No Judge Has Jurisdiction To Erase Our Border


By Daniel Horowitz
ConservativeReview.com

No court can ever force the president to allow any alien to enter the country. No such lawsuit could ever have legitimate standing, and no such decision could have any constitutional moorings. If we don’t understand that, we are no longer a sovereign Republic.

Monday night, Jon Tigar, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a forum chosen by the ACLU, penned what is essentially an op-ed expressing his desire that Trump’s order on asylum be temporarily enjoined. His desire is just as binding as my desire to place an injunction on all liberals from running for office. He has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated.

Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.
 

This is not a legitimate court ruling or even court case.

President Trump issued a commonsense and quite modest order to direct all asylum claims to the points of entry rather than empowering the cartels to smuggle them in between the points of entry. Given that none of these people are legitimate asylees, he should have suspended all asylum claims at the border and required them to instead make claims in U.S. consulates in Mexico, the first safe third-party country, as designated by the U.N. Nonetheless, even this order was out of bounds, according to Tigar, who believes that asylum statute requires the president to afford everyone in the world, evidently even a belligerent mass migration, a chance to file an application.

Moreover, in what has become a favorite stalking horse of the judicial fascists, Tigar claimed that Trump didn’t properly promulgate this “regulation” under the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act. Yup, evidently, sensitive foreign affairs negotiations with Mexico and Central America and repelling an invasion are now classed with promulgating a new regulation on American farms. Will we subject a North Korean missile attack to the APA?

Let’s put aside the fact that asylum law was written clearly for individuals, not groups of tens and hundreds of thousands of people invading our country. It was written for people like Asia Bibi, the Christian who is being threatened with execution in Pakistan because of her faith. These people in the caravan are prima facie not eligible for asylum, and much like an invading army doesn’t need to be given papers and catch-and-release, these people don’t need to be let in.

Let’s also put aside the fact that asylum statute explicitly bars judicial review and private causes of action to sue for asylum status.
Let’s also put aside the fact that the ACLU cannot qualify as a legitimate party with standing to meet the standards of Article III cases and controversies. I kid you not, the ACLU actually said it has a personalized, cognizable harm because Trump’s policy causes the group “to divert significant resources to, among other things, understanding the new policy,” and “educating and advising its staff, clients, and prospective clients” on the order. I guess I can sue Pelosi’s House for any legislation I don’t like because it forces me to spread my resources thin in educating the public through my various platforms about the consequences.

Indeed, we have already established that this ruling is null and void from day one. But there is something more fundamental here.
The president has both delegated authority and inherent Article II powers over foreign commerce to prevent people from landing on our shores to begin with, and that is something that even Congress cannot take away. Thus, even if asylum statute in a vacuum forced the president to entertain any bogus claim, the president has inherent authority to exclude applicants from entering, and that power was reaffirmed by Congress in 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, which serves as a circuit breaker to all immigration categories, including asylum or any form of legal immigration. And for good reason.

As the Supreme Court said in Lichter v. United States (1948):

It is not necessary that Congress supply administrative officials with a specific formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program. . . . Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in the light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. “They derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear.”

There are no greater infinitely variable conditions than dealing with the emergency of the drug cartels and mass migration mixing together at our border. In fact, there are fewer groups in the world more brutal than the drug cartels. That alone would meet the definition of the president’s solemn requirement to repel an invasion under Art. IV Sec.4. There is no way anyone can read asylum law as negating the explicit and unambiguous powers to exclude aliens.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The Islamic Doctrine of Migration


Dr. Bill Warner discusses political Islam and the role that migration plays as a form of Islamic Jihad. Bill Warner, Ph.D. is a highly respected expert on political Islam. In 2006, he founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) to further the study of the politics of the ideology of Islam and its ramifications for Western Civilization. Warner defines political Islam as that part of Islamic doctrine which concerns the non-Muslim. He is author of fifteen books, including the Amazon bestseller, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, which is published in 20 languages. He holds a Ph.D. in physics and applied mathematics. His website is PoliticalIslam.com.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Bill O’Reilly Explains the Reason for the Caravan & Who’s Funding It


Anna Paulina is responsible for Hispanic engagement at Turning Point USA and she joined Bill O’Reilly this evening on his podcast. They discussed the funding for the caravan.

The funding and organization are coming from the far left in the United States and Soros is one of the funders.

La Familia Latina Unida, based in Chicago, is a sister organization to Pueblo sin Fronteras and Centro sin Fronteras. These groups organize the illegal migration, providing transportation and supplies to the caravaners. They boast of having brought hundreds of thousands into the country.

These leftists also pay the foreigners to hop on the buses they supply. They push women and children to join the caravans as much as possible to provide cover for the young men who make up the bulk of the caravan.

Globalist George Soros is one of the deep-pocketed leftists who funds of these organizations.

Media won’t expose any of this. Why? Probably for power.

