Thursday, November 1, 2018

Immigrant Haters and Their Use of Bizarre Pre-Crime Type Charges

Pre-crime designation: Potential welfare recipent 

I have made a point about this before but once again I see coming up in the comments a pre-crime style type of charge against classes of immigrants.

The charge is that immigrants come here to have anchor babies who then go on welfare.

Notice the bizarre, horrific two steps taken here to make this charge against immigrants.

First is the charge that some of them are coming here to have anchor babies. The logic here by these immigrant haters is then that an entire class of presumably women of childbearing years must be stopped from entering the U.S., because some may attempt to have anchor babies. What a horrific movement toward pre-crime type charges against an entire class!

Then in their next step, the immigrant haters claim, before these children are even born or perhaps even conceived, that they will eventually seek out welfare benefits and therefore this must be prevented now. This is another horrific step toward pre-crime style claims against an entire class. And, I repeat a class that may include many who are not yet conceived.

Do we really want to take the United States to the level of using the state to start acting against people just because they are of a certain class and how they might act after they are born?

I am all for putting up a welfare wall and President Trump may be going in this direction, though I doubt he realizes it, by calling for the elimination of U.S. citizenship "rights" to newborns of immigrants. Let them, remain though, in the shadows, where they don't have to interact with government. And then let's start to move toward eliminating citizenship for the rest of us.

-RW 

60 comments:

  1. "This is another horrific step toward pre-crime style claims against an entire class."

    It's called racial profiling, and it's used because it works, just like with terrorism prevention. It doesn't matter that 95 percent of arabs don't blow themselves up, what matters is that 95 percent of people that blow themselves up are arab. If you want to avoid being a victim of terrorism you can drastically reduce your chances by avoiding arabs. Now apply this to violent crime and blacks, or welfare usage and illegal brown people and the results will be the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn’t matter that 95% of white people don’t start wars, what matters is that 95% of the wars are started by white people. If you want to avoid being a victim of war avoid white people...

      Delete
    2. By all means, stay out of white countries if you find white people abhorrent. Subsaharan Africa is almost entirely free from white people and is a peaceful Eutopia from what the media tells us.

      Delete
    3. Re: Paul Hansen,

      ── By all means, stay out of white countries ──

      Ok, ok, I'll stay out of Antarctica! Gee!

      Delete
  2. Put up a welfare wall first, then we can discuss the rest. Why is that so difficult to understand? If illegals are so beneficial, let's just let in hundreds of millions all at once, shall we? Imagine the endless benefit to our society. Wouldn't you agree? I can't wait until we look like Venezuela with no electricity or potable water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've already had the argument here, but RW and other liberardians truly think that if you import 10 million Africans, you will have a functional first world society instead of Africa because of 'magic dirt'.

      The caravan has already shown itself to be composed of some violent people, but RW won't post that cuz you know, 'dats rasis'.

      Delete
    2. Re: Chubba Dog,
      ── Put up a welfare wall first ──

      There's already a 'welfare wall' up. It's called "you're not eligible for benefits".

      ── If illegals are so beneficial, let's just let in hundreds of millions all at once, shall we? ──

      The category is not what makes them beneficial. If they were legal, they would be just as beneficial, because a) they increase the pool of labor, thus making labor more affordable for producers and b) they help with releasing the more productive native labor for more profitable endeavors. Only Trumpistas and their brethren on the economically illiterate left seem not to be aware of this. The fact that they don't possess the State-issued transit papers does not mean they aren't hard workers.

      Delete
    3. Re: The Lab Manager,
      ── The caravan has already shown itself to be composed of some violent people ──

      That's a false assessment. Just because Griff Jenkins found ONE doesn't mean the 5000+ people are all like that person.

      And who's talking about *importing* anyone? Why do you keep conflating refugees (which are indeed imported, by the State) with immigrants? Immigrants travel on their own, by their own wherewithal. They're invited AND welcomed into the US by willing Americans.

      Delete
    4. Africa is a complete and utter dump - the entire continent. I wouldn't even know where to start discussing it.

      Mexico is a violently corrupt narco state, but somehow we're supposed to pretend it's not. If you point that out, you're a racist, because the facts don't matter. But guess what, culture DOES matter.

      I think that cop-killer Luis Bracamontes was just celebrating diversity when he killed those cops. Whatcha think, RW? Bring in some more Luis Bracamontes types?

