Wednesday, September 30, 2015

George Will, We Know He's A #cuckservative, But Is He A Liar Or Stupid As Well?

Notorious #cuckservative George Will has pronounced on Donald Trump's plan to deport millions of illegal aliens in two years.  He claims that a police state would be necessary, with nightmare visions of midnight raids and millions of informants necessary to remove the 11-20 million illegal aliens in the United States.  As VDare has pointed out, as has the Federale blog, its been done before without any police state tactics, Operation Wetback, and executed by a moderate Republican that Will admires, as well as advocated another moderate Republican, Mitt Romney, who proposed an enforcement system based on a self-deportation scheme that could only happen if illegal aliens were too frightened to remain in the face of vigorous immigration enforcement. And Romney was correct in his proposed plan, as was Eisenhower and Jumpin' Joe Swing in their execution of Operation Wetback.

However, besides being incorrect in general, Will in wrong on the particulars of any current move against illegal aliens and the necessity for "police state" tactics.  As will be shown, the only question is Will being dishonest or just plain ignorant, for for a pundit of his ill-deserved reputation.

First, Will summons the nightmare of the totalitarian state and its network of informers that characterized National Socialist Germany and the various Communist states, as well as the dystopian novel Nineteen Eight-Four. Will asserts that to rid the nation of illegal aliens a network of such informers would be necessary.  That, of course, may appear to the politically illiterate and the generally ill-informed, to be a reasonable assumption.  As a writer who constantly harps on the ignorance of the both the public and those who write on the immigration subject, I must be careful, as I know how ignorant even the politically active are on the underlying facts about immigration law and immigration law enforcement.  Many though, like the Treason Bar, just plain lie, as do the activist groups, and politicians.  However, given Will's reputation, he doesn't get a pass.  This writer will hold him to the facts.  He might be getting old, but so is this writer.  This writer does have an advantage of 24 plus years in the business of immigration law enforcement, but the wealthy and full-time writer Will has a responsibility for fact-checking and research.

So, will a network of informers modeled on Stalinism be necessary to expose and deport 20 million or so illegals?  Well, simply no.  Someone unfamiliar with immigration law enforcement or the amount of detailed knowledge available to the government, in its own databases, concerning illegal aliens.  In fact, the government in its numerous databases spread across different departments, knows either where almost every illegal aliens either works or lives, or frequently both.  Furthermore, tax and Social Security records have a home address, as many file income tax returns, claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit, or have available credit information linked to Social Security Numbers (SSNs) they use to a home address.

Additionally, many illegal aliens receive some sort of Federal or State benefit, either as the primary recipient or for a dependent, either illegally or legally, such as Women's, Infants, and Children (WIC), food stamps, or other welfare program.  Those records held by various agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services or a State welfare agency have usually accurate home addresses.  It is just a matter of database mining to get the addresses to DHS arrest teams.

The reason is that almost all illegal aliens who work, are not paid in cash, but are paid through an electronic payroll system that provides the place of work to the government.  This is through the Social Security Administration's (SSA) earnings reporting system as well as that of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reporting system.  Those illegal aliens, and their employers who wink and nod at the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) that their employees provide which are either invalid numbers, misappropriated numbers, or Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs).  Most illegals just make up a number, the most common being 000-00-0000, which is duly reported by a conniving employer to the IRS and SSA.  Those numbers, along with the Employer Identification Number (EIN) that identifies employers when reported to the IRS and SSA, identify the employer of illegal aliens.  No network of informers needed, as both parties to the conspiracy to violate Title 8 United States Code Section 1324 and 1324a have readily identifying numbers already assigned to them, their place of work, and their residences.  All the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has to do is collect that information from the IRS and SSA, and assign Special Agents, Deportation Officers, Immigration Enforcement Agents, Customs and Border Protection Officers, and Border Patrol Agents to a site to raid each day.  And as the arrests mount, the illegals will begin to run for the border, as millions did during Operation Wetback.

The next of Will's objection is the number of newly hired immigration officers, as defined in Title 8 United States Code Section 1101(a)(18), needed to effect these arrests.  Both Will and Trump make another error here.  No new hires are needed.  Remember, Operation Wetback was executed with no new hires, and only 750 or so Border Patrol Agents, Special Agents, and Deportation Officers were used. Those employees were supplemented by cooperation from local law enforcement, but, again, there were no new hires among local law enforcement agencies assisting in Operation Wetback, only existing manpower was used.

