TheEpochTimes.com

Among President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for immigration is a move to end a longstanding practice of granting something known as “birthright citizenship” to children whose parents are illegally present in the United States.

How exactly Trump will change policies within agencies is unclear, but experts indicate he has options.

Regardless, revoking birthright citizenship could impact waves of new illegal immigrants and change the incentives for so-called birth tourism, wherein an expectant mother arrives in the United States just before giving birth.

WriterJonHall.substack.com

A Democrat-led bill getting little to no attention would guarantee a presidential win to the candidate who wins the popular vote in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill has already been passed in 17 states and DC, amassing 209 electoral votes. If it gets 61 more electoral votes, it will go into effect.

Colorado, New Mexico, Delaware, and Oregon have been the latest states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - or NPV - as recently as 2019.

The NPV would see states going to the candidate that accrues the majority of the popular vote nationally instead of being awarded electoral college votes from winning popular vote in that state.

Infowars.com

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday the State of New Jersey’s AR-15 rifle ban is unconstitutional but somehow allowed a limit on magazines over 10 rounds to remain.

FPC WIN: A New Jersey federal judge has struck down the state's ban on the Colt AR-15 for self-defense within home, saying that they "are commonly owned throughout the United States": https://t.co/XrjnZkLuVj pic.twitter.com/WCZjiYADhR

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 30, 2024

This is a classic presentation by Dan Smoot back in 1966, a wonderful reminder of how the United States Government was intended to function. Daily we hear politicians and media screaming about how "our democracy is at risk!" Well, hell yes. THEIR FORM OF GOVERNING IS A DEMOCRACY NOT A REPUBLIC AS IT SHOULD BE!

Infowars.com

A pair of Democrat lawmakers introduced a bill that would effectively outlaw militias in the United States.

Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) introduced the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act” on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol protests.

The bill seeks to limit most militia activity, creating criminal penalties for people who engage in certain conduct including intimidating elected officials, interfering with government proceedings and pretending to be law enforcement.

Markey claimed the bill will prevent another Jan. 6 incident while citing fake news about the events that transpired.

“Three years ago, white supremacists affiliated with paramilitary organizations stormed the U.S. Capitol, shattering windows, walls, and the families of five U.S. Capitol police officers,” Sen. Markey said in a news release earlier this month.

TheGatewayPundit.com

Governor Greg Abbott (R) invoked Texas’ Constitutional authority to defend itself against the lawless Biden Regime.

Abbott escalated his fight against Joe Biden on Wednesday after the US Supreme Court sided with the Biden Regime and allowed Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire installed on the Texas-Mexico border.

Full statement from Abbott:

“The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now,” reads the statement. “President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants. The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.”

: 10 minutes or less.  : 11- 36 minutes.   : Over 36 min. Fun:

•   Dan Smoot - Our Form of Government is Supposed to be a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy
  This is a classic presentation by Dan Smoot back in 1966, a wonderful reminder of how the United States Government was intended to function. Daily we hear politicians and media screaming about how "our democracy is at risk!" Well, hell yes. THEIR FORM OF GOVERNING IS A DEMOCRACY NOT A REPUBLIC AS IT SHOULD BE!
• Wild Bill - Convention of States of Confusion
  There is nothing wrong with our Constitution and efforts to open up a convention to modify it is as dangerous as tap dancing in a mine field.

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.

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."

By Walter E. Williams
TheDailyWire.com

One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution":

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.

If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh's confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man — Judge Kavanaugh — whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.