Category Archives: Illegal Immigration

Bill Lockwood: Illegal Immigration and Christianity

by Bill Lockwood

I worship with a church that supports a missionary family in Cape Town, South Africa. Several churches of Christ in the United States have pooled their resources to finance the work there, which includes feeding the poor in a soup kitchen, providing shelter to those who live in cardboard boxes, and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. The giving of our finances in the church is, of course, strictly voluntary.

What do Americans think of my preaching that we all need to assist the poor in foreign countries and “preach good tidings” to them? Obviously, they recognize that is my right. Most would probably agree that such works need be funded by American dollars.

But it is also their right to reject that work. They may prefer works closer to home than South Africa. What then if, in reaction to their rejection, I would then insist that all MUST give to this specific work or be counted as unchristian and hard-hearted? I could add some biblical warnings about assisting others in need and threatening the judgment of God if they did not.

Some may answer—“look here, we support other works that are just as charitable. Why do you insist that we participate in the specific work you and your church are engaged in?” That itself would be a charitable answer seeing the approach I had taken. Others would probably ignore me. Still others would rightly question my ability to think clearly.

Let’s take it one step further. Suppose I have influence through powerful lobbyists in the legislature of the State of Texas. Because of my frustration with my fellows for their “lack of compassion” to those in South Africa, I work through these lobbying influences until legislation is passed in the State that mandates portions of public tax dollars to the South Africa work. Now everyone WILL support the work that I have been preaching!

What Has Occurred?

First, no one could classify the money that comes because of legal action as “charitable giving.” Legislative action does not spawn charity. The very reason “legislation” is passed is to compel compliance. Money may flow and people may benefit—but charity it is not. It is redistribution by force. The socialists dream. Not only so, but no one in their right mind would consider forcible redistribution a part of the “charitable giving” of the Congressmen who so legislated. They will not write this off on their tax returns.

Second, the legislative action has a deleterious effect on real avenues of giving. As long as the government compels from me more money to apply to one specific work that bureaucrats have selected, my ability to give to other needs that I personally would rather support has depleted. And how many charitable works are there that the government demands I sponsor? As many as there are legislators. That being the case, how much of my own money do I have remaining with which to support works that I select? Other works are just as fine as supporting missionary work in South Africa, but they will have to do with less.

Third, are those who oppose the legislation that FORCES tax money to flow to South Africa “unchristian?” Are they “uncharitable?” Shall I go about bellowing how “unchristian” my fellows are because they oppose that specific piece of legislation? Since it is not charity to begin with, it hardly is logical to say that those who oppose it are stingy, greedy, unchristian Scrooges. Common sense and even-handed reasoning recognizes that many people support many different causes and if you do not support the cause which I prefer it does not make you unchristian.

The Border

Now look at the southern border. Border states have been crying for as long as I have been alive for the federal government to do its job and curtail illegal crossings. But no politician has been brave enough—or desirous enough– to get that job done–until President Trump. President Obama even single-handedly, without constitutional authorization, negated some of our own laws in order to allow more foreigners to pour into America.

Now we are told we need to assist these foreigners from poor countries because that is our Christian duty! Translation: this is the charitable work that the liberal intelligentsia has selected for you to participate in, and money will be forced from your pocketbook to sponsor it. Not only so, but these poverty-stricken people that beg to come in will be housed in your neighborhoods at your expense. If you have misgivings about it, you are unchristian. Christian duty demands open borders, so the story goes.

Here are some questions. If it is Christianity to force Americans to pull down our border fences, is it not also Christian duty to allow the poor to camp in your front yard? Does ‘Love your Neighbor’ mean pull down the fence? Why are all of those who preach “open borders” shored up behind walled communities and housing area, normally in white middle-class neighborhoods? Is it not hypocritical to demand your neighbors to care for the poor, while we do very little? Why have front doors on our homes?

Shall American families be required to sponsor various families from south of the border? If so, should these families be forced to adopt-a-family by bringing them inside your homes? If not, why not?

If one selects some other charity work instead of the “open borders” program, is that less charitable? Is it necessary to follow the government’s agenda in order to be charitable? What if, as a Christian, I am for closing the border completely and funneling my resources to care for the poor among us?

Would it not be better just to GO to the country of origin of many of these people and do voluntary charity work there?

If I do NOT give charitably, should the government take control of my finances to make me be more charitable? Would that be charity at all?