Currently there are approximately 21,000 Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), 21,000 Border Patrol Agents, 6,500 Homeland Security Investigations (ICE SVU) Special Agents, as well as a similar number of both Deportation Officers and Immigration Enforcement Agents.  So, all together, the number of immigration officers is more than sufficient to raid every employer of illegal aliens or go to their place of residence. No new hires are needed, only the judicious deployment of such current DHS law enforcement employees serving now.  I'm not certain where Will came up with a number of 100,000 officers needed to deport his estimate of 11 million illegals, but clearly if 750 immigration officers could deport 1 million illegals, then the 60,000 or so badge and gun carriers at DHS could deport 20 million is two years easily. The ratio is about 1,000 badges for every 1 million illegals.  But remember, fear is not only the mind-killer, but the creator of panic among illegals.

So, there we have it.  Is George Will willfully ignorant or is he just lying to support amnesty as the solution for illegals.  Pretty obvious he is deliberately deceiving his readers.  Time to send this #cuckservative packing.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

The Invasion Continues

Not surprisingly, given the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty and the Racist Kritarch Amnesty, entry of illegal aliens from Central America over the border with Mexico is up 52% this August from last August.

U.S. News & World Report September 21, 2015 By Alicia Caldwell, Associated Press
Border Patrol: Family, Children Arrests At Border Jump 52 Percent, White House Concerned
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Border Patrol arrested nearly 10,000 unaccompanied immigrant children and families caught illegally crossing the border with Mexico in August, a 52 percent jump from August 2014, according to statistics published by the agency Monday afternoon.
Since the start of the fiscal year in October, border agents have arrested more than 35,000 children traveling alone and more than 34,500 people traveling as families, mostly mothers and children. The total number of arrests for the year is down nearly 50 percent compared with a year ago, but border agents have reported a jump in arrests since July.
The Border Patrol reported arresting 6,424 unaccompanied immigrant children and families in August 2014, compared to 9,790 this year.
The August increase comes a year after a surge of more than 68,000 unaccompanied children at the U.S.-Mexico border. Many were trying to escape violence in Honduras, El Salvador or Guatemala. For much of the year, the number of illegal border crossings by families and children has been far lower than last year, before increasing in July and August.

And the deliberately witless are, quelle horreur, surprised that there is a surge of illegals when they are rewarded when they arrive.

It's unclear exactly what has led to the overall decrease in border arrests of families and children, but Mexico has stepped up enforcement along its southern border.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the August numbers were a "surprising uptick" and a "concern" for the administration. Earnest did not provide a reason for the increase, but noted that it's at odds with the typical decline in border crossings in August.
Adam Isacson, a border expert and senior analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, said the 4,632 unaccompanied children caught at the border last month is the highest number his agency has recorded for the month of August since their records began in 2009.
Isacson said historically, crossings start to slow after springtime highs. But July saw an uptick, and now the number of unaccompanied children crossing in August has begun to rival numbers from the beginning and the end of last year's surge.
Isacson said that this could indicate the beginning of another surge, noting that the number of people caught traveling as families also ticked upward last month.
"It could be a flash in the pan," he said, "But we are going up the trend line."

Kind of obvious.  And the Obama Regime is surprised, and concerned, concerned I say...that people might notice.

The administration was caught off guard by the sudden surge of children and families in 2014 and made several efforts to curb the flow of people crossing the border illegally, including media campaigns to discourage people from making the dangerous trip across Mexico. The administration also opened family detention centers that could house thousands of people while they awaited deportation hearings. The detention centers were established in part because about 70 percent of families released at the border and ordered to report back to immigration authorities failed to return to face deportation hearings.

With the Regime not fighting the illegal order from Chinese Kritarch Dolly Gee, again, there should be no surprise that the next months increase as well, upping the trend line as the credulous policy wonks say, because that which is rewarded is repeated.

More "I Can't Breathe" Lies

There's another case of a mentally ill black thug who committed suicide by cop in the news. James Brown, a Sergeant in the United States Army, was serving a seven-day sentence for driving while intoxicated in the El Paso County jail and had a mental breakdown concurrently with a medical emergency.  A bad combination, jail, mental breakdown, and medical emergency. Generally something like this results in nothing good for the inmate. Also of interest is that if Brown had been white, he would have been bounced out of the Army for a DUI, but he wasn't, even with a history of mental illness, called here Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  Of course, no one with a mental illness should be in the military or around firearms. Crazy does not mix with guns.

