the time of enumeration, which would include illegal aliens?

The question hinges, also, on the definition of other crime, and here’s where things get truly serious. Illegal aliens, wherever present have committed the wrong of entering our nation illegally, and they compound their wrong-doing by remaining here in their illegal status. Are either of these crimes?

Title 8 US Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien has this:

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Our courts usually count illegal entry to be a misdemeanor, while illegal reentry is counted a felony. In this context, though, it’s a meaningless distinction: both misdemeanors and felonies are crimes in the legal sense. So it is, too, in our American English dictionaries. Merriam-Webster Online defines “misdemeanor” as a crime less serious than a felony.

With the 14th Amendment clarifying Art, Sect 2, and the Title 8 paragraph clarifying the nature of entering the US illegally, the case for not counting illegal aliens when apportioning Congressional representation should be straightforward.