Matt O’Brien: Mass Incarceration Remains a Myth, Mass Migration Is Still a Problem

by Matt O’Brien

The Intercept has published an article titled, “Immigration Detention Is Part of Mass Incarceration: The Case for Abolishing Ice and Everything Else.” It is, in essence a promotion piece for two unabashedly anti-Trump screeds: Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession With Locking Up Immigrants, written by law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández and All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It, by Daniel Denvir.

Both authors argue that the Trump administration’s attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement are not intended to preserve American sovereignty and national security. Rather, they claim, Team Trump is exploiting systemic racism, fear of migrants and a “mass incarceration problem” that undermines civil rights in the United States. Moreover, both García Hernández and Denvir assert – against the weight of historical evidence – that only recently has the U.S. government begun to take immigration violations seriously.

But, even for The Intercept, which is unabashedly anti-Trump and pro-open-borders, touting such over-the-top hyperbole is a bit much. Neither García Hernández’ nor Denvir’s claims have any validity whatsoever.

To begin with, the United States in its relatively brief history has received more immigrants than all the other nations of the world combined. Clearly, we don’t have any fear of migrants. Not to mention that, since immigrants aren’t a race – they come from every corner of the globe – it’s patently ridiculous to claim that being broadly in favor of border enforcement renders someone a “racist.”

When it comes to the detention of lawbreakers, the U.S. isn’t even close to having a “mass incarceration problem.” As Rafael A. Mangual of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, the U.S. does have a fair and impartial justice system. And that system regularly incarcerates violent felons and other serious criminals who pose a danger to the American public. What’s more, unlike many other countries in the world, the U.S. transparently reports the number of people it jails each year. Meanwhile, the notion that the U.S. regularly incarcerates people who simply don’t deserve to be in jail just isn’t supported by any objective data.

As far as the severity with which immigration offenses have been viewed throughout American history, both García Hernández and Denvir are way off base. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien Friends Act, which empowered the president to imprison or deport aliens believed to be “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”

In 1799, in Frie’s Case, Supreme Justice James Iredell applied the Alien Friends Act and related legislation. He noted that no one had ever argued, “that aliens had a right to go into a foreign country, and stay at their will and pleasure without any leave from the government.” Justice Iredell’s statement is proof positive that even the earliest government officials believed that foreign nationals may enter and remain in the U.S. only with the permission of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it’s a clear acknowledgement that the federal government has always had the authority to take enforcement actions against foreigners who enter the U.S. without permission or who exceed the bounds of permissions granted.

So, what’s up with The Intercept and the authors it cites? They believe that the actions of individuals are not a product of conscious choice. Instead, they see crime and illegal migration as things that people are forced into. And they consider anything other than total forgiveness for any type of criminal behavior to be immoral. It’s what Kurt Schlichter of Townhall.com calls “decriminalizing crime.” However, eliminating all restrictions on bad behavior only leads to chaos and the breakdown of the social order needed for the United States to remain successful.

American voters know that we don’t have a mass incarceration problem, we have an unchecked mass migration problem. That’s why they elected Donald Trump as president. He was the first candidate in five decades who seemed to understand their frustrations with immigration policies that put the desires of foreign nationals above American’s basic need for safety, security and economic stability.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/01/06/incarceration-illegal-immigration-criminals-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Matt O’Brien: Foreign Criminals Are Victims: Welcome to the New Way Forward

by Matt O’Brien

Democrats in the House of Representatives have proposed a new immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act. Although touted by the Sacramento Bee as, “[restoring] due process protections for all immigrants, including those in deportation proceedings, the bill does nothing of the sort. If enacted, what it would actually do is destroy the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and remove all distinctions between U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, and illegal aliens.

Among the New Way Forward Act’s provisions are the following radical departures from current legal norms:
• End mandatory detention of aggravated felons.
• Exempt drug traffickers from deportation.
• Place a five-year statute of limitations on all deportations.
• Grant all foreign immigration violators a right to release from detention on bail.

As an example of the alien criminals who would benefit from the New Way Forward Act, the Sacramento Bee points to Cuong Nguyen. Nguyen came to the U.S. as a refugee at age 11. However, when he was a grown man, he knowingly transported illegal drugs to pay off a debt owed by his father.

Nguyen was arrested, convicted and served 24 months in prison. INA § 101(a)(43)(B) explicitly states that illicit trafficking of a controlled substance is a deportable offense. Therefore Nguyen’s conviction rendered him subject to removal from the United States and ineligible for any relief.