      Delete
    5. Chubba, What Torres intentionally neglects is that immigrants (legal or not) are only illegible for welfare from the federal government that isn't social security. Various programs on the state, county, and city level are in play. Generally all regular local and state services are extended to those who entered the country illegally.

      There are too many libertarians who don't respect any order of operations. That's one of the big reasons libertarianism goes nowhere. Some republican or democrat introduces something that on the surface eliminates something and these libertarians cheer for it not realizing all that happened in the net was to skew the government's interference for someone's benefit. And when that benefit is exposed or there is an economic crash or whatever bad thing happens then the Ds and Rs blame the whole thing on "deregulation" and "the free market" leaving libertarianism to take the hit for statism.

      Delete
    6. "That's a false assessment. Just because Griff Jenkins found ONE doesn't mean the 5000+ people are all like that person."

      I would guess most of them are from the violent portion of their society. And we have no idea if the women with children are even their children. I'm tired of the baby waving. We need to send these interlopers back. Legal immigration also needs to be curtailed.

      Delete
    7. Jimmy: you're correct. I've known illegal aliens personally who work under the table, thus paying no taxes, whilst getting government benefits. Should I believe a liar like Torres, or my own eyes? Also, he refuses to recognize the massive identity theft that is carried out by illegals. Stealing someone's identity is okay, as long as the perpetrator is here illegally, I guess.

      Delete
    8. Re: Chubba Dog,
      ── Africa is a complete and utter dump - the entire continent. ──

      Because... it's full of black people? Never mind that many companies - mining, oil exploration, manufacturing, from American to European to Chinese - are heavily investing in many African countries. It must be a 'dump'.

      ── Mexico is a violently corrupt narco state, ──

      It's not a "narco state". By the same standard you're applying, Prohibition-era America was a corrupt alcohol-state.

      Delete
    9. Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,
      ── Various programs on the state, county, and city level are in play. ──

      I'm not ignoring anything and, so what if the states offer some programs? You're merely guessing that immigrants are taking them. Without evidence, you're merely engaging in speculation.

      ── There are too many libertarians who don't respect any order of operations. ──

      And you're obedient. Got it.

      Delete
    10. Torres, no, not because it is black. That is something only a racist/leftist like you would say, because it is your answer to everything. And, just because companies are mining or drilling for oil in Africa doesn't in any way make it any better. Another foolish statement. They're mining/drilling for materials because they're available, not because it's such a nice place to be.

      We are not living in Prohibition-era America, by the way.

      Delete
    11. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── And, just because companies are mining or drilling for oil in Africa doesn't in any way make it any better. ──

      Really? Why not? Because before you say: "Torres, no, not because it is black". Then WHAT IS IT?

      ── They're mining/drilling for materials because they're available ──

      Indeed? Only because "they're available"? Are you insinuating these companies are merely "takers"?

      ── That is something only a racist/leftist like you would say ──

      Yeah, sure. It's funny when statists and xenophobes call others 'leftists'.

      Delete
    12. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── I've known illegal aliens personally who work under the table, thus paying no taxes, whilst getting government benefits. ──

      Liar.

      ── or my own eyes? ──

      Believe evidence. Your "anecdote" is not convincing, because you have NO way of showing that these "illegulz" you allude to receive government benefits.

      ── Also, he refuses to recognize the massive identity theft that is carried out by illegals.──

      Yeah, 'massive'. Please. Also, what's your guess as to why undocumented immigrants resort to fake SSNs, if not so that they can WORK, and pay TAXES, even minimally?



      ── Stealing someone's identity is okay, as long as the perpetrator is here illegally, I guess. ──

      What's not OK is the State requiring people to demonstrate eligibility just so they can work. You may think that this is a good thing if it stops these "illegulz who takum er jebz!" from working, without even a slight consideration to the great BURDEN that such government schemes impose on businesses and American citizens - unless you want to fantasize about the perfection of government databases?

      Delete
    13. I'm not lying. Not one iota. You just can't accept the truth. We know you hate whitey and civilized society. Keep pretending to be a libertarian. In your world, it's okay for some to be robbed (as long as they're white) but not others (who are not white).