Democrats and these leftist organizations don’t care about anyone. The people on these caravans are traveling through the most dangerous parts of the most dangerous areas of the world. Many suffer terrible trauma or never make it through at all.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Migrant Caravan: Its Purpose in Warfare Against the U.S. | Honduras Caravan 2018


Is the #MigrantCaravan a way out for migrants fleeing violence and poverty at home, or an opportunity for foreign intelligence personnel and terrorist groups to undermine the United States? In 2018 the migrant caravan became a hot button issue in the midterm elections. #Border protection and security is one of the most important concerns of any country. In this video we discuss who might be the biggest beneficiary of the #Honduras migrant caravan.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The Truth About The Caravan


‘The U.S. Is Nothing’: Caravan Organizers Brag About Violating America’s Sovereignty

Watch this in-depth report on the approaching caravan the MSM refuses to cover.

Independent filmmaker Ami Horowitz embedded himself in the caravan currently making its way up through Mexico towards the United States border to get the real truth about the migrants the mainstream media refuses to cover.

 

 
 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Trump Stumps Caravan: DOJ, DHS Move To Restrict Asylum Eligibility for Illegals

Acting AG wastes no time granting administration broad immigration powers


By Adan Salazar
Infowars.com

Caravan sympathizers aren’t going to like this one.

The DOJ and DHS announced new policies Thursday restricting illegal aliens from asylum eligibility.

In an Interim Final Rule announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, the Trump administration was granted broad authority to block asylum claims for people who violate US immigration laws.

“Consistent with our immigration laws, the President has the broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens into the United States if he determines it to be in the national interest to do so,” Whitaker and Nielsen said in a joint statement.

“Today’s rule applies this important principle to aliens who violate such a suspension or restriction regarding the southern border imposed by the President by invoking an express authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. Our asylum system is overwhelmed with too many meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources, preventing us from being able to expeditiously grant asylum to those who truly deserve it. Today, we are using the authority granted to us by Congress to bar aliens who violate a Presidential suspension of entry or other restriction from asylum eligibility.”

A Justice Department press release cites a section from the Immigration and Nationality Act which state the attorney general “may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum.”

The administration is hoping the new rules will encourage people planning on entering the US illegally to instead use ports of entry where can be formally processed.

“The interim rule, if applied to a proclamation suspending the entry of aliens who cross the southern border unlawfully, would bar such aliens from eligibility for asylum and thereby channel inadmissible aliens to ports of entry, where they would be processed in a controlled, orderly, and lawful manner,” the interim rule change states.

The ball’s in George Soros’ court now. How will he respond?

Read the entire press release below, via Justice.gov:

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Illegal Immigration: It's About Power


Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.


By Andrew C. McCarthy
NationalReview.com

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children.

Status questions about the children of aliens have moved to the fore in recent months. Central Americans, enticed by laws that perversely incentivize illegal immigration, have sought entry en masse at our southern border. This week, with an oncoming “caravan” of migrants galvanizing President Trump’s base on the eve of the midterm elections, these questions have stoked a heated debate — with all the shopworn smears of racism and bad faith that are now staples of American public discourse.

In campaign mode, the president floated the idea of issuing an executive order that would purport to deny “birthright citizenship,” i.e., to end the policy of granting American citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents who are not legally present here. I highlight “purport” and “policy” because the president’s opponents counter that these newborn children of illegal aliens are granted citizenship by the Constitution, specifically, by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the argument goes, this grant of citizenship is not a mere policy but a command of the highest law of the land; it may not be reversed by an executive order, or even by a law of Congress, the branch empowered to set the terms of citizenship.

That is a lot of weight to put on an amendment that had nothing to do with regulating aliens — an amendment ratified in 1868, a time when there was no federal-law concept of illegal aliens.
 

State Responsibility

Rarely noticed in our era of the Beltway Behemoth is how sparse the Constitution is on the matter of central-government power over aliens. The naturalization clause is the beginning and the end of it. Congress was given the power to prescribe what aliens needed to do to become Americans. But there is not a word in the Constitution about law enforcement, nothing about which aliens would be allowed into the country, or on what conditions they would be permitted to stay.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Flashback-Sen. Harry Reid: 'No Sane Country' Would Grant Birthright Citizenship


By Craig Bannister
CNSNews.com

Iconic Democrat Harry Reid, a Nevada senator in 1993, declared that “no sane country” would grant citizenship to illegal aliens and their children born in the U.S.

In a speech on the Senate floor on September 20, 1993, Sen. Reid said America can neither reward illegal entry into the U.S., nor afford to pay for the services taxpayers would have to fund if it did:

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?

“No sane country would do that, right? Guess again.

“If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that’s a lot of services.”

The incentive for illegal aliens to have babies in the U.S. is both obvious and costly to taxpayers, Sen. Reid said:

“Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born - at taxpayer expense - in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mother?”

 

Bowing to union pressure, Sen. Reid recanted his remarks in 1999, Fox News reports:

"Reid reversed his position in 1999 and apologized for his stance, shortly after the union group AFL-CIO, which holds significant political sway nationally and in Nevada, changed its position to support birthright citizenship. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Reid has since called his speech "way up high" on his "list of mistakes," and in 2006 he referred to it as a "low point" of his legislative career."

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)