Moultrie Products
SC: ".....illegals get no due process...
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Spike Bull 08-Jul-18
Trax 08-Jul-18
HA/KS 08-Jul-18
Spike Bull 08-Jul-18
Annony Mouse 09-Jul-18
Woods Walker 09-Jul-18
trublucolo 09-Jul-18
BIGHORN 09-Jul-18
KSflatlander 09-Jul-18
HDE 09-Jul-18
KSflatlander 09-Jul-18
Spike Bull 11-Jul-18
Tiger-Eye 11-Jul-18
HDE 11-Jul-18
Spike Bull 11-Jul-18
DL 11-Jul-18
HA/KS 11-Jul-18
Woods Walker 11-Jul-18
Spike Bull 12-Jul-18
Annony Mouse 12-Jul-18
08-Jul-18

Spike Bull 's Link
"SCOTUS Says People Here Illegally Are Not Entitled to Due Process

By

 S.Noble

 -

July 7, 2018

1

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestEmailRedditShare

People who enter our country illegally do not have due process rights despite what the left would have us believe. The Supreme Court has already ruled, repeatedly.

Allowing illegal aliens to contest orders of removal is “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order,” the President said recently.

Indeed it is. We have a recent example of that. All of the illegal aliens who came in with children will be allowed to stay in the country as a result of a ruling by another nobody judge on behalf of illegal aliens.

The mainstream media portrayed the President’s comments about due process for people entering the country illegally as a call to end due process.

But as Matt O’Brien of FAIR writes, most of these open borders policies, anchored in alleged due process rights, are the result of “badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.”

Foreign nationals outside our borders are owed NO DUE PROCESS, he says.

And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years, Mr. O’Brien wrote in an article for Lifezette.The courts do not have any right to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. (Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.; Hilton v. Merritt)Every sovereign nation has the power to forbid the entrance of foreigners upon conditions it prescribes. (Ekiu v. the United States)The USA only has to provide a trial only when illegal aliens are charged with a crime and face punishment. (Wong Wing v. the United States)The court cannot review the determination of the political branch of the Government. (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as nonimmigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)

The far-left and open borders lunatics would have you believe foreigners are entitled to enter our country illegally. They also want you to believe they can remain at will to collect our benefits.

Speaking of benefits…

IT COSTS THE USA HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, tax credits received by illegals and wage write-offs U.S companies claim, have cost the Treasury $296 billion over the past 10 years!

The lost taxes bill amounts to about $30 Billion Annually.

That is in addition to wage losses to legal workers of an astonishing $118 billion when companies decide to illegally hire undocumented aliens.

As for the families of the low-skilled working immigration population in the country, 51 percent (76 percent counting immigrant-led households with children) are collecting some sort of check from our welfare services.

In a report via USA Today, the Center for Immigration Studies found that about 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born. Read more HERE.

The Center for Immigration Studies uses government reports for their studies."

From: Trax
08-Jul-18
We have to get serious about making the word illegal mean something again. All illegal invaders are criminals. They would be in any other country, and rightfully so. If we deny them accountability, deny them welfare, deny them any form of health care or education or the ability to have a job, they will buy their own bus ticket home and never return. We welcome legal immigrants who have a means to support themselves. We do not welcome parasites.

From: HA/KS
08-Jul-18
I have contended for years that there is a difference between human rights and the rights of a US citizen (civil rights), but was not aware that the courts have agreed with that many times.

08-Jul-18
You are both right on! This is important information and I always wonder how and why dispensaries like FOX NEWS don't concentrate on this information!?!?

09-Jul-18
or do what Ben Carson suggested. "Any illegals caught trying to vote will automatically forfeit their American citizenship"

yes he said this.

From: Annony Mouse
09-Jul-18

From: Woods Walker
09-Jul-18

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo

From: trublucolo
09-Jul-18
lol

From: BIGHORN
09-Jul-18
No, illegals should not have rights. The only right they should have is a fast track back to the country that they came from and they should pay the expenses.

From: KSflatlander
09-Jul-18

KSflatlander's Link
As Trump would say “That’s fake news” WW. Chuck Schumer never said that. See link.

From: HDE
09-Jul-18
The only right(s) illegals have are basic human rights which include non-mistreatment, and, that's pretty much it.

They do not have the right to wellfare, voting, long term free medical care, the right to a job, the right to housing, the right to a free education, the right to cut ahead in line.

From: KSflatlander
09-Jul-18
I completely agree HDE.

11-Jul-18
Agreed

From: Tiger-Eye
11-Jul-18
They do not have the right to wellfare, voting, long term free medical care, the right to a job, the right to housing, the right to a free education, the right to cut ahead in line.

Apart from voting, US citizens do not have those rights either.

From: HDE
11-Jul-18
^^^ one will have you think they do...

11-Jul-18

Spike Bull 's Link
Word is spreading...

From: DL
11-Jul-18
I get so tired of all the whining about this. This has gone in since Clinton and no one cared. They knew there were consiquenses for trying to come here ILLEGALLY. A citizen would have CPS take their kids away for child endangerment. No one would care if it was any other President than a Trump.

From: HA/KS
11-Jul-18
Tiger-eye, you left one out - the right to stay here.

Citizens have that right. Non-citizens do not.

From: Woods Walker
11-Jul-18

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
It's About Bloody Time!
Woods Walker's embedded Photo
It's About Bloody Time!

12-Jul-18
ROTFLMAO, WW!

From: Annony Mouse
12-Jul-18
Trump's SCOTUS picks may well end up solving our illegal invasion problem. All it needs is the "right" case (Thanks Henry for your "Rule of Four" thread as it makes this link even more relevant.

It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship

By Brian Lonergan

One of the biggest challenges in the immigration debate today is that the American people are routinely given faulty "facts" or outright lies by the media and opportunistic politicians. The media-manufactured crisis over separating children from their illegal alien parents at the southern border is just the most recent example. The misrepresented photos, absurd comparisons of detention centers to concentration camps, and nonstop cable news demagoguery have served to confuse the public and advance the narrative of the open borders movement.

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution. This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the "anchor baby" phenomenon. With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court's decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not "reside" here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Interpreted correctly, the precedents of these cases would work a sea change in immigration law as it is currently applied. In addition to shrinking the magnet for illegal passage across the southern border, recognition of the correct rule would prevent crass exploitation of our laws by the "birth tourism" industry, in which foreign nationals essentially plan an American vacation with the explicit purpose of bearing a child here. The payoff is a U.S. passport for the child, who would then have the right to sponsor the parents for citizenship when he reaches 21 years of age. Is this an objective of U.S. immigration policy or a mockery of it?

In her virtue-signaling attacks on Trump administration immigration policy, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) declared an urgent need to "reimagine" the purpose of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While that proposal is childlike, unserious, and a political nonstarter, she's correct that some reimagining of immigration law is overdue. A good place to start would be the loopholes and misinterpretations that have allowed birthright citizenship to be manipulated in ways that run counter to America's best interests.

Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

  • Sitka Gear