According to New Way Forward Act sponsor Ayanna Pressley, that’s evidence of “racial and anti-immigrant injustices embedded in our immigration laws.” And that’s why, in her opinion, we need her bill.

But it should be obvious that it’s actually Pressley and her ilk who are being racist. Their approach to immigration law presumes that all non-European immigrants, no matter how long they have been in the United States, are hapless victims, forced into a life of crime by a racist system. It’s an example of what Bush ’43 speechwriter Michael Gerson labeled the “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Bizarrely, Pressley and her cohort make the “hapless victim” argument while simultaneously claiming that immigrants are essential to the U.S. because they are more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans. But that’s a prime example of cognitive dissonance in action. One can be a hapless victim, or one can be an intelligent individual in control of one’s own destiny. It’s impossible to be both.

People who care about the rule of law in the United States cannot afford to succumb to emotional caricatures that portray immigrants like two-dimensional characters in made-for-TV movies. The most just approach we can take is to hold immigrants to the same standards as we hold ourselves. In fact, one of the reasons immigrants want to come here is because we have a free and fair legal system.

So instead of asking how we can give foreign felons a greater chance to remain in the U.S., we should begin asking more important questions: Why do legislators like Ayanna Pressley balk at the notion of holding immigrants to the baseline requirements of our society – like holding down a job, supporting one’s children, and staying out of trouble with the law? And why do they exalt foreigners, even those who fail to live up to those baseline requirements, even as they deride honest, hard-working Americans as “racists” for simply expecting foreign guests to obey American laws?

In reality, the best way forward is to stop infantilizing immigrants and demonizing Americans. In a world inhabited by people, not cartoons, it isn’t remotely unfair to expect adults – immigrant or citizen – to accept responsibility when they commit serious crimes.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2019/12/20/illegal-aliens-crime-congress-sanctuary-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Bill Lockwood: Was Jesus a “Refugee?”

by Bill Lockwood

As reported by CNN, a Methodist church in California is displaying a nativity scene depicting Jesus, Mary and Joseph as refugees in cages to “draw attention to the conditions faced by migrants seeking asylum in the United States.” The Claremont United Methodist Church, which is about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, “posted the photo on its website showing the three held in separate cages topped with barbed wire. The baby Jesus is wrapped in a silver foil blanket.” The “lead pastor” Karen Clark Ristine told CNN that “we thought about the most famous refugee family in the world.”

The United Methodist Church, ever ready to warp biblical narratives into liberal political messages, has displayed a stunning ignorance of the Bible. As Gary DeMar observes, “Leftists have little regard for the Bible unless it can be used to scold Christians for judging righteously … and to support socialism based on a passage about voluntary giving (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-35).”

As I wrote in a former article, there are several biblical considerations that need be made. (1) God Himself established borders of nations. Read Acts 17:26. (2) God demanded that Old Testament Israel respect the borders of other nations. God gave Mt. Seir to Esau and his descendants for a “possession.” Therefore, Israel, when coming out of Egypt, was not to cross it (Deuteronomy. 2:5). The same regarded Israel’s respect of Moab’s borders.

(3) Once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned to “drive the Canaanites out.” The stated reason for this was to preserve the culture of Israel (Numbers. 33:51,52). (4) Even Abraham was deported once it was discovered that he lied to border agents. Read Genesis 12. (5) Regarding Jesus and the holy family, as DeMar notes, they were living within the confines of the Roman Empire. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus’ birth. Their escape from Bethlehem was only to another Roman Province. (6) Another command given to Joseph and Mary was that they were to return to their homeland after the death of Herod (Matthew. 2:20). DeMar asks, “How many refugees return to their home nations after entering the United States?”

Jesse Lee Peterson: SEND THE ILLEGALS BACK!

Jesse Lee Peterson blasts libs for refusing to admit truth about aliens

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Almost five years ago, I wrote about how then-president Barack Hussein Obama was a “deadbeat dad” to American children In his mission to fundamentally destroy America, not only did the Fallen Messiah attack Christians, whites and police, but he also abandoned America’s black children. Along with the deceptive liberal media, he pretended to care about illegal alien “children” by bringing them by the thousands into our country for votes. For decades, RINO Republicans and godless Democrats have catered to illegals, exploiting them for power, politics and cheap labor – to the detriment of American society.

For over 29 years, I’ve spoken out against illegal immigration on behalf of blacks who bear the brunt of the chaos brought by open borders. Illegal aliens and their children often end up in black communities, take black jobs, crowd their hospitals and schools, and fight with black children.

