Skip to content

Economic Enlightenment


I found this extremely interesting thing you may like regarding the cost of illegal immigration. Then you have NBC and such talking about how they support our economy. Nothing But Crap has guzzled the KoolAid, or are operating as the propaganda wing of the regime. Along with the rest of the alphabet channels.

And here is yet another. The entire purpose of this amnesty shit IS the destruction of the American economy. Here in New Mexico, one deals with numerous Hispanic sorts. The legal ones, The ones going through their legal immigration processes, The ones born and raised here, damn near universally oppose this amnesty shit.

Read those links, and stand stunned (if you can stand) at the money involved.

Study some history, see what happened to the Roman Empire with citizenship for all in the empire, open borders, etc, etc. That’s right boys and girls, it crumbled. As are we if we don’t turn this crap around. If the fedgov can tell you what ranch that bad piece of beef came from, why do they expect us to believe that they can’t/don’t know where the illegals are? At least 99% of them. Horseshit.

  1. poetopoet permalink
    08/18/2015 12:34

    This is Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano stating the law on non-citizen U.S. birth right citizenship as a fallacy, lunacy and a fabrication.

    “Parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.

    The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship of the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal. (Read it again it does not grant citizenship! T.Mc.)
    Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

    That’s not the law. It has never been the law. Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

    How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

    No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865, sending it to the states for ratification.

    In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

    The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

    That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

    So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant
    citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

    Media confusion on this issue is puzzling, because the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed the issue. (Just none of them were put on camera to explain it.) Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

    Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship limited to conservatives. Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:

    We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship….
    A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it….

    The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.

    It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it. If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans. There is no court precedent for that, and the congressional and ratification debates from the Fourteenth Amendment do not reveal a clear answer.

    Trump could rescind President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away. And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.

    Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens. And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported. That would certainly impact the pace of deportation.

    Donald Trump’s position on immigration has changed drastically from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion. He has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, and some voters do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.

    But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

    Ken Klukowski is legal editor of Breitbart News and a practicing constitutional attorney, and explains birthright citizenship in Chapter 12 of Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.”

  2. 08/18/2015 12:35

    Reblogged this on BPI reblog001 and commented:
    We need to secure our borders and deport all illegal immigrants.

  3. 08/18/2015 12:37

    Andrew Napolitano for AG!

  4. 08/18/2015 12:37


  5. Dr. Jeff permalink
    08/18/2015 18:53

    You know what you call a country that can’t control its borders?

    Conquered territory.

  6. 08/18/2015 21:09

    And while I semi-joke at times about illegal aliens being foreign invaders, some of these really are.

  7. 08/20/2015 00:18

    Think on this.

  8. 08/20/2015 00:19

    Think on this. Deeply.

  9. 08/20/2015 00:20

    Doing away with them could sort out a whole lot of our debt.

  10. Dr. Jeff permalink
    08/20/2015 02:23

    Guys, you have to check out Donald Trump at his New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting on August 19, 2015. YouTube has the whole thing.

  11. 08/20/2015 06:13

    Will do. If it’s got you popping it must be good!

  12. poetopoet permalink
    08/20/2015 06:41

    i did watch it, Trumps recall and knowledge is outstanding, he will win, if Obama does not declare Marshal Law or kill Trump.

    What was a surprise to me was Trump said the 150 billion is already in Iran’s hand, it’s a done deal. Obama must begot before he begins.

  13. 08/20/2015 06:50

    Let’s see where this goes.

  14. poetopoet permalink
    08/20/2015 09:05

    What’s good for the goose aka Mexico is also good for Uncle Sam aka U. S. of America for a $20.00 permit to enter America. A good start, you have to have a passport from somewhere to get in too, brilliant.

    “At busy crossing, pedestrians need passports to enter Mexico

    Associated Press

    SAN DIEGO (AP) — Walking into Mexico at the nation’s busiest border crossing with the United States is no longer an uninterrupted stroll for foreigners.

