Tag Archives: immigration

Regarding Illegal Aliens Applying for Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Trump administration’s limitation on illegal aliens’ ability to apply for asylum. The case, Noem v Al Otro Lado, centers on the meaning of “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law: does an alien “arrive” on meeting with immigration officers when the meeting occurs on the Mexican side with no actual entry into the US.

This should be an open-and-shut case. Here’s what 8 US Code § 1158 – Asylum, paragraph (a)(1) says on the matter:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

That’s clear. Present in the United States and brought to the United States means inside—being within the borders of—the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, this statute makes clear that “on the Mexican side” plainly is not inside the United States (to say nothing of the affront to Mexican sovereignty if “on the Mexican side” were taken to mean inside the US.

Section 1225(b) only specifies the process for granting or denying asylum, but this is what its paragraph (a)(1) says that’s relevant to Otro Lado:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.

This is, in its essence, a repeat of the Asylum paragraph above. In the United States explicitly excludes being still on the Mexican side of the border. An alien, illegal or otherwise, must be on the US side of the border—within the US—before he can apply for asylum

Full stop.

The obvious alternative, though, should the Court rule wrongly on this, is to withdraw all US immigration officers from the Mexican side of the border.

A Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

DHS, according to Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, is looking at so-called “ICE tracking apps,” which allow users to share locations of immigration enforcement activity in real time. Of course they should be looking at these.

However.

According to McLaughlin, while such apps might currently be legal, they are “being used by gangs, suspected terrorists, and others to evade law enforcement and even target officers.”
She said the Department of Justice might consider whether the apps and other tracking tools amount to obstruction of justice.

That’s looking at the wrong end of the apps. It’s certainly true that, as McLaughlin also says, there has been a 1,000% increase in assaults against ICE officers.

But the way to deal with that is not to go after the apps as obstructions of justice. The proper way to deal with that is to treat the use of the apps in particular ways as obstructions of justice, backtrack those uses to their users, and then to go after the users who actually obstruct justice or who interfere with law enforcement officers in the course of their actions.

The apps themselves are merely tools. They’re agnostic in themselves; it’s the users who are…not agnostic.

Moreover, targeting the apps over their misuse also would fuel the Left’s war on our 2nd Amendment, making it easier to target our weapons over their misuse.

Willful Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

Or preferring her Newspeak Dictionary definitions over those in actual American English dictionaries.

That’s Arizona Progressive-Democrat Representative Yassamin Ansari’s view. In response to the hue and cry over her terming illegal aliens members of her constituency, she had this:

So, I didn’t realize this was such a controversy until the right-wing media started attacking me for using the word, so I Googled the word constituent. The definition of constituent is somebody who is part of a community, doesn’t matter what their legal status is,

She Googled for the definition of “constituent.” She could have consulted an actual dictionary of the American English language, but she chose not to. ‘Course, if she had, she would have seen her narrative collapse around her. This is what Merriam-Webster, for instance, has to say about the American English meaning of the term:

constituent
1 : a member of a constituency
pledged to help her elderly constituents

Following that first and thus primary definition over to constituency, we get this first and primary definition:

constituency
1 a : a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative (as to a legislative or executive position)
the governor’s liberal constituency

Citizens. Not illegal aliens. Even the second part of that first definition lends no support for Ansari’s Newspeak definition:

b : the residents in an electoral district
The senator’s constituency includes a large minority population.

Since illegal aliens are not legally resident, they are outside even the residents of an electoral district.

Inconvenient facts are, to a Party member, inconvenient.

Progressive-Democratic Party Policies

Posted on by
2

Neera Tanden, ex-policy advisor to ex-President Joe Biden (D), has a proposal regarding immigration. I’ll elide the manufactured hysteria with which she opens her piece.

Our proposal ends the misuse of asylum and restores it to its original purpose—to protect those persecuted for who they are or what they believe.
…
…more personnel, better technology, and barriers where appropriate—to deter illegal immigration and apprehend contraband goods.
…
We should expand legal immigration—with safeguards that prevent displacement for American workers….

With no ideas for how to prove the legitimacy of those asylum claims; throw money and bodies at the problem, though; and make sure those lettuce pickers and lawn mowers and house cleaners are available to do the dirty work for us.

The core of Tanden’s position, though, is this:

Democrats can win this issue—and cleave Republicans—if they support ending illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration. The left also has a chance to split the right as they have split us.

Party adherents’ policy plainly is merely anti-Republican and not at all pro-what’s good for America and America’s citizens. What about a policy whose goal is America and Americans winning?

Party adherents have no policies that they’re for; their core policy is Oppose the Other Side. Immigration is merely a tool for Party defeating Republicans. It’s not about making our nation greater.

Another Thought on Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
1

I start from two premises. One is the clear distinction in meaning between subject to the jurisdiction and subject to the power of. I continue with the premise that illegal aliens, who have entered our country illegally and remain here illegally, are subject only to the power of our government.

Our government sits at the head of our social compact. More to the point, our government has exactly zero jurisdiction beyond the limits of our social compact; this is well understood both in our domestic law and in international law. Illegal aliens have illegally entered our nation, and they continue to stay without turning themselves to positively seek to get themselves right with our laws, especially with that subset that is our immigration laws. By their own conscious behavior, they are holding themselves outside of our social compact where our government has no jurisdiction, only raw power.

Within or without our social compact is a distinction that applies also to pregnant women who enter our nation, even legally, solely to have their babies on American soil, and who then depart for their home country. These women, never having given up their home country’s jurisdiction, have never submitted themselves to our jurisdiction. Indeed, by their intention of returning to their home country as soon as they’re able after birth, these women have never intended to submit themselves to our government’s jurisdiction. These women have held themselves outside our social compact for the duration of their stay here.

From that, babies born to illegal aliens and to birth-tourist mothers are not—cannot—be citizens of our United States: they’ve been born outside our government’s jurisdiction.

Looking at this from another direction, here is the relevant 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 form of the clause’s logical construction is this: If A AND B, THEN C. Thus: If born or naturalized AND subject to our jurisdiction, THEN citizen.

Both A and B must be true for C to be true; that’s the meaning of the AND connector. Since the babies born to illegal aliens or to birth-tourist mothers do not meet the second condition, they cannot reach the THEN outcome.

There is a counterargument, and that one centers on the early 17th century British origins of the concept of citizenship by dint of place of birth, with further references to American court decisions on the matter prior to the 1868 ratification of our 14th Amendment. This argument also makes reference to long-standing policy as well as to that legal matter. The counterargument, though, fails for a number of reasons.

Last reason first: ‘long-standing policy” is irrelevant. Policy isn’t binding on anything outside the administrations that choose to maintain it; policy is not statute, it is too easily changed solely extra-legislatively, and it can be eliminated altogether by any subsequent administration.

British law and British legal history have value only for the logic and ideas contained in their derivation; they have nothing to contribute in terms of legally binding matters. They have no jurisdiction inside the United States; indeed, they have no jurisdiction outside the bounds of Great Britain. They’re wholly irrelevant.

Similarly, those American court rulings that predate ratification of the 14th Amendment are wholly irrelevant. With that ratification, those rulings’ vague descriptions of what an American citizen was were rendered entirely without effect by the clear definition of “citizen” that the 14th Amendment created and codified.

Even the counterargument’s references to court rulings subsequent to Amendment’s ratification are irrelevant: they merely expand on those prior irrelevancies; not affecting the Amendment’s dispositive definition, they do not render those decisions current and within the Amendment’s bounds.