In 2007, I wrote about the rise in “brown-on-black” violent crime, ignored by false black “leaders.”Newark’s then-mayor Cory Booker, a black Democrat now running for president, defended “sanctuary city” policies. Booker was unconcerned about “immigration status” after six Hispanics allegedly executed three black teens in his city. The illegal alien ringleader behind the murders, Jose Carranza, was out on bail from charges of repeatedly raping a 5-year old girl. (Donald Trump was right when he talked about drugs, crime and rapists coming up to America through Mexico, in his 2015 presidential campaign announcement.)

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Police, federal authorities, and even the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center sounded the alarm on anti-black ethnic cleansing by Hispanic criminals. The Mexican Mafia ordered Latino gangs to target, intimidate, terrorize and even kill black citizens at random. Violent attacks have been documented across L.A. County since the early 1990s. Latino street gang members admitted to a racially motivated firebombing attack on black families at a Boyle Heights housing project on Mother’s Day in 2014. Just last year, the Hispanic suspects agreed to plead guilty to so-called “hate crimes” as part of a plea deal.

Blacks have been replaced in their own neighborhoods, in the workforce and even as the favored “victim” group of the wicked Democrat Party. Now blacks have been overtaken by Hispanics as the dominant “minority.” Liberal and RINO intellectuals whom I interview on my talk shows outright deny this reality, that blacks are affected first and foremost by illegal immigration. They don’t care about black people. And they cannot admit what’s plain as day by a mere glance at once-black communities such as Compton, California. Blacks are fleeing the cities back to the South to escape the madness.

On July 4, 1996, members of my nonprofit organization, BOND, and I participated in a Prop 187 rally outside the federal building in Los Angeles. (California Republican Governor Pete Wilson signed a voter-passed 1994 Proposition 187 to ban healthcare, education and welfare services for illegal aliens. Disgracefully, a liberal female judge later struck it down as “unconstitutional.” Liars pretend this law was why weak RINO Republicans lost California to the Democrats.)

At the protest, angry pro-illegal alien activists threw objects at us. A white male friend of mine was struck in the head by a frozen coke can. A Hispanic female Univision reporter asked him if he was “racist” as he stood bleeding from the head He and I confronted the “journalist” for asking such a dumb question – she tried to ignore me because I was black and on his side. Whites are so hated that they’re blamed even as victims of Hispanic crime. The mission of liberals is to defame and degrade white men, the last demographic standing in their way.

Twenty years later, nothing’s changed: In 2016, we saw this same violence in California cities Costa Mesa and San Jose where Hispanic thugs assaulted and bloodied white people at Trump rallies. Whites are scapegoated, smeared and victim-blamed while criminals “of color” get special treatment from the media and government.

Liberals, whoring for votes, call white conservatives “racist” because most whites have the good sense to oppose illegal immigration. The slanderous accusation of “racism” (which doesn’t even exist) intimidates many whites into submission while they surrender their country to the children of the lie. This silence means many “minorities” grow up in an echo chamber of liberal lies, in schools, mainstream and social media, and even their liberal churches. They never hear the truth. The lie sounds familiar and comfortable to them, while truth sounds foreign.

Illegals have no right to be here. It’s immoral that they sneak in and stay here illegally, bringing their socialist mindset from “s–hole countries.” The media and government gaslight Americans by lying about the problem, calling illegal aliens “asylum seekers,” “undocumented immigrants” and “economic refugees,” feeding illegals’ entitlement mentality.

Only President Trump, whom I call the Great White Hope, cared enough about black people – and all Americans – to declare a national emergency. Trump has fought to build the wall, enforce “zero tolerance” for illegal border crossers, and called for ending “birthright citizenship” for “anchor babies.” Now he’s calling for mass deportations, which I fully support: Send them back!


WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/send-the-illegals-back/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: HYPOCRITES! DEM MAYORS AGHAST AT TRUMP PLAN FOR ILLEGALS

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson notes, ‘last refuge for liberal scoundrels is to name-call’

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Fed up with Democrats refusal to help stop illegal aliens from flooding into the U.S. across the southern border, President Donald Trump said he is “giving very strong consideration” to a plan to bus detained illegal aliens to so-called sanctuary cities.

Donald Trump said in a tweet that the radical left always seems to have an open-borders, open-arms policy, so his proposal should make them very happy. Trump also said that the Border Patrol is apprehending thousands of people every day, and because of current law they are only allowed to be held in custody for 20 days before being released into the U.S.

