Reply With Quote
lol pjmedia
In two ing weeks, es.
WHOA: Border Crossings Down 93%
lol pjmedia
So, it's not true? From what source would you accept this fact?
I would certainly accept figures from the DHS inspector general, for example. You know, the en y that actually oversees the DHS.
Hard to know if it's true unless we actually have figures, not soundbites.
And lol pjmedia
Does the DHS IG follow and report such figures?
PJMedia was only reporting what the head of the CBP claimed.
DHS does, I don't think they've published any in the last two weeks. The problem is that you can't trust a word this administration says, starting at the top, tbh...
Given that the IG role is to investigate the DHS when they make up, I think that'd be a good bet to get actual valid numbers.
Okay. I guess we'll wait until ElNono's trusted source surfaces...
tbh, with this president, who wants to come to the US? How many border crossings to Mexico and Canada?
What does that mean?
...It means that Trump set Kamala's top rung on the curb and told her..."Now, say good night."
Amen & hallelujah!
I'm good with that.
I suspect self-deportation is up but, I don't know where that's being tracked. I'm pretty sure, if you show up on the American side of the border, as an illegal alien from another country, CBP will hold the door for you on the way out.
unless Trump starts purging judges, this will keep happening on a lot of fronts
what Trump really needs is a Reichstag fire and an enabling law to let him cut through red tape otherwise known as the US Cons ution and get rid of the pesky judges and public officials standing in his way
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bir...c647a8c080c3e3A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a second nationwide pause on President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. to someone in the country illegally, calling citizenship a “most precious right.”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman said no court in the country has endorsed the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“This court will not be the first,” she said.
She added: “Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the 14th Amendment to the Cons ution.”
already fudging the numbers, in the most crassly misleading way possible -- taking credit now for actions that happened years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tations-googleNews of mass immigration arrests has swept across the US over the past couple of weeks. Reports from Massachusetts to Idaho have described agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) spreading through communities and rounding people up. Quick Google searches for Ice operations, raids and arrests return a deluge of government press releases. Headlines include “ICE arrests 85 during 4-day Colorado operation”, “New Orleans focuses targeted operations on 123 criminal noncitizens”, and in Wisconsin, “ICE arrests 83 criminal aliens”.
But a closer look at these Ice reports tells a different story.
That four-day operation in Colorado? It happened in November 2010. The123 people targeted in New Orleans? That was February of last year. Wisconsin? September 2018. There are thousands of examples of this throughout all 50 states – Ice press releases that have reached the first page of Google search results, making it seem like enforcement actions just happened, when in actuality they occurred months or years ago. Some, such as the arrest of “44 absconders” in Nebraska, go back as far as 2008.
All the archived Ice press releases soaring to the top of Google search results were marked with the same timestamp and read: “Updated: 01/24/2025”
what bull
The lawyer noticed a strange pattern. In almost every state, at least one press release from Ice’s website appeared in Google’s top results. Nebraska, for example, surfaced links for two press releases. One said “ICE executes federal search warrants in Nebraska”, the other said “ICE fugitive operations team arrests 44 absconders”. Both displayed their dates of publication as 24 January 2025 on Google search. But when the lawyer clicked through to the report, the actual dates of publication were August 2018 and June 2008, respectively.
“I’ve now done it in all 50 states … and I’ve done it in multiple cities. And it’s the same thing,” the lawyer said. “They all had the last update of 1/24/2025 and they were all popping up at the front of the algorithm.”
Maria Andrade, a longtime immigration lawyer in Idaho, says Ice arrests have been scant in the state so far. “We had one that didn’t result in detention,” she said. “I haven’t heard of mass arrests in any area at all.”
Yet the first result for a Google search of “ice arrests Idaho” is a press release from Ice saying 22 people were arrested in an “enforcement surge”. The date of publication displayed in the search results is 24 January 2025, but the operation actually happened in July 2010. Andrade said that arresting 22 people would have been a high number for Idaho and that such incidents are extremely rare, given the minimal number of Ice agents, rural terrain and extreme weather. If so many people were arrested in one sweep in Idaho last month, she said, she’d know about it.
