OPERATION WETBACK: Here’s How Our Illegal Immigration Problem Will Be Solved ASAP
In last week’s column, I made a very brief mention of the 14th Amendment. I want to take a look at the language in Section One of the amendment that is being used to justify illegal immigration.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are called The Reconstruction Amendments since they were all ratified in the years after our Civil War. The goal was the unification of the country, and in the case of the 14th, it contained provisions dealing with granting citizenship to freed slaves.
In Section 1 of the 14th we find this phrase: “All persons born or naturalized within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Section 1, known as The Citizenship Clause, had the original purpose of granting citizenship to former slaves. Over time, it was expanded to also involve Native Americans.
However, it’s the short phrase “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” that is being used to justify what is called “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegals. According to historian Eric Foner, “Birthright citizenship stands as an example of the MUCH ABUSED idea of American exceptionalism…birthright citizenship does make the U.S. (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. No European nation recognizes the principle.” (Eric Foner, “Birthright Citizenship Is The Good Kind of American Exceptionalism”, The Nation, Aug. 27, 2015)
Foner’s questioning of how the concept is legally viewed brings into focus the ambiguous nature of the wording. Exactly what does “jurisdiction” mean in this instance? To be under the jurisdiction of law means you are subject to the meaning of the law. So, doesn’t it reason that by breaking the law, you are also under the “jurisdiction” of the penalty for doing so? And does this “jurisdiction” cover the children of criminal alien illegals? Supporters of illegal immigrants say that the birthright issue is more important than breaking the law.
Before we move on to another U.S. legal statute mentioning illegals, it’s important to note that in the years following our Civil War, the total U.S. population (for 1865) was 35.2 million. Today, as of July 15th of this year, we have a population of 321, 216, 397 (and obviously more in just the few months since that figure was made public.) In 1865, we could readily absorb more people. Now, not so much.
In another of my previous columns, I also made mention of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization [RICO] Act of 1970. The original aim of this law was to break organized crime, the Mafia in particular. It allows for the leaders of an organization to be tried for crimes they ordered others to do. It’s scope has been broadened over time. Under the law, the meaning of racketeering is defined in 18 U.S.C 1961. As currently amended, it now includes bringing in, aiding, or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country if the activity is for financial gain. RICO has also been amended and interpreted to now include acts of terrorism.
As I mentioned in Part One of this column, we have no consistent immigration policy. We’re seeing yet again with the ambiguity of the 14th Amendment and the provisions found in the RICO statutes, that not only is our immigration policy inconsistent, it’s also contradictory. We have laws that can stop it and take away the incentive of both the illegal and the people responsible for bringing them here, but we’re not using the power of those laws.
Therefore, I would like to offer some considerations, call them proposals if you want, of how we can “fix” our immigration mess.
* First and foremost, CLOSE the border. We need a fence, but until we get it, we need armed guards with live ammo, shoot to kill orders with no fear of prosecution for doing so. Where we can’t have guards all the time…land mines. Screw the UN. We’re being invaded so let’s finally treat it like an invasion.
* Repeal the 14th Amendment in whole, or at least Section 1.
* Repeal the Immigration And Nationality Act of 1965. Sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, it was designed to change immigration policy to favor the poor and un-skilled from Central and South America and Africa.
* End sanctuary cities. There are over 200 sanctuary cities in 32 states. The mayors, city councils, aldermen, etc., who voted for these should all be removed from office, prosecuted in a court of law, fined and imprisoned. Sanctuary cities should never be allowed to happen again. Until this is done, ALL federal monies should be withheld from any and all sanctuary cities.
* End all “perks” for illegals such as, but not limited to: ability to hold a job, all health care, all educational opportunities, all government assistance of any kind, all housing, and no drivers license or permits of any kind granted.
* Confiscate and sell at auction any and all property that has been obtained by illegals while here. This could be done by using the RICO Act since illegals have benefited through a criminal enterprise.
* A 25 year moratorium on ALL immigration, which would include legal immigration, any form of amnesty, guest worker programs, and any form of “refugee” status. Once again, screw the UN.
Now, the issue of deportation. It could be done, but it will take time. Let’s consider this. Say, for the sake of argument, we start with one geographic area, such as Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, in the extreme northeast . The federal government tells the governors and state legislatures of those states to turn over all records pertaining to illegals. These states fail to do that, and all federal money instantly dries up. We then use the state’s National Guard to round them up and put them either in trains or convoys of government trucks and buses and take them to a large tent city in Nevada (which is mostly owned by the federal government anyway.) The illegals who have no other criminal activity on their record will be sent back across the southern border. Those that have other offenses will be detained further.
Granted, a method such as this wouldn’t conceivably net all the illegals, but it would get some. It would push many out of those states and keep them on the run. We continue this process with the rest of the country, a few states at a time. Granted, it would take time, but it could work. It would be financed by the money that would be cut from each state by the federal government.
We are being invaded. We have to look at what’s happening like that. Invasions are an act of war. So let’s forget all this liberal, “humanitarian” B.S. and act like we’re fighting a damned war. If we don’t, here’s an example of what eventually happens: The Roman Emperor Valens (in power from 364 AD to 378 AD) was defeated and killed in the battle of Adrianople. The empire at that time had been fighting off incursions by barbarians on every border. At the same time, the Romans had also incorporated barbarians into their society and military. They didn’t assimilate. Emperor Valens was killed because he no longer had a cohesive Roman army. The final fall of the Western Roman empire happened less than 100 years later, in 476 AD.
I’d like to close with a great quote from Ann Coulter:
Americans have not been consulted on the question of whether to turn our country into some other country. Never mind what we’re doing. You’ll thank us later. I know it’s gauche to consider what Americans want, but how about the immigrants? Presumably some didn’t come only for the welfare, crime, and terrorism opportunities. They decided to move to the United States – not Mexico, or Somalia, or China – because they wanted to live in America. If our current immigration policies aren’t stopped, they’re going to wonder why they bothered.
Image: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Us_immigration_and_customs_enforcement_arrest.jpg