The El Paso County Sheriff's Office is a predominately, but not exclusively Hispanic department in a predominately Hispanic county, but the current sheriff is white, with the cadre of deputy sheriff's predominately Hispanic.  The commander of the jail system is Hispanic, Marco Vargas.





Again, for the record, just as in the "I can't breathe" lies from the case of Eric Garner,  if you can talk, you are, in fact, breathing.  The basics of the issue are Brown's mental breakdown, as yet unidentified injury, Brown's refusal to cooperate with medical treatment, the use of force, and the campaign by leftists to protect black criminals.

Brown's PTSD begs the question, why was he still in the military?  He represented an obvious danger to himself and others, combined with an access to firearms and one wonders why a mentally ill soldier was allowed to remain in the Army.  Even more so in that there was a mental illness, but not necessarily PTSD, but more likely some other disorder common to the black criminal class.  And it is obvious that Brown was the beneficiary of disparate treatment, in his favor, in that he was not discharged for the combination of mental illness and a criminal conviction.  The military quickly discharges white heterosexual soldiers with such problems, but coddles minorities and homosexuals, like Bradley Manning, with severe mental illnesses.

While the mentally ill and the military are not a good match, nor are jails or prisons.  But Brown never claimed at his trial that he was innocent based on mental illness and was duly convicted.  He reported for his sentence, but while in solitary confinement because of his self-reported PTSD, he had some sort of breakdown, and was found in his cell bleeding and simultaneously smearing his cell with blood.  This suggests either a mental breakdown. The video clearly shows a deputy attempting to convince Brown to cooperate with medical treatment, but for some reason, Brown does not. Whether than was because of a mental illness or he was playing for the ghetto lottery, we do not know, nor will we.  We will though get the endless stories about his innocence and uprightness, despite a body covered with tattoos, just as with Eric Garner, Tony Robinson, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Tamir Rice.  All those were lies, and expect the same for Brown, but in this case this writer hopes to collapse "The Narrative" before it gets out.

One of the most dangerous jobs in law enforcement is cell extraction.  This is where a combative and uncooperative inmate, as Brown was, has to be removed from his cell.  And in Brown's case, five deputies were required to subdue him.

The video narrative is, as typical with the press, lies, claiming that Brown did not resist.  Just as the cell extraction team, a specially equipped and trained team of deputies used in such cases, moves in, Brown removes his shirt, a common behavior practice of the violent.  And he does not meekly surrender, but fights the officers.  He is subdued and carried out of the cell, and placed in a special chair to control his ability to move.


Such chairs are commonly used and safe for the inmate.  Furthermore, Brown is wildly shouting that he can't breathe and is choking on his blood.  But, again, if you can't breathe, you can't shout that you can't breathe.  The credulousness of the reporters is astounding, clearly no one is so stupid as to believe that a man shouting he can't breathe over a period of time really can't breathe has an agenda other than the truth, which is clearly an attack on white and white Hispanic law enforcement officers for the purpose of ending arrest and imprisonment of black criminals.

Later, the overweight Brown, like Eric Garner, goes into medical distress, but the report admits that Brown died from sickle-cell crisis, unrelated to either his mental breakdown, refusal to cooperate with the deputies seeking to assist him, or related to the force need to subdue him.  It also doesn't explain the smearing of blood on the cell door.  This may have been an unfortunate combination of sickle-cell crisis, mental illness, and an attempt at the ghetto lottery.  Sad, but in the end, Brown, like Garner, Martin, Rice, and Robinson, died because of decisions they made to fight the police or attack a citizen in the street.

"The Narrative" is predictable and the collapse of "The Narrative" is as predictable.


Monday, September 21, 2015

Well, That Didn't Last Too Long

Well, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) recent successes against L-1 visa fraud have been stopped in their tracks by the Obama Regime as part of the Administrative Amnesty.  This blog recently, just days ago, reported on USCIS' success at L-1 visa fraud and the attack on fraud prevention by the Treason Bar.  But alas, it was not to be.

