pull down to refresh

As noted in my recent “inaugural address”, there isn’t much a president is authorized to do. In a nutshell, he must execute the few constitutional laws Congress passes, and veto the rest.
Repelling and expelling invaders is obviously among the permitted functions of his restricted role. Not only should a president deport anyone who illegally enters American territory; to honor his oath, he has no choice.
If citizens don’t like the laws, they should convince Congress to change them. But if statutes are constitutional (as those ousting illegals obviously are), the president is obligated to execute them. To do otherwise is an impeachable offense.
Misunderstood Amendment
Eliciting recent uproar was Trump’s executive order rescinding “birthright citizenship”. Critics claim this directive violates of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.
But it doesn’t. At least not according to the man who wrote it. Let’s review the relevant language:
"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."
Senator Jacob Howard, who authored these words, elaborated on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, and to which people it didn’t apply:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." [emphasis added]
In other words, Trump is right about this. At the very least, it’s not obvious he’s wrong………
Fed Up
For years, Americans have been implored to care for the plight of poor migrants. And they have. But what of concern for poor Americans? Why must their land and lucre be endlessly allocated to the rest of the world?
Crime is rampant. Debt is unbridled. Infrastructure crumbles. Purchasing power plummets. Chronic ailment is endemic. Fentanyl infests vast swaths of the country. Many rural regions and urban cores resemble Third-World hell-holes.
Yet the unappreciated victims are told to welcome floods of foreigners who flout the law. Americans have had enough, and are fed up.
They should be.
Here is another rather longish article that will stand on its own without any extra commentary by me. It strikes right to the heart of the issue, taken from a religious (Catholic) POV. Still striking and still powerful.
Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. During the May 30, 1866, Senate debate over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment, several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners, as Media Matters for America has noted. The debate indicates that they believed the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of foreigners. For instance, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.
reply
Media Matters?!? I guess that the newspaper you read this from may have a biased POV towards letting everyone and his brother come into the country. The other side of it argued against rather strongly, too. However, the restriction still got into Howards’ amendment, didn’t it? Even after it was voted on in both the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the states. If it made it through that process, would you suppose it meant exactly what it said it meant?
reply
I just don't share the xenophobia.
reply
It is not xenophobia!! It is the common dislike of invaders pillaging, raping and killing on their way through the country. All people everywhere dislike invasions and will resist them. We are resisting this “Great Replacement Invasion” as best we can. Deport them all!!! BTW, if you are Thai, how would you like the Chinese sending millions of people across your boarders to invade your economy and try to take over your country. Whether they are armed or not, invasion is invasion.
reply
reply
<sarcasm>Yes, let us have every person in the world come here if they want. We can stuff them all into a small section of Texas with enough living space. Getting rid of them would be much easier, too, wouldn’t it? Just a small bit of carpet bombing to wipe out 95% of the world’s population in a short time. It wouldn’t even cost THEM very much. Leave the rest of the world as THEIR parkland. Remember now, all native peoples can be replaced upon their ancestral homelands at the whims of the ELite. No matter what any old treaties and conventions say. THEY are psychopaths and THEY are proud of it and deserve the world to THEMSELVES!!</sarcasm>
reply
Another reason to oppose immigration: welfare recipients
reply
Naah, it’s not welfare if the NGOs are giving it to them, is it? Even if the NGOs are getting most of their money from the CIA USAID. I would like to see Trump do to the CIA what JFK said he wanted to do to it, blast it into flinders and let them blow away in the breeze.
reply
xenophobia
Its wrong to assert that anyone who is against flooding the country with foreigners and changing the language, culture, and political philosophy is suffering from a phobia (ie. an irrational fear).
Its a well grounded concern. A nation is its people. Its not an abstraction. Why don't we forcibly insist that Thailand meet diversity quotas? Why don't we forcibly change the religion, food, and language as well?
I'm willing to bet you would be against that if America forced that change on Thailand?Why are you for it when foreign countries force that change on America?
reply
you don't share the xenophobia of 1866?
What I love most about 1866 is no one used electricity or petrol. I admire their green initiatives.
reply
What is the xenophobia of 1866?
reply
senate debate in 1866
reply
Which senate debate?
reply
I say xenophobia sarcastically
I hate it when people go to the xenophobia well early and often