Well, unlike Democrats, he's willing to work within the system...and within the Cons utional constraints. The U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not the infants of illegal aliens, born on U. S. soil, should be awarded citizenship. I suspect President Trump isn't surprised by any of the moves to thwart his objective here.
What horse , by the plain language of the 14th amendment and according to ~ 160 years of precedent, anyone born in the US is a citizen.
Infants born in the US to "illegal aliens" are citizens and explicitly have been since the 1860s.
Read the Congressional Globe from the time, they debated this and they knew what they were doing. There's zero ambiguity as to the intent.
A Reagan judge spells it out
In a Seattle courtroom late Thursday morning, Ronald Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a nationwide injunction from the bench prohibiting the government from enforcing the executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20.
The judge had sharp words for the effort to do away with the long-established cons utional right — an effort that has itself become sharply divisive.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Coughenour intoned. “The rule of law, according to him, is something to navigate around or simply ignore.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...an/ar-AA1yxZzE“Birthright citizenship is a fundamental cons utional right,” Coughenour said. “The 14th Amendment secures the blessings of liberty to our posterity by bestowing on all those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction the right of citizenship. We are all citizens subject to the rule of law. No amount of policy debate can change that.”
The judge said the government is attempting to issue “a cons utional amendment under the guise of an executive order” and said that effort “is equally uncons utional.”
That's where people [meaning legal scholars - not you and me] disagree. Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas Law Professor holds that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was not intended to grant citizenship to the children of individuals who entered or remained in the country unlawfully. He contended that extending birthright citizenship to such individuals is an irrational public policy that incentivizes illegal immigration. He and other scholars believe the questions of birthright citizenship centers around the cons utional language, "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Everyone agrees that merely being born here [your scholars and mine] agree there are two parts to birthright citizenship. 1) You have to be born on U. S. soil and 2) you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
The disagreement come with what is meant by #2. However, if you ask the author of the 14th amendment, he would clearly tell you the 14th amendment applies only to people under the FULL jurisdiction of the United States. If you want to understand the difference between full and limited jurisdiction, I suggest you do some reading. Bottom line, for those relying on the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark as proof that illegal alien babies are automatically citizens, courts and other legal experts (not me) claim the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't discuss the births of illegal aliens in this ruling or any other ruling made since the 14th was ratified. Therefore, the question needs be answered and Trump's Executive Order will be the vehicle by which this question can be answered.
He has some great legal minds and a body of law to support the position that babies, born to illegal aliens, on U. S. Soil, are not automatically citizens because they are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. I agree, there are great legal minds on the other side. That's why I'm trying to be reasonable with you and not claim your position, in opposition is "horse ." It's not. It has support. The question has never been taken up by the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will now. US v Ark only addressed the status of children born to legal immigrants.
See above.
I've read the opposing view, I simply disagree after studying the matter. May I suggest you re-read the Cons ution. Then, read the 14th amendment's author's (Republican Senator Jacob Howard's) intent by including the language "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...," finally read what people with an opposing point of view have to say, such as Professor Graglia.
I'll help you out and tell you what the author said about the matter of jurisdiction but, if you won't take my word for it, look it up. They're in the Congressional Globe, as well. Just not the discussion forum but, in the actual Congressional Record.
When asked, in 1866, to provide specific insights into the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," he said:
He further clarified that this provision would:
Remember, Ark was born to legal immigrants. That's the distinction that needs to be clarified by the courts. Trump's executive order is the vehicle being used to get it in to adjudication. Now, maybe we'll get an answer.
I'd be interested to know how your sources at the Congressional Globe forum parsed that language to mean anything other than that babies born to illegal aliens are not automatically granted citizenship.
I'll wait for the U. S. Supreme Court to weigh in before I declare your position "horse ."
if I understand what you're saying, the argument is that we've had the 14th amendment wrong from the very beginning, but no one thought to challenge it until now
So, the case advances. The Seattle judge isn't the final arbiter, no matter who appointed him.
He could've written that.
Clearly.
Why not?
The words existed back then.
You need to make excuses for this guy too?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