Liberals are throwing a nasty temper tantrum over Trump’s plan. President Trump and Libby Schaaf, mayor of Oakland, Calif., a sanctuary city, traded barbs on Twitter. Mayor Schaaf also appeared on NPR and responded by saying, “This an outrageous abuse of power and public resources … using families and children – human beings – as political retribution. … I am proud to be the mayor of a sanctuary city. We believe they’re safer. … We embrace the diversity. …”

Despite all the great things Schaaf said about illegals, she was evasive and dishonest about whether she would accept busloads of illegals in Oakland. Instead, the mayor responded by calling the president “racist.” The last refuge for liberal scoundrels is to name-call. The children of the lie don’t have truth on their side, so they will always resort to name-calling and lies to silence their critics. Liberals also knowingly conflate the issue of illegal immigration with legal immigration in order to confuse and deceive the public.

Libby Schaaf is the same Democrat mayor who helped illegal aliens convicted of crimes to evade ICE and other law enforcement agencies as they tried to execute warrants on criminals in the city, endangering the lives of law-abiding citizens. In 2017, California passed a “sanctuary state” law limiting cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials.

So, if sanctuary cities like Oakland are “safer” and better, why don’t Schaaf and other liberal mayors do as President Trump suggested and take in more of them? Let’s bring the illegal aliens to Oakland and other sanctuary cities and let Schaaf welcome them.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

The people who have to live with these non-English speaking, unskilled illegals are mostly black. They have to compete for the jobs, services, and their kids have to go to overcrowded schools and hospitals overrun by illegals. The schools in these Democrat-run sanctuary cities are already in terrible shape. The hospitals are awful. The infrastructure in these cities is already collapsing, and sanctuary city policies are only making things worse.

Criminal violence is already out of control. Police are already undermanned an outgunned, and now they want to add thousands of illegal aliens – some of whom already have gang ties and are criminals. This is a bad situation. It’s also creating an even bigger war between blacks and Hispanics. It will further stress our law enforcement and city services – it’s a powder keg waiting to explode, but maybe this is what the left wants: to stress the system to the point where lawlessness and chaos consumes our cities. I wouldn’t put it past the children of the lie – they are wicked and they’ll do anything to usher in socialism.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, an Obama devotee and open-borders mayor, said in a statement, “We would welcome these migrants with open arms.”

While Rahm has been welcoming illegals, thousands of black Americans are fleeing Chicago each year because of the high cost of living and to escape the gang violence. Chicago’s black population is on track to shrink to 665,000 by 2030 – down from a peak of about 1.2 million, according to the Urban Institute. Hispanics immigrants (legal and illegal) are replacing blacks.

According to a new report from the University of Illinois at Chicago titled “Corruption in Chicago and Illinois,” the Windy City ranked as the most corrupt big cities in the nation. Chicago recently elected Lori Lightfoot as mayor, another no-good liberal Democrat. This corruption was front and center in the way the city and state mishandled the Jussie Smollett racial hoax.

Democrats Libby Schaaf and Rahm Emanuel welcome illegals as long as they don’t have to live next to them, their kids don’t have to school with them, and they don’t have to use the same hospitals and services.

For Democrats, it’s all about buying future votes. Democrats in the New York State Assembly recently voted down a bill that would have allowed hundreds of thousands of dollars in college tuition aid to family members of Gold Star families after passing a measure earlier last week to give $27 million in the same benefits to illegal immigrants. What a shame!

It’s time for these Democratic mayors to put up or shut up. Let these sanctuary mayors and cities absorb these illegals, and let’s see how they fare.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/hypocrites-dem-mayors-aghast-at-trump-plan-for-illegals/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment and The Immigration Invasion

by Bill Lockwood

Some estimate the number of Central American citizens marching northward through Mexico to the United States to be upward of 14,000. Eighty percent of these immigrants are men younger than 35 years old. President Trump has issued a state of emergency and U.S. troops are being deployed to the Mexican border.

In the wake of this looming invasion of the sovereignty of the United States, several issues are being pushed to the forefront of national attention. The most notable is the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its so-called Citizenship Clause. “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.”

Many cultural leaders and Constitutional commentators insist that these clauses mean that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students, or children born of illegal aliens who are unlawfully residing within our geographical boundaries automatically become U.S. citizens. This is known as “Birthright citizenship.”