    Starting late Wednesday, pedestrians going to Tijuana from San Diego at the San Ysidro crossing must choose between a line for Mexicans who get waved through, and a line for foreigners who must show a passport, fill out a form and – if staying more than a week – pay 322 pesos, or roughly $20, for a six-month permit.

    About a dozen foreigners stood in line Wednesday night, directed by English-speaking agents to six inspection booths where they got passports stamped. It took about 10 minutes from start to finish.

    Travelers have long followed similar protocol at Mexican airports, but the new border procedure marks a big change at land crossings that weren’t designed to question everyone. Pedestrians and motorists have generally entered Mexico unencumbered along the 1,954-mile border with the United States.

    “This is about putting our house in order,” said Rodulfo Figueroa, Mexico’s top immigration official in Baja California state, which includes Tijuana.

    The changes, which have been in the works for years, come as Donald Trump has surged to the top of the Republican field in the U.S. presidential race. He has insisted that Mexico sends criminals to the U.S. and pledges to build a border wall at Mexico’s expense.

    For Mexico, it is a step toward closing an escape route for American criminals who disappear in Mexico. Border inspectors will tap into international criminal databases. Motorists will see no change, and if lines get too long, officials will also wave pedestrians through.

    More than 120 Americans expelled from Mexico this year while living in Baja California had arrest warrants in the U.S., according to Figueroa, delegate of the National Migration Institute. Some ordered to leave last year were on the FBI’s most-wanted list.

    But authorities say benefits extend beyond stopping unwanted visitors. A recent hurricane stranded twice as many Americans in Cabo San Lucas than U.S. authorities thought were there, Figueroa said, and registering as a foreigner would have made it easier to identify those who needed help.

    Figueroa said Mexico can initially process about 1,000 foreigners daily, up from about 50 currently.

    “If the line becomes clogged up, we will just let everybody through,” Figueroa said. “If we can’t check everybody, we won’t.”

    Figueroa said San Ysidro is believed to be the first U.S. land crossing to have a separate line for foreigners to show passports and that it will serve as a model for others as they are upgraded. Aurora Vega, a spokeswoman for the National Migration Institute, referred questions to other departments. Officials at the Foreign Relations Department and Mexican Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment.

    About 25,000 pedestrians (and 50,000 motorists) cross daily at San Ysidro to work, shop and play but it is unclear how many are foreigners in Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says about one-third entering San Diego are U.S. citizens, one-third are U.S. legal residents and the rest are from other countries, largely Mexico. An unknown number have dual citizenship or residency in the U.S. and Mexico.

    Both countries have long wrestled with logistical hurdles of stopping people going to Mexico by land. The U.S. occasionally stops motorists and pedestrians as they leave – mainly to check for guns and cash – but it doesn’t have a system to record exits like at airports, seen by many as a significant shortcoming in border security.

    Previous efforts to question more foreigners entering Mexico met resistance in Tijuana, whose economy partly relies on Americans who visit restaurants, beaches, doctors and dentists. Lines to enter the United States at San Ysidro have exceeded four hours.

    Roberto Arteaga, who has made tacos, shined shoes and sold tickets for private bus and van rides in Southern California during 28 years as a street vendor near the border crossing, says requiring passports and imposing a fee for longer stays sends the wrong message.

    “We should be welcoming,” he said during a lull in business Tuesday. “This will hurt Tijuana’s economy.”

    Other crossers said the move was overdue.

    “Anything to keep the country safer is much better for everyone,” Cynthia Diaz of Oceanside, near San Diego, said as she stood in line to return to the U.S with her niece, who visited Tijuana for a root canal. “It’s safer for us on the other side too.””

    With this policy all immigration and funding problems solved.

  15. 08/20/2015 23:40

    Depends on the honesty and true purpose of the person crossing.


  1. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 18, 2015 | boudicabpi2015
  2. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 18, 2015 | Boudica2015
  3. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 18, 2015 | Boudica BPI Weblog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: