The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Constitutional or a Supreme Blunder?

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again demonstrated their fallibility and shortsightedness with their recent 6-3 decision regarding “birthright” citizenship just like their infamous 2010 “Citizens United” blunder, which essentially declared that the U.S. government was “for sale”, which has turned our nation from a democratic constitutional republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy and surveillance state.  

Originally the 14^th Amendment (adopted in 1868) was intended to offer citizenship to all formerly enslaved individuals in order to aid their full  integration into the society. It was never intended to provide legal cover for individuals attempting to sneak in our country in direct violation of both our immigration policies  and defiance of our national sovereignty or allow individuals born elsewhere to evade the steps to become a U.S. citizen while obtaining legal residency via a child born in the U.S., even if the parents are here in violation of our immigration laws.   

There’s no disagreement that a child born on U.S. soil of foreign parents should be entitled to American citizenship. However, should that still apply if the parents are here illegally, in violation of migration laws, and with no other intent than that of securing citizenship for their child in order to remain in the United States themselves? Thus, it appears the Supreme Court got lost among the trees and failed to see the forest much like it did with their 2010 Citizens United blunder.

America, like every other nation, has a strict immigration policy and process for anyone wishing to settle here. It also adheres to international law when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s worth mentioning that economic immigration (ie: finding a job or a better paying job) is NOT accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum.  

The United States also has the legal right as a sovereign nation to establish borders and enforce those borders. No different from any other country, including those from where these migrants originate (which, by the way, are far more stringent and brutal than anything we would impose).

The question now is what, if anything, we can do about it? The most obvious answer would be federal judicial term limits (as well as mandatory retirement at age 65). Restricting the amount of time an individual can remain on the Supreme Court would ensure the justices remained relevant not only of the current laws of this land, but also cognizant of the current political, economic, and social trends, as well as the mood of the country.

One justice latter admitted that a major reasons for the passage of Citizens United was their limited knowledge about money in politics.  I submit they may be equally ignorant when it comes to the cost of illegal immigration and the burden it imposes on the average taxpayer.

 As an aside, in case you were wondering, Congress itself conservatively estimates that the cost of illegal immigration in the United States is $183 billion dollars, up 37% since 2017. To put it another way, that’s roughly $8,776.00 per illegal immigrant annually. That’s how much you and I are paying out in tax dollars. The Supreme Court’s ruling just increased that costs that we must bear.

A second option, aside from mandatory term limits,  would be to transfer the costs of illegal immigration from the taxpayers to the responsible parties. Specifically, that means billing their country of origin the cost of absorbing their citizens. Now, I know some of you cynics out there are probably saying that they’ll never pay it, and you’re probably right.

However, to ensure that they do pick of the cost, we need only to deduct the cost from the foreign aid the U.S. State Department sends them annually. Not only does it keep some of our tax dollars at home, it provides a bit of “encouragement” for them to address the issue of illegal immigration from their end.

As an example, Mexico, which is the country of origin for most illegal immigrates, receives about $200 million dollars in foreign aid (remember again, that’s our tax dollars). Of that, $45.5 million goes directly to humanitarian aid which is supposed to address the immigration issue. By offsetting the cost to U.S. taxpayers, we would save that $8,776.00 we spend on each illegal immigrant, we also give them an added incentive to do more to prevent it on their end.

 As an aside, Nicaragua gets about $30 million each year in U.S. foreign aid. Honduras receives bout $200 million of our tax dollars annually in foreign aid  while El Salvador gets $230 million.  That’s a whole lot of money we---the American Taxpayer---could save by offsetting the costs.

Of course, we could impose a fine of the parents and require them to enter into a mandatory citizenship program which also requires that they learn English, and obtain gainful employment though a "Green Card to Citizenship" program, otherwise face deportation. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, this is unlikely to happen.   

Regardless of whether judicial term limits are imposed or we start passing on the cost illegal immigration back on to the country of origin, one thing is for sure. The American Taxpayer can not continue to bear the costs for governmental incompetence. We are not their “cash cow” to use whenever and however they want.

Issues like illegal immigration should be addressed by voters at the ballot box, along with other long term tax matters. Government (as well as both political parties) are supposed to represent us. Instead, it serves Wall Street. It’s past time that we remind them of that. What do you think?

 

The Cost of the Border Crisis Testimony to the House BudgetCommittee…May 8, 2024

Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on Constitutionalgrounds

Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

The Silent Crisis: The Growing Problem of Illegal Immigration, Abandoned Children, and Applicants for Foreign Worker Visas

Illegal immigration from Latin America into the United States has gone bad to worse since the end of 2020. The influx has been the result of  worsening economic conditions brought on by a rise in prices, stagnated wages, and an ever increasing unstable political situation cause by corruption and sanctions. Rising crime (particularly murder) triggered by the drug cartels and growing unemployment (in part due to the spread of Covid) made the situation even worse.

Additionally  best estimates put the number of illegal immigrants now living in the United States currently at over 11 million.  It's also worth noting that there currently 48 million foreign born residents living the U.S., an increase of 2.9 million under Biden.  That's 14.6% of the total population or one in seven residents.

The "Remain in Mexico" agreement (officially known as the "Migrant Protection Protocols" or "MPP") between Washington and Mexican authorities has recently ended, which has given would be immigrants, many of whom are trying to enter under the auspices of being an asylum seeker, a green light to flood across the border.  

The agreement was implemented under the Trump Administration and administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The program was terminated on June 30, 2022 due to a 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court following a lawsuit filed by the Biden Administration (Biden vs. Texas).

Under the "Remain in Mexico" program immigration officials and border agents in the U.S. were given some breathing room by requiring potential immigrants to remain on the Mexican side of border while their applications were being processed (due to the volume, the average processing time was about five years) with immigration judges often reporting a backlog of as many as 5,000 cases on their dockets.

Meanwhile, the number of "asylum seekers"  have gone from 400,461 in 2020 to 1,734,686 in fiscal year 2021 to 2,378,944 for the 2022 fiscal year, with most coming from so-called "Northern Triangle" nations of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

It should be noted that the United States recognizes only individuals being persecuted for racial, ethnic, political, or religious status by their government eligible for asylum. Individuals seeking entry for economic reasons are not recognized as legitimate candidates for asylum.  In addition, individuals seeking asylum are required by international law to apply for asylum in the next closest stable country, which in the majority of cases, is not the United States.  

As an aside, we often seen immigrants and proponents of open immigration carrying signs which read something like "No One is Illegal" seem to forget that while people aren't "illegal", their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system. People who don't follow the law often pay a price, be it fines, jail times, or, as in the case of most illegal immigrants, deportation. 

America, like every other sovereign nation on the planet, has the right to secure and protect its borders. There are laws and procedures for anyone wanting to enter the country. They are there to be followed, and are designed to help the would be immigrant as much as the intended host country. 

Secondly, trying to jump ahead of those waiting in line to immigrate is wrong. First, it's a violation of the law.  Why should your first act to become a resident of a new country be breaking its laws? It also punishes those who've taken the time to do the right thing and delays the already lengthy process even further. Would you want someone to do that to you?  Lastly, it depletes limited resources, which hurts new residents and applicants alike. 

The link below