This, however, is not what the text of the Constitution says or means, in spite of the fact that many people think that it does. For example, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune argues for birthright citizenship.

Chicago Tribune

“Trump eyes order to end birthright citizenship. Legal experts say that would violate Constitution,” blares the  headline.

President Donald Trump is vowing to sign an executive order that would seek to end the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizens, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution and that was dismissed Tuesday by the top House Republican.”

John Wagner, a writer for The Washington Post and author of the above lines, adds that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the idea in a recent radio interview, explaining that Trump’s proposal is not consistent with the Constitution. Ryan explained that not only can Trump not end “birthright citizenship” with an executive order, but that Republicans did not like it when Barack Obama changed immigration policy by executive action.

At the risk of taking on the Establishment legal experts but having confidence in the fact that the Constitution was written for all to understand, these “legal experts”, including Paul Ryan, are flat wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the “choke points” designed to minimize the likelihood “that an arguably unconstitutional federal law would pass and take effect” is the plain supposition that the Constitution speaks “not merely to federal judges, but rather to all branches and ultimately to the people themselves” (Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 62-63).

The Civil War Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments to the Constitution that was adopted in post-Civil War America. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship and guaranteed the rights of former slaves; and the Fifteenth Amendment granted the vote to African-American men.

The point of today’s conflict resides in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which actually reads: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the United States. Those who advocate birthright citizenship ignore the qualifying phrase.

What is the Meaning of the 14th Amendment?

First, consider Original Intent of the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson pointed out the obvious, that “original intent” is the only legitimate interpretation.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

This canon of interpretation is obvious, but Jefferson knew there were and would be forces which twist the meaning of written laws to make the Constitution conform to their desires.

James Madison agreed.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution … What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

James Wilson wrote that “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” And modern-day Justice Clarence Thomas underscored the point. If we are not interested in the “original intent” the Constitution has no more value than the latest football scores.

All such interpretive methodologies that speak of “various contexts” of the clauses of the Constitution, or that the text actually morphs over time and clime partake is nothing less than existential nonsense designed to free persons from the constraints of law.

Second, consider the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, specifically the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery within all the territories of the United States. It was adopted in December, 1865, only months after the conclusion of the Civil War. However, the 13th Amendment was found not to be enough.

Former slaves were forbidden to appear in “the towns in any other character than menial servants” and were required to reside upon and cultivate the land “without the right to purchase or own it.” They were excluded from many occupations of gain and were “not permitted to give testimony in the courts where a white man was a party” (Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application).

These and other similar circumstances brought about the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in July, 1868. The chief architect of the Amendment was Ohio politician John Bingham. However, it was Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship Clause in question.

During debate over the clause he assured his colleagues in the Senate that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States because, although born in the geographical boundaries of our nation, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Instead, they owed allegiance to their tribes.

One of Howard’s colleagues, Senator Lyman Trumball, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued in exactly the same manner. He explained to the Senate that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” That is as plain as it can be. Who can misread this? Illegal border crossers are not included in subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is for this reason the children of foreign diplomats do not automatically become citizens of the United States, although perhaps born on U.S. soil. There is no birthright citizenship.

Modern Constitutional writer Hons von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center, explains further:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Liberals prefer to believe that anyone present in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of America. That is false, as a plain reading of the 14th Amendment shows, as well as the intention of its framers. Foreigners who jump our borders owe allegiance to other nations and are not only not citizens, neither are their children, though they may be born on this soil.

The above being the case, how did Americans, even lawmakers, come to adopt the position that “birthright citizenship” is the law of the land? Only by bureaucratic overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. This is a perfect illustration of how governing authorities stretch the meaning of the Constitution to unlawful lengths, then assert their unauthorized position so frequently that the idea becomes settled as if it really is the law of the land.

Americans should be thankful for a president like Donald Trump who is bold enough to take on the establishment and its pretended authority to tell us what the Constitution means. The current crisis in immigration is caused solely by Big Government bureaucrats who have twisted the Constitution into their own mold and a complaisant citizenry which allows them to do so.

Jesse Lee Peterson: DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN

DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN – ILLEGAL OR AMERICAN– Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson targets latest manufactured political crisis

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Every other week Democrats manufacture a new political crisis.

This time, they’re wailing about illegal alien children being separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow cried on TV while reporting on this issue. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-MD, feigned outrage during a hearing on this matter. Actor Peter Fonda called for 12-year-old Barron Trump to be ripped from his mother’s arms and “thrown into a cage with pedophiles.”