Breitbart September 15, 2015 by Caroline May
Grassley: New Obama Immigration Policy Guidance Could Displace U.S. Workers
In August, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a new policy guidance on the adjudication of L-1B nonimmigrant visas, which allows multinational corporations to move foreign employees with “specialized knowledge” to their operations inside the U.S.
In a letter to USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, Grassley on Tuesday expressed concerns about the intent, substance, and implementation of the memo. The chairman specifically highlighted comments President Obama made about L-1B reforms in March, in which he said, “This could benefit hundreds of thousands of nonimmigrant workers and their employers.”
“I fear – especially in light of the remarks made by the President in March – the effect that this L-1B memo will have on American workers, particularly in the IT sector, who are already battered by mass layoffs, job offshoring, and depressed wages,” Grassley wrote Tuesday.
“I expect, regardless what the memo may actually provide, that ‘the message’ has already been sent to USCIS adjudicators, from no less than the President himself: the L-1B denial and [Request for Evidence] rates must go down,” he added.

Clearly, the Treason Bar is the tail that wags the Obama Regime dog.  Not the first time.  Note that this blog predicted the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty in 2010, with the above article posted at VDare not published until one year later. Here's the first time the Treason Bar telegraphed the Obama Regime's eventual actions:

I detected the Obama Regime’s coming drive for an Administrative Amnesty on my blog Federale back on February 24, 2009, just a month after Obama’s inauguration. Two hacks from the treason bar, Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta, argued that Congress stood in the way of an amnesty. They announced it was up to Barack Hussein Obama to give the country one, by hook or by crook. I remembered Clinton Administration White House operative’s Paul Begala’s comment describing the last Democratic President’s use of executive orders: Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.

Good to see though that there is still some resistance in the bureaucracy to the lawlessness of the Obama Regime.  However, not thanks to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, there is no support for these heroes in the bureaucracy fighting a rear-guard action in defense of the Constitution.  All this could be undone if #cuckservatives and #RINOs attached a few riders to the upcoming appropriations bills.  But that won't happen.


Saturday, September 12, 2015

Treason Bar War On Immigration Fraud Enforcement

The Treason Bar is on the warpath again, with the usual target, immigration fraud investigation and enforcement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  In an unusual turn, USCIS is appearing to act to enforce laws that protect American white-collar workers from replacement by underpaid and overworked aliens on a non-immigrant visa, the L-1B temporary skilled worker visa. The Treason Bar is outraged that USCIS has taken anti-fraud steps and has significantly increased denials of petitions for said visas.

Inside Counsel September 8, 2015 By Miguel Ángel De La Vega Fernández
The L-1 Visa Has A Critical Role To Play In The Functioning Of The American Economy
No one is sure why this drastic change in immigration policy has taken place. The USCIS isn’t talking and few media outlets seem willing to ask pointed questions.
But experts on immigration law and commentators on the politics of immigration are speaking up, offering educated guesses about the hidden agendas and palace intrigue that might be pushing the USCIS toward a more reactionary stance.
Suspicions of fraud and abuse: Critics of the L-1 system see it as a disguised form of outsourcing. They claim companies seeking permission to transfer supposedly “essential” labor from abroad are really just importing cheaper workers to replace—or reduce their need for—more highly-paid American workers. These critics believe the “specialized knowledge” stipulation of the L-1B visa has been especially abused and that little evidence exists to suggest employees trained overseas are the only ones capable of filling new posts in the United States.
Some theorize this drumbeat of fraud accusations—and the political pressures it is helping to create—may be influencing the behavior of USCIS, leading it to crack down on perceived abuses. 

The very public use of H-1B visa holders to replace American workers at Disney and Southern California Edison is of no import to the Treason Bar.  They only have paranoid delusions of suspicion of Muslims and "the security state" as interfering with driving down wages and American worker replacement.

National security concerns: Are terrorists applying for L-1 visas?
The idea might seem farfetched. But in its final conclusions—and in contradiction to the evidence they themselves collected—the previously referenced DHS OIG report claimed the L-1A visa system was vulnerable to fraud and misrepresentation. This assertion may indicate the presence of a paranoid mindset inside government—particularly among those responsible for monitoring national security—that is hurting the chances of temporary work-related visa applicants. In his 2012 testimony before two House committees, USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas told legislators his organization had launched 16 separate initiatives designed to root out fraud and deception in the immigration process, and he confirmed that national security concerns were one rationale for the USCIS’s growing interest in uncovering impropriety. And beyond these 16, who’s to say how many other top secret directives the USCIS may be following, at the behest of the DHS or other actors from within the American security state?

