Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Illegal Immigrants are terrorists

On Lou Dobbs tonight he reported that right now there are 3.6 millions people in this country who are here illegally on expired visas, including 11 Egyptians who are here on student visas that have been revoked by the US Government and the government is currently looking for all 11 students for questioning and deportation.
Remember also that 3 of the 19 hijackers from September 11th were granted amnesty for being here illegally when the government passed the last Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill 20 years ago.
Illegal immigrants are not all poor Mexicans crossing over the US-Mexico border trying to evade our border patrol. They are also poor Asians being snuck into this country in cargo holds and metal containers. Illegal immigrants are also those who come to this country on legal visas and then overstay their visa. And illegal immigrants are those who come to this country in our current temporary guestworker program and then overstay their allotted time.
There are many forms of illegal immigration and the problem is that the government is doing nothing to stop any of them. If we can’t stop someone from walking across our southern border who only wants to come to this country for work, then how are we going to stop someone from walking across our southern border or that stays on an expired visa who wants to come to this country to kill us?


Blogger Brooke said...

You're preaching to the choir, brotha'...

Thu Aug 10, 01:03:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Brooke, Thursday’s events I think showed just how correct I am.

Fri Aug 11, 12:00:00 AM  
Blogger Manny said...

I disagree. Some are terrorists, but the majority are looking for a better life. If they were all terrorists, why haven't we had more attacks? Why did border security become such a big issue all of a sudden? 9/11? None of the 9/11 hijackers crossed the border on foot. They all had visas (forged or real) and gigged the system to plot, plan and destroy. None crossed on foot! Come on Publius...get it straight, don't distort the truth!

Fri Aug 11, 09:58:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Manny, I was afraid some people would miss the point here. First, 3 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were granted amnesty 20 years ago from the last Comprehensive Immigration Reform policy, Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act. How they got here, whether it be from legal visas and then overstaying that visa or crossing the border illegally doesn’t matter, in either case they are here illegally and potentially dangerous. Second, if we can not stop someone from coming across our border who wants to come here and work or who wants to smuggle in illegal narcotics, then how are we going to stop someone from coming in who wants to blow us up? The terrorists have no bombers, battleships, or nuclear weapons (at least not that we know of), instead they attack with people and those people have to be here to do any damage. But, if we do not know who is here and we can’t stop people from getting into to this country illegally even when they have no intention to do us harm, how are we going to stop someone who wants to do us harm? We are fighting the war on terrorism backwards. You don’t stop the terrorists by preventing them from boarding a plane with explosives, you stop them by not allowing them to get into the country to have the opportunity to bring explosives on the plane.
The easier we make it for people to illegally enter the country, the easier we make it for the terrorists to come here too.

Fri Aug 11, 11:34:00 PM  
Blogger migrastew said...


First of all, thanks for visiting my site. I wish you had read what I wrote, though. In my post about anchor babies, you commented on exactly the point I am trying to make. You stated that Senator Jacob Howard clarified his intent of the 14th amendment by saying that the granting citizenship by birth will NOT include "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens OR who belong to the families of ambassadors..." Publis, this is NOT what Howard said. The following quote is the ACTUAL quote "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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 person." Notice the GLARING difference. Your quote throws in the word "OR". The ACTUAL quote does NOT have that word in there. With the word "OR", one CAN make a case that foreigners, aliens AND those belonging to the families of ambassadors are three seperate individuals. Without the "OR", it appears that Senator Howard was only clarifing that those members of ambassador families are in fact FOREIGNERS and ALIENS and that the words "foreigner" and "alien" are only being used as adjectives to DESCRIBE the members of those families. Think about it. Again, it DOESN'T say, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, OR PERSONS who belong to the families of ambassadors..." thus SEPERATING and making a distinction between the foreigners, aliens AND persons belonging to the families of ambassadors, etc.. It simply states "foreigners, aliens, WHO belong.." In legal parlance, this distinction MUST give any intrepetation careful pause.

As I wrote, there is somewhat of a paradox in Senator Howard's clarifying statement as well. He SPECIFICALLY chooses the phrase "persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS...". All available research data clearly states that he was referring to American Indians when he made that statement. American Indians, as you correctly stated, were NOT given citizenship through the 14th as they were the "persons born in the United States who are foreigners".

You quote verbage from the "Citizens Act of 1924". I have searched the internet looking for this "Citizens Act of 1924" and could only come up with the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" and the "Immigration Act of 1924". Respectively, the "Indian" Act is the actual act that ultimately gave Native-born American Tribal Indians US citizenship. It said NOTHING of "Aleutians, Eskimos or aboriginal tribes." Similarly, the Immigration Act of 1924 has no verbage that speaks to Eskimos, Aleutians or aboriginal tribes. The Immigration Act also speaks of American Indians by using the terms "Indians not taxed...". This law used this phrase when defining the term "immigrant" and it SPECIFICALLY stated that these "indians" were NOT considered immigrants. It also stated the same for "islands under the jurisdiction of the United States". At the time, I believe this only included the "US" Virgin Islands and "Porto Rico" (Puerto Rico). As I am sure you are aware, there have, since this time, been added the Islands of Guam, American Samoa and the Swains Islands. They are all "under the jurisdiction" of the US, however, their native and native-born inhabitants are not "citizens" but rather "nationals" of the US. They may not vote but are privy to "all other" rights enjoyed by those otherwise considered "citizens". If you could provide me the web address that you pull your quote from, I would be very interested to read it.

The fact of the matter is that the Immigration Act of 1924 was the first Act in which many of these everyday terms we use were initially defined. Hence, "illegal aliens", "immigrants" and "non-immigrants" didn't legally exist before 1924. Clearly, during the time in which the Constitution and her amendments (especially the 14th) were written, there didn't even EXIST a Mexican-American border. The "West" hadn't even been "won" at the time of these writings. So for someone to say that the 14th amendment SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES children born to what we NOW consider "illegal aliens" in the United States is stretching their intrepetation.

The bottom line is that the courts have remained undoubtedly silent about addressing the issue, and for good reason.

First of all, it's a dividing topic that will only serve "extremists" from the anti-immigrant side of the debate. No one who is educated and rational about the issue sees this as something of "dire consequence". The only people who are complaining about these so-called "anchor babies" are those who have the erroneous belief that these children somehow offer so form of benefit or "relief" to their parents based SOLELY on their citizenship. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a 10 year veteran of the defunct INS and now DHS and have arrested and removed 100's of 1,000's of illegal aliens during my career. NEVER ONCE has the "US citizenship" of a child born to illegal aliens resulted in those illegal aliens being able to avoid removal. NEVER ONCE! Relief from removal is VASTLY more complicated than just a childs citizenship and equally more difficult to qualify for.

Secondly, if you happen to be referring to the benefits a US citizen child is eligible for, then you need to address your STATE legislatures, not the federal Congress. We fought a civil war to preserve what "state sovreignty and rights" we still have. One of those rights is for a state to determine it's OWN laws when it comes to the governance of it's residents and "citizens". 99.9% of ALL US citizen children born to illegal aliens receiving benefits (health care, food stamps, etc.), receive them from STATE SPONSORED PROGRAMS. Of course, they are all taxpayer funded, but the fact remains that the FEDERAL government generally has nothing to do with how these programs are administrated. You are correct that a simple change in the law will alleviate this problem. But the change must be forged at the STATE level. States have the power to determine who is and is not eligible for benefits that derive from state coffers, plain and simple. As I have suggested before, it's a state issue and should be handled there.

Finally, the law is the law. You, I and everyone else born in our great nation did NOT get our citizenship because of our parents. We got it because we were born here. Jus Soli. Under current law, there are only two other methods to acquire citizenship: Jus Sanguinis and Naturalization. Naturalization is out because we have NEVER been citizens or nationals of any other country. (Hmm..kinda like these kids born to illegals!) And Jus Sanguinis is not an option because of the ENORMITY of the process that is required to prove a derivation based on your parents citizenship. The law (Jus Sanguinis) not only requires that one of your parents be a citizen at the time of your birth. It also requires for one of them to meet RESIDENCY timeframes related to your date of birth. As immigration officers, we are required to successfully pass a very intricate and difficult course in Naturalization law that deals with these very issues. If Jus Soli were removed, Jus Sanguinis would be the ONLY other alternative in granting citizenship to EACH AND EVERY person born here, INCLUDING children of "US citizens". Now think ahead. Think of how many births there are every day in the US. Thousands, I would imagine. For every child born, only a trained and duly sworn immigration officer would be able to make the determination for a prima facie case of "US citizenship". This would require that several of these officers be stationed 24/7, 365 in ALL hospitals across the United States. And notice that I said "prima facie". This means that these officers would not be the final determinant in the granting of citizenship. This, by law, can ONLY be done and officially recognized by a duly sworn immigration judge. So tens of thousands of "hospital immigration officers" would have to be hired and trained (read: higher taxes). Also, thousands of new judges, support staff and facilities would have to be set up to pass oficial judgement in these cases (read: EXTREMELY higher taxes). Plus, there would undoubtedly be a severe backlog in adjudication of these cases (read: EXTREME frusration by the taxpayer, not to mention possible danger to a needy and qualified child simply because he or she has no citizenship until a judge says so). All of this simply to avoid the cost to the taxpayer for the kids receiving benefits. Do you REALLY think we would save any money? I think not.

So, if you now REALLY think this is still a good idea, you need to have your head examined.

As I stated to my friend in my original post, this is the REALITY of what you are proposing, like it or not. You have allowed yourself and your opinions to be swayed and influenced by radical extremists who neither have the education nor foresight to realize the gravity of their proposals. Quoting from text written over 300 years ago is fine. Doing so INCORRECTLY AND drawing conclusions as to the INTENT of that "incorrectly quoted" text serves no one. I have made it abundantly clear that Howard can be intrepeted to have meant "radically something different" than what all of the extreme punditry claims he meant. It's all in how you read it. But when your intrepetation is coupled with the reality it would cause, only one rational conclusion can be drawn. That is to leave it the F*&K alone!

Sun Aug 20, 03:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home