As if that’s not bad enough, leftists stormed a Mexican restaurant and screamed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen while she was having dinner. Then they showed up outside her home blasting sounds of Hispanic children crying.

WikiLeaks also released the names and addresses of ICE employees to the public, endangering agents and their families.

The Trump administration isn’t the first to separate adults and children at the border – but it did step up the enforcement after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance” policy in dealing with illegal aliens who cross into the U.S.

A 2008 anti-trafficking statute dictates that certain minors must be taken out of immigration detention within 72 hours. The administration has also said it was forced to separate families because of the conclusion of a court case known as “the Flores Settlement.” That settlement, reached in 1997, required the government to limit the time it keeps unaccompanied minors in detention and to keep them in the least restrictive setting possible.

The children in HHS/ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) care are treated far better than in Mexico or Central America. They’re fed, given medical attention and educational programs.

But President Trump signed an executive order last week designed to keep together illegal alien families who have been detained at the border, while also retaining his administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

Why did the Trump administration step up enforcement in the first place?

According to Homeland Security, the number of people attempting to cross the southern border illegally has increased to more than 50,000 people per month. In June, there has been a 325 percent increase in unaccompanied children coming to the border since the previous year, and a 435 percent increase in families entering the U.S. illegally.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

According to the White House, the influx of unaccompanied minors coming across the U.S. border is being used by gangs, such as MS-13, to recruit new members; one-third of already-arrested MS-13 members and associates came into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.

There are hundreds of thousands of victims every year who are affected by illegal alien crime – homicides, rape, assault, vehicular manslaughter and identity theft.

According to a 2011 government report, the arrests attached to the criminal alien population included an estimated 25,000 people for homicide, 42,000 for robbery, nearly 70,000 for sex offenses, and nearly 15,000 for kidnapping.

In Texas alone, within the last seven years, more than a quarter-million criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses.

In 2016, more than 15,000 Americans died from a heroin overdose. More than 90 percent of the heroin comes from across the southern border.

Democrats cry for illegal alien children – encouraged to cross the border by their own parents – but what about the American children who’ve been killed by illegal aliens and permanently separated from their parents? CNN and MSNBC won’t air their stories. But President Trump hosted some of the families at the White House.

Among the “Angel” family members invited by the White House were:

  • Agnes Gibboney, who lost her son Ronald da Silva after he was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant gang member.
  • Juan Pina, who lost his 14-year-old daughter Christy Sue in 1990, allegedly at the hands of a Mexican national who raped and killed her. Her alleged killer was extradited from Mexico last month.
  • Michelle Wilson-Root, whose 21-year old daughter Sarah was killed in 2016 following a vehicular accident allegedly caused by drunk driver Edwin Mejia – who had entered the country illegally and, as a result of “catch-and-release” loopholes, was released into the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor.
  • Ray Tranchant, who lost his 16-year-old daughter Tessa in 2007 to an illegal alien driving drunk.

Democrats don’t care about American children. If they did, they wouldn’t try to hide or dismiss the plight of these families. They would address the issue of black flight from Democrat run cities like Los Angeles and Chicago due to violent illegal alien gangs.

They also don’t really care about illegal aliens or immigrants – they only want their votes. The hysteria at the border is a crisis encouraged by Democrats. They want to emotionalize this issue to give Democrats an issue to run on in the mid-term elections.

Recently, I interviewed Border Angels activist Juan Rosas on my show “The Fallen State.” Rosas believes illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens.

We the people must apply pressure on Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other RINOs to ensure that they stop the chaos at the border and approve the necessary funding for the border wall. Otherwise, our country will continue to be overrun by illegal aliens, and the border chaos will get worse.

WND: http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/democrats-dont-care-about-illegal-alien-or-american-children/#L9ybqf5vMdisImUk.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: The Bible and Illegal Immigration

The Bible and Illegal Immigration  “…those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell… “

by Bill Lockwood

As illegal immigration assists dragging our culture downward into a more godless, violent and confused society, it is shocking that many preachers, who should be reflecting biblical values, have taken the position that somehow the liberal multicultural goal of open borders is beneficial for evangelism. People are becoming confused as to whether or not America should even have boundaries and borders and whether it is godly to protect those borders.

First, God Himself established borders of nations. In Acts 17:26 Paul, speaking to Greeks in Athens, stated that “God has made of one, every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth; having determined their appointed seasons, and bounds of their habitation.