Interesting how the Treason Bar shysters confute concerns about terrorism with other concerns about fraud and misrepresentation in the visa system.  But this is the paranoid style of the radical left.  A style that is the go-to rationalization for fraud and American worker replacement that is the L-1B and H-1B visa programs.  And woe unto those who dare interfere with the system, which appears to be the real objection of the Treason Bar:

The replacement of a “helping” culture with a “policing” culture: Businesses that sponsor L-1 visa applicants see great promise and possibility in their existing or proposed U.S. investments, and they wisely seek the temporary assistance of employees, managers and executives whom they know they can trust to get the job done. The whole U.S. economy benefits from their collective efforts, and one would expect the USCIS to take a constructive, service-oriented approach to the L-1 visa approval process in order to ensure the fires of economic growth are kept stoked.
Looking out for obvious signs of fraud and misrepresentation is necessary, to be sure. But the USCIS seems to have lost sight of its original mission, at least with respect to the L-1 system. Rather than facilitating a process that adds skill, diversity and entrepreneurial energy to the U.S. economy, USCIS adjudicators now seem to operate as if they were some sort of auxiliary police force, charged with exposing chicanery and skullduggery on the part of cynical manipulators looking to beat the system. 

Without any evidence, the Treason Bar claims that USCIS has no enforcement and anti-fraud mission, but only that of helping replace the American white-collar worker.  The claim that USCIS has no enforcement mission is not new.  The Treason Bar has long claimed that USCIS should approve every application unless the fraud is obvious or blatant.  Of course, there is no such language in the enabling legislation for USCIS, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, restricting the authority of USCIS to investigate and prevent fraud.  Nor was there ever any artificial separation of fraud investigations and benefit adjudication in the legacy Immigration and Naturalization.  Despite the claims of the Treason Bar, adjudication of benefits includes both denying and approving benefits. There is no legal mandate that any application be approved, nor any mandate to ignore fraud and misrepresentation.  In fact, employers are using the L-1B program more frequently, given stricter review requirements of H-1B visa applications. And that is what the Treason Bar wants to avoid, any review of their replacement of American workers.

But one should cheer that USCIS is actually doing its job.


Welcome To The Party, Pal

Editors Note: Originally written in 2012, but never published.  Enjoy, given the renewed interest in the subject of immigrants on welfare.




Suddenly, and inexplicably, a long dormant issue, uncommented upon except by this blog, in immigration is back in the news. Aliens on welfare.   The Daily Caller is suddenly all over the story of how immigrants, this time legal ones, are all over the government cheese, e.g. very generous welfare benefits for the lazy and indolant.

The Daily Caller August 8, 2012 by Caroline May


The federal government allows immigrants to enjoy America’s vast welfare safety net, from food stamps to housing benefits and Medicaid, and remain immune from repercussions to their immigration status. And on Monday, ranking Republican members of the Senate Finance, Agriculture, Budget, and Judiciary Committees wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanding to know why.

Immigration regulations prohibit individuals “likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” from legal admittance into the United States. But non-citizens can avail themselves of dozens of welfare programs without the federal government considering them a dependency risk.

In government-speak, an individual likely to become reliant on the government for survival is termed a “public charge.” While there is a menu of over 80 federal welfare programs in America, that status is triggered by reliance on two federal programs: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explains that immigrants are “inadmissible” to the United States if the U.S. Attorney General or any consular officer who interacts with them determines that he or she “is likely at any time to become a public charge.”

Despite immigration regulations that specifically state individuals may not be legally admitted if that determination is made, the real-world application of those regulations reveals a different story.

Acceptance of food stamps benefits, housing benefits, energy assistance, child care services, Medicaid and a wealth of other programs are all inadmissible in the determination of a non-citizen’s “public charge” risk, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Well, thank you very much Caroline.  Welcome to the party.  But there should be no surprise on this issue.  Public charge has been a dead letter law since the senior Bush Administration and any pretense of enforcement was ended under Jorge Bush.  The major work was however done under Bill Clinton.

From the U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Services website on public charge, the no enforcement notice to aliens:


Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

The agency guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and State or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “General Assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a non-citizen inadmissible as a public charge, if all other criteria are met.

And the non-enforcement statement:

However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

And by "case-by-case" they mean never.

Members of Congress are seeking any information on how many aliens have either been deported, refused entry or denied an immigrant or non-immigrant visa of late. 

In an interview with TheDC, an outraged Sen. Sessions did not mince words about the resident immigrants who have become public charges.

“We would like to know how many [there are], how big the problem is, how much it is costing the United States Treasury — because this is clearly a burden on the Treasury,” Sessions said.

And they will find that none have. 

As a matter of fact, there was an attempt to start using the public charge section of law against, not immigrants, but legal non-immigrant aliens in the mid-90s in California. 

Under the Pete Wilson administration, the State of California, Department of Social Services (DSS), Fraud Bureau, and the Department of Healthcare Services (DHS), Audits and Investigations, began a major program working with the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at Ports-of-Entry, both air and land ports, where non-immigrant aliens, e.g. those aliens with a non-immigrant visa or from a Visa Waiver Program country, were screened for welfare use, then if they refused to reimburse the State of California, were refused entry.  Remember, non-immigrants are temporary visitors to the United States for business, pleasure, or personal reasons.  However the benefits side of the DSS, DHS, and the various county level agencies were handing out welfare benefits to any alien regardless of status, legal, temporary, immigrant, non-immigrant, illegal, it did not matter. 

However, Wilson wanted that money back, and for a few years the program was on fire, recouping millions of fraudulent welfare and healthcare benefits.  Why, since all the alien had to do was claim to be a California resident, and the benefits were granted.  And because they were seeking admission as non-immigrants, the aliens were faced with a conundrum, admit they were not residents and face a criminal investigation by the DSS Fraud Bureau or DHS Audits and Investigations, or maintain the claim they were residents and face action from the late unlamented INS.  Of note even then, the public charge threat from the legacy INS was mostly bluff, as at the time INS Immigration Inspectors were instructed to not use the public charge exclusion charge (212(a)(4)), but use a fraud charge (212 (a)(6)(C) or immigrant without an immigrant visa exclusion charge (212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).

Of note, one of the most flagrant abusers of Medical and its benefits by non-immigrant aliens, besides the usual Mexicans who came over daily for free healthcare, were Philippinos, especially stewardesses for Philippine Airlines.  Their usual method was to have a child born here, winning the anchor-baby lottery and having it paid for the American taxpayer.  It was quite easy for them, as usually Philippine Airlines flight crews obtained not only a crew member visa (C-1/D) but a tourist visa as well (B-2).

And the program worked quite well, but the Treason Bar soon heard of the program and it was quickly and quitely ended under Gray Davis.

So, while this attention is nice, where was the Daily Caller when Jorge Bush was not enforcing the public charge aspect of immigration law?  Is this the start of a temporary dog-whistling campaign for Mittens?




Monday, September 7, 2015

Was Wong Kim Ark Subject To The Complete Political Jurisdiction Of The United States?

Much has been written on the issue of birthright citizenship.  Many claim that the 14th Amendment settled the issue for all time by proclaiming all persons born in the United States are citizens, including children born to illegal aliens.  Some claim that given the wording in the 14th Amendment, only children of legally present non-diplomat aliens can pass citizenship on to a child born in the United States.  The real answer is that no, not even children of legal resident aliens can receive citizenship at birth.

The critics of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens have prescient arguments in their favor, both the law and the facts.  The first being the wording of the 14th Amendment which presupposes numerous exceptions for birthright citizenship expressly limiting citizenship: 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 operative clause is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." 

NRO, August 24, 2015, by John Eastman
We Can Apply the 14th Amendment While Also Reforming Birthright Citizenship 
This claim plays off a widespread ignorance about the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” It fails to recognize that the same word covers two distinctly different ideas: 1) complete, political jurisdiction; and 2) partial, territorial jurisdiction. Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

Clearly the major exception were Indians, who were not subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the United States and were not considered citizens despite physical presence in the United States.

Texas Review of Law And Politics, November 2010, by Leo Graglia
Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Aliens: AnIrrational Public Policy
In the 39th Congress, which enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arose of how to avoid granting birthright citizenship to members of Indian tribes living on reservations.  The issue was whether an explicit exclusion of Indians should be written into the Citizenship Clause as it was in the above-quoted first sentence of the 1866 Act.  It was decided that this was not necessary, because, although Indians were at least partly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not to the United States.


Similarly, the celebrated case of Wong Kim Ark, born to Chinese immigrant parents in California, but whose parents were legally living in the United States when he was born, but whom subsequently returned to China, as did Wong. Wong was detained when returning from China and he sought a writ of habeous corpus for release and recognition of his claim to American citizenship. The subsequent decision stated that given birth in the United States to legal immigrants, Wong was a citizen.