      Delete
    14. JJM, if the real issue here is immigrants receiving welfare payments from the states, not the federal government, then why don't the states restrict immigration across their borders (or change their welfare legislation)? Why is this any of the federal government's business?

      Delete
    15. Torres, I notice how you have no real rebuttal as usual. The programs as you well know (because I pointed it out to you in the past) are not only available but often created for or extended to immigrant populations explicitly and the government entities administrating them will even seek out people to sign up for them. Many do avail themselves of these programs for it helps them bid their labor low enough to be hired.

      Order of operations is important if you want to achieve liberty. If you don't want to achieve liberty continue on the haphazard approach that allows statists (usually left-statists) to continually declare every one of your haphazard victories a failure of the free market when disaster occurs because all that was achieved was to reorganize the government's interference. But that's just it, you're trying to use libertarianism against itself and create those disasters that strengthen the left statists.

      The state is like a building. It was built one layer at a time in a very methodical way. If it wasn't people would resist. To tear it down and not have that revolution that makes things worse that deconstruction must happen just as methodically. Either start at the top and tear it down floor by floor carefully or do a controlled demolition through carefully placed charges. Of course what you want to do is simply vandalize the building and give the state reason for additions, security systems, and remodeling.

      NAPster, by being part of the union the states are not allowed to control their border. That is the roll of the federal government. The only way for them to do so is to secede from the US of A. Abe Lincoln settled the question of what happens to states that secede.

      Delete
    16. JJM, actually, if you want to make the constitutional argument, the federal government has no power over immigration, only over naturalization. And if you believe that Lincoln's war settled the question of secession -- meaning the use of violence is legitimate to prevent peaceful separation -- then there isn't much ground on which to have a useful discussion (personally, I reject the use of violence as a means to settle argument).

      Delete
    17. NAPster, I haven't made an argument with regards to fedgov's constitutionality over immigration so that's irrelevant. You asked a question. I answered it. You not liking the answer does not mean you can claim I was being "constitutional", I simply answered your question with the correct answer. The answer is what it is. If you want to know where fedgov got the power to regulate immigration the answer looks like it is here: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html but I didn't read the whole thing, looks like a good start though.

      Lincoln's war settled the matter of secession on a practical basis. If a state wants to secede fedgov will respond with violence. Remember when Texas was going to stand up to the TSA's groping? What did fedgov do? Threaten a no fly zone and get the required military assets ready in Oklahoma. Texas backed down.

      The constitution like all law in the USA is selectively enforced and followed. What rules is violence. I answered why states can't enforce border rules of their own making, because they don't have the constitutional power to do so and fedgov will prevent it with violence if necessary.

      Delete
  3. ── Do we really want to take the United States to the level of using the state to start acting against people just because they are of a certain class and how they might act after they are born? ──

    Well, not "we". But Trumpistas do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post RW. Keep fighting the good fight.

    Also implicit in the restrictionists' logic is the idea that the domestic welfare state will somehow diminish if the state is empowered to centrally plan the composition of the population. This logic is almost totally baseless. Some of the most rapid gains in the US entitlement society occurred in the 1960's "Great Society" era, when foreign-born population was at its nadir. Likewise many Euro states that have high degrees of ethnic homogeneity also tend to have some of the most bloated, er "generous" welfare systems.

    Essentially they're a bunch of xenophobic goobers who are trying to come up with ex-post excuses for their desire to keep darkie out of "their" country. It's truly bizarre the way they tend to infest libertarian spaces and yet fail to absorb any logic or ethics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it there is no Mises Institute in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe or the Congo?

      Delete
    2. Exactly. And, to add to this, some of the most tyrannical, anti-liberty regimes in the US occurred well before Third World immigration, e.g., under Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. These were all the fault of whites of western European heritage.

      Delete
    3. Please tell me more about the libertarian immigration policies of the Congo.

      Delete
    4. Re: Paul Hansen,

      ── Why is it there is no Mises Institute in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe or the Congo? ──

      Or why isn't one in Finland, or Sweden? Curiously, there's a Mises Institute in Venezuela.

      https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2015/08/20/venezuelans-launch-mises-institute-to-take-down-chavismo/

      None of this means nothing. Your efforts amount to nothing more than tiresome and boorish slander against people you don't even know.

      Delete
    5. Paul, I would note that there is also no Mises Institute in Austria or New Zealand (nor, I'm sure, in other countries in western Europe or of western European heritage). But there are thriving chapters of Students for Liberty in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

      Delete
    6. "Why is it there is no Mises Institute in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe or the Congo?"

      You are asking some dangerous questions now, are you not? I want to know why there was no African economic development on par with any European or even Asian country yet we are supposed to believe that all of us are the same.

      Delete
    7. Really? No one is saying the welfare state will diminish if we defend the borders. We just don't want it to grow. We don't need to import more welfare recipients. We do a really good job of producing them domestically. If I had it my way, there would be no welfare recipients at all, because there would be no government welfare. Period.

      And guess what else, Mr. Smiley Libertarian know-it-all, Lew Rockwell is constantly posting articles discussing the horrors of forced migration into Europe. Are you going to argue with him, too? If Lew Rockwell takes the same stance as me, then I'm in pretty good company.

      Delete
    8. The state already plans the composition of the country through immigration and has done so for what? a century or more?

      Delete
    9. Re: Chubba Dog,
      ── Really? No one is saying the welfare state will diminish if we defend the borders. ──

      "Defending" the borders, in your language, means having the state impose itself between Americans who want to hire, sell to, buy from, rent to and even marry immigrants and immigrants they're inviting in. If this overt act of aggression against peaceful individuals is done under the guise of "stopping welfare from growing", I call you on it for the BS that it is.

      Delete
    10. This caravan was not invited in. I call BS on you. It was contrived and is supported by leftists like yourself.

      Delete
    11. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── This caravan was not invited in. ──

      a) The caravan hasn't arrived yet. And b) YES, immigrants ARE invited in - by the MARKET. By Americans who want to hire them, rent to them, sell to them, buy from them and even marry them. The fact that YOU don't want to do those things is not justification to impose a prohibition on others. A god you ain't.

      ── It was contrived and is supported by leftists like yourself. ──

      Yeah, right. It's funny when statists call libertarians "leftists".

      Delete
    12. Now that's funny, now the market invited them in? That's your most ridiculous response yet. Try reading Lew Rockwell. He believes in defending the borders, and I think he knows a bit more than you on what it means to be a libertarian. He is constantly posting about the horrors of forced immigration. No, I am not a statist, I believe in private property rights and extremely limited government, whilst you are a leftist (masquerading as a libertarian) who hates whitey and wants western culture obliterated.

      Delete
    13. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── Now that's funny, now the market invited them in? ──

      The same way the Market does things all the time: By emitting price signals, through advertisement, through word-of-mouth ("Hey, there's gold in them thar hills!"), you name it. That's the MARKET speaking(*).

      (*) Anti-market zealots prefer to think that the market is this amorphous thing made of day traders or some other simplistic idea, when the MARKET is actually the massive network made of the BILLIONS of daily actions and decisions taken by millions upon millions of human individuals of will.

      ── Try reading Lew Rockwell. He believes in defending the borders ──

      He used to call himself "Anti-State" also, until he suddenly discovered that borders (political fictions put there by the State in order to declare ownership of those living within them) needed to be 'protected'.

      ── He is constantly posting about the horrors of forced immigration. ──

      There's no such thing as "forced" immigration. Migration is action, it is voluntary and purposeful. What Lew and others like Tom DiLorenzo and Bionic Mosquito do is equivocate by confusing REFUGEES (mostly brought over by the State) with immigrants.

      ── No, I am not a statist... I believe in private property rights ──

      You have an interesting way of showing it, by advocating for the State to violate OTHER people's property rights through imposing itself in the peaceful and voluntary deals between Americans and immigrants.

      ── who hates whitey and wants western culture obliterated. ──

      Now you're showing an incredible level of paranoia, not to mention a penchant for making stuff up. It is not leftist to advocate for borders open to trade to the free flow of goods, of services, of capital and, yes, of labor. That's consistent with advocating for free markets and economic freedom. That's also not "hating whitey", whatever that is supposed to mean ─as if by advocating for immigration I am ipso facto against Caucasians; and you don't want to be called racist? I impressed by your disingenuity.

      Besides this, the notion that western culture, perhaps the most *successful in history*, is under threat from a few migrants, is LAUGHABLE. It reeks of misunderstanding and even contradiction. It either speaks of a LACK of TRUST in the *robustness* of western culture and ideas, or of insincerity. I take the latter - i.e. you're lying. So are most Trumpistas who claim they merely seek to protect western culture. That's a grotesque lie. Western culture is alive and well and thriving.

      Delete
    14. So, by your logic, tens of thousands of Americans can storm into Mexico and demand to reside there, commit identity theft, and act as a burden to the tax payers? They can just say "we are invited guests of the market", and the Mexican authorities will leave them be? Hell no...the Mexican police would immediately arrest and deport them, and I would give them credit for doing it. That's how Mexico handles its illegals.

      This was really entertaining, but now your lies are getting old. Racist leftist fraud.

      Delete
  5. Bob, the faulty logic here starts with calling people who are agianst the anchor baby system anti-immigration. This is no more anti-immigration than a no tresspassing sign on your property makes you anti-visitor. I am assuming you allow invited visitors to your house to eat your food and drink your wine but would have a real problem with those that were uninvited. And just because they run to your lazy boy real quick and put up their feet, doesnt mean they get to stay.

    As for the class thing, the only jobs people can get as illegal immigrants are very low-paying which makes it very likely there will be welfare benefits of some kind. It is also a truth, not anyones opinion or racism, that illegal aliens will sneak across just to get healthcare that they dont have to pay for. There is no pre crime. The crime is basically tresspassing. Having children isnt a crime and neither is immigration. The crime is tresspassing. And I am pretty sure you are going to call any atempt to stop the anchor baby system racist, even though it would solve the problem of your "precrime" with one simple rule. It would apply to all races, but somehow thats racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Davit T,
      ── Bob, the faulty logic here starts with calling people who are agianst the anchor baby system anti-immigration. ──

      So far the only people who say "anchor baby" are anti-immigrant. The anchor baby canard is fallacious. It stems from basic ignorance of immigration laws. An American citizen can only sponsor a direct family member if the American citizen is a) 21 years old and b) can financially support the sponsored family member until such time the family member becomes a citizen. Besides that, the process to obtain a green card takes at least 4 years for a sponsored parent.

      ── This is no more anti-immigration than a no tresspassing [sic] sign on your property makes you anti-visitor. ──

      That's not what is being argued. You're conflating two entirely different things.

      ── but would have a real problem with those that were uninvited ──

      Immigrants - even the undocumented kind - are invited in. Also, you cannot presume to extend your property boundaries around MINE or the whole country. There is no such thing as collective ownership.


      ─ The crime is tresspassing. ─

      Immigrants are not trespassers, not even the undocumented kind. Just because some don't possess the State-issued travel papers doesn't make them trespassers. If that's the logic you want to follow, then be principled enough to call all newborn babies 'trespassers' because they arrive without your permission.

      ── And I am pretty sure you are going to call any attempt to stop the anchor baby system racist ──

      You're now being paranoid.

      Delete
    2. David T, how can you trespass on property that is not privately owned?

      Delete
    3. Actually, as I have said already, being against the anchor baby system doesnt make you anti-immigration. This is extremely dishonest. Also, trying to say the anchor baby system doesnt exhist is extremy dishonest. Immigration law in the US is decided by congress, so saying they are invited in is extremly dishonest. Just because you dont like the laws of the US doesnt mean you can just ignore them. And since you have shown yourself to be dishonest, there is no real point in arguing since you have and likely will take my points out of context and add some lies along with it. That is not because of paranoia but, rather, your past actions.

      Delete
    4. "David T, how can you trespass on property that is not privately owned?"- NAPster

      Hey NAPster, go enter a military base anywhere in the world, and ask them.

      Delete
    5. Who owns the military base David? Can you name someone?

      Delete
    6. David T, several times you noted, arguing against the pre-crime concept, that the relevant crime for illegal immigrants is trespassing. I was hoping that your reasoning might be more erudite than simply "might makes right," but you seem to be begging the question.

      Delete
    7. You think your opinion overules the rest of the country, but it doesn't. You dont like the fact that there is actually a crime as soon as they enter illegally, but its true wether or not you agree. The law doesnt say "subject to approval by NAPster the self-anointed and Bob the blogger Wenzel"

      Joshua-the military base certainly isnt private property, is it. Again, just because you disagree, doesnt make you right. The facts support me. You guys have the same dellusional view of the world as the socialists.

      Delete
    8. David T, I have not polled the "rest of the country," so don't know if the other 325 million people agree with me (however, it sounds like you have conducted such a poll). But my point is different: I'm asking you to explain why crossing the border is trespass. Saying over and over that it is trespass is not a compelling argument.

      Delete
  6. Inconvenient truth is inconvenient truth. We are a Rome waiting to burn financially as it is. Lets em in and lets hasten the crash and let chaos sort it all out!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The worst are the male immigrants who come with the plans of having sex changes AND then giving birth to anchor babies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When conservatives talk about scary immigrants they just sound like wimpy liberals talking about scary weather.

    Y A W N

    Just another frightened child running to the government for help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look forward to you moving to Africa or elsewhere. This country does not need you.

      Delete
    2. Poor wittle wab manager needs to government to help him. What a woser.

      Delete
  9. Just watched a little of a Tucker Carlson segment, he seemed to be supporting a Trump attempt to undo birth citizenship by EO.
    I really find this amazing, we are to let a president change constitutional amendments by EO?
    So, when the next progressive is in there, is Tucker going to support his power to change the 2nd amendment by EO?
    My guess is probably so. Statist are about the State, after all. Conservatives too often are to short sighted to see cause and effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joshua, Trump and his supporters on this question correctly believe that the amendment has been misinterpreted. So they are not changing the amendment, obviously. I see no constitutional objection for the president to instruct various federal agencies to proceed according to the correct interpretation. Why do you think that would be a problem?

      Delete
    2. --- Joshua, Trump and his supporters on this question correctly believe that the amendment has been misinterpreted. ---

      Professor, what is your evidence to suggest that the amendment has been 'misinterpreted'? Besides the fact that the statement 'All persons born or naturalized innthe United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside' is written in plain English, there are also the Supreme Court decisions that solidify the concept of birthright citizenship for all people born within US territories.

      There's no objection for the president to instruct various federal agencies to proceed according to a nativist interpretation of he Constitution - it would be the Trumpista version of what leftists do by reinterpreting the meaning of other amendments including the 2nd (Trumpistas even go so far as arguing for a living, breathing document except unwittingly, when claiming that the amendment is behind the times). There's no objection, save that it will be a monumental waste of time, because it won't pass Constitutional muster, no matter how much you wish the contrary were true. Besides that, do you think the president is thinking that illegal immigrants and their US born children are therefore NOT subject to taxation? Because that's what the statement 'and sUbject to the jurisdiction thereof' entails.

      Delete
    3. Tom, Americans are not as smart as Tucker, and obviously have no where near the intellectual smarts on the constitution as you do(and thanks in part to you, I feel I know a little about it also).
      The problem is people aren’t smart enough to understand what you just stated, they only see things in view of presidential powers.
      When the great one, Mark Levin, tells his viewers that the president has the power to do these things in the manner that you have just stated, they aren’t smart enough to distinguish that from the president just having good ol power to do whatever he wants, just like Levin also says he does. The masses aren’t listening to any of us on the correct interpretation of constitutional issues, and I feel like supporting this the way Tucker was talking about it just opens the door even more for abuse of presidential power, if that is possible.
      Like I said, “ The president is instructing the justice department to proceed in his correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment....”

      Delete
    4. @Joshua Bennett

      Also, if we’re going to go the strict interpretation route, the power to restrict immigration is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government, only the power to grant citizenship (“naturalization”.)

      The immigration restrictionists, like most statists, like to pick and choose which elements of the Constitution they want enforced.

      Delete
  10. I am actually against birth citizenship. It’s not right for the one born to become supposed property of some stupid State that claims a certain area of ground so it can tax them for the rest of their life.
    So don’t just end birth citizenship. End citizenship.
    End the State.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If this is true, we need to find out who helped file this and have them prosecuted to the full extent of the law if any. By the way, if these people are so precious, why can't they create economic value in their own country? Why is Switzerland and Japan desirable places to live, but Honduras and El Salvador are not? Hmmmm... the mystery deepens.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/11/02/caravan-migrants-take-a-stunning-action-against-trump-and-immediately-inspire-outrage

    “Group of migrants travelling on foot from Honduras file federal lawsuit against Pres Trump and others,” she tweeted, with an explanatory excerpt from the filing.

    ReplyDelete