Note the several elements of the passage. (1) God has made of every nation one—or He made from one every nation of mankind. This is in direct opposition to the then current Greek belief that their own origin was superior to other races. (2) God determined their appointed times, that is, their divinely appointed periods. Nations do not rise and fall without God. It is not a survival of the fittest. (3) Boundaries of nations are divinely fixed. However modern man wishes to understand the providence of God, Paul plainly states that God has a hand in national boundaries.

The classic Old Testament text on this subject is Deut. 32:8. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance; When he separated the children of men …” The last comment, about “separating” the children of men refers to God’s division between peoples at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8).

Second, God demanded that Israel respect borders of other nations. As Israel came out of Egypt, the people were to by-pass some of the nations respecting their borders because God had given them that territory. One of those nations was Edom. “I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a possession,” said the Lord, therefore, Israel was not to enter it (Deut. 2:5). He said the same regarding the country of Moab.

Later (Num. 20), when Israel, under the leadership of Moses, applied to Edom to pass through its territory on their way toward Canaan, Edom said no. After a second application and refusal Israel turned to go another way. A nation has the right to determine who comes into its territory and even God’s selected leader Moses could not violate that right.

On the other hand, God had prior appointed that the territory of the Amorite and Canaanite (Palestine) would be given to Israel (see Deut. 1). This was a divine judgment upon those Canaanite nations (see Gen. 15:15-16) because of their extreme wickedness including child sacrifice.

Consider also the fact that at one point in Genesis history Abraham, God’s chosen, immigrated to Egypt (Gen. 12). Abraham, however, lied about the status of his wife Sarah at one of the checkpoints. When his lie was discovered by the Egyptians he was deported! God did not step in and demand that Abraham and his family be protected at the expense of the Egyptian government.

Third, once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned on multiple occasions to “drive the Canaanites out.” Even forty years previously, when Israel was still at Mt. Sinai, God had promised to drive out the inhabitants of the land (Exod. 33:2). Once Joshua took the leadership and conquered most of Canaan, he commanded the cooperation of the Israelites in “driving out” the Canaanites (e.g. Joshua 17:17-19).

The stated reason for driving out the nations that formerly inhabited Israel was to preserve the culture of Israel. The word “culture” itself refers to the religious presuppositions that lie beneath a society.

When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places [of idol worship], and ye shall take possession of the land …” (Num. 33:51,52)

Moses continued. “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (v. 55). That Israel did not drive out the Canaanite people from Israel is the theme of the book of Judges (see chapter 1). The rest of the book shows perfectly well what occurs when a culture is not preserved.

As one professor wisely told me, “marriage is not a reformatory school”—so also “open borders is not a missionary program.” It is a recipe for the disintegration and complete annihilation of what is left of America’s Christian culture.

After Israel’s settlement in Canaan each tribe had a sovereign boundary that was detailed in the sacred record (Joshua 15). Not only was tribal territory to be respected in Israel, but private property was considered sacred and one of the sins that was prosecuted was “moving boundary markers” of someone’s property—which is the same as stealing private land. In no text in Holy Writ does anyone find the concept that people are not to own private property or that there is no such thing as Israelite tribal territory or national boundaries.

Fourth, God forbade Israelites from making any personal and marital contracts with the pagan people that formerly inhabited the land. Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is emphatic. If individual Israelites mixed in marriage relationships with the idolaters and pagans known as the Canaanites, the pure religion of Israel would be eroded.

You shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; … for he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods …” For this reason, God instructed, “You shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.”

God strictly warned the Israelites again through Joshua, the next generation leader: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, The Lord will not continue to drive them out, but they will become a share and a trap for you; a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes until you perish from the land” (Joshua 23:12,13).

The point here is not to recommend an induction program for those seeking citizenship in the United States, but to point out that biblically speaking, the concept of sovereign borders is paramount in Old Testament Israel. The idea therefore that America should have no borders, and thereby no border enforcement, is certainly not biblical. There is nothing ungodly about having borders or boundaries around a nation and having boundaries implies that those whose boundaries they are have the right to manage them. Less than this is confusion on the face of the deep.

John Locke pointed out that unless society can provide a code of fixed and enforceable laws, man might as well stayed in the jungle (Skousen, 5,000 Year Leap, 244).

To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

Is America a sovereign nation? Many on the left apparently disdain that idea and are pushing for open borders. That may be their preference, but don’t come to the Bible with such an agenda.

« Older Entries