However, given the arguments of Eastman and Graglia, specifically, the principle that jurisdiction includes political loyalty, Wong looses on the facts, as do all aliens, legal or illegal.  Both groups must be naturalized before they can become citizens of the United States.

First, a photograph of Wong, note his dress and hair style.  Those are of important political significance and reflect on his adherence to a foreign power.  This photograph is from an identification document necessary for Wong to have to return to the United States from yet another trip to China, given that he needed to prove his citizenship to return due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, that prohibited, for the most part, the entry of Chinese citizens into the United States for permanent settlement.



First, Wong is wearing what was called then a Chinese pigtail, but more accurately know as a queue, specifically a Manchu queue.  The Manchus, a barbarian tribe of horse mounted warriors, much similar to the Mongols, who also previously ruled China as the Yuan Dynasty, were the rulers of the Chinese Empire, the Middle Kingdom as the Chinese called their Empire, from 1644 to 1911.  The Manchus adopted much of Chinese political, religious, and social custom when they established their dynasty, the Ch'ing Dynasty.  However, they maintained, or tried to maintain, a separate system of racial hygiene, that maintained the Manchu language, dress, and martial vigor within the ostensibly Sinified ruling class.  That was followed more in the breach, but at the beginning of the Ch'ing Dynasty and following until the establishment of the Chinese Republic, Ch'ing officials vigorously maintained the requirement that all Han males, e.g. racially Chinese, subjects wear their hair in the Manchu queue, a shaved forehead with the rest of the hair worn uncut in a braid.




And the Ch'ing enforced this mandate with ruthless vigor.

China Heritage Quarterly, September 2011, by Michael R. Godley
The End of the Queue: Hair as Symbol in Chinese History  
The head-shaving edict was extended to the rest of the population; Dorgon ordered the Board of War to crush opposition but subsequently rescinded the order on the grounds that 'it contradicted the will of the people.' Nevertheless, the capital and its environs were properly groomed by the time the young emperor arrived in November 1644. After the fall of Nanjing the following July, another decree was issued—this time more diplomatically through the Board of Rites. Although this edict has entered popular myth as amounting to the sentiment 'off with your hair or off with your head,' and armed barbers allegedly carried the severed heads of recalcitrants on bamboo poles to show the double-edged nature of their profession, Dorgon's rescript was comparatively restrained. After noting that his earlier orders had not been enforced in the hope that males would conform of their own volition, he appealed to Confucian precepts: 'Now that the country has become as one family, the ruler is like a father and the people are like sons ... How can they be different or distant?' Nonetheless, the throne was more than willing to employ coercion if this milder approach failed, for the edict also warned that the laws of the new dynasty had to be obeyed. More to the point, hair was a sure way to distinguish 'our subjects' from 'those bandits who oppose our mandate.'

Mandate refers to the Mandate of Heaven, the blessing of the gods that provides the underpinning to political legitimacy in the Confucian system.  Here the barbarian Emperor is claiming he holds political legitimacy in China and all Han owe him their loyalty and obedience. To not wear the queue was an act of rebellion against the political will of the Chinese state, but for Wong, despite his birth in America, he maintained his queue, as well as traveling frequently back to China.

Furthermore, Wong wears the costume of the Manchu as well.  What is commonly called a Mandarin collar, the high collared jacket that so many in the West associate with China, is in fact an item of Manchu origin, also mandated by the Manchus as a symbol of political loyalty to Ch'ing Dynasty.

Taken together, along with Wong's frequent and long sojourns in China, show that he, like the American Indians, were not subject to what Eastman calls the full political jurisdiction of the United States, but merely under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.  Wong told the world his primary political loyalty was to the Emperor of China, not to the United States, same with his parents who moved back to China, in accordance with their political and cultural loyalty to China, even an alien occupied China, just as Indians held their primary loyalty to their respective tribes.

So, just on the principle of complete political jurisdiction, Wong was not a citizen and required naturalization, as determined by Congresses Article 1, Section 8 authority.  Similarly, current legal and illegal aliens from most countries maintain citizenship in the country of their parents; Mexico, for example, extends citizenship to all person born abroad to one or more Mexican parents, so it is both practical and appropriate for children of legal and illegal aliens to not be accorded U.S. citizenship, but remain, not stateless, but citizens of the country of their parents, as all countries practice.  Teh solution is a naturalization process for the children of legal immigrants testing loyalty, English language skills, and civics, just as other legal permanent resident aliens are required to complete if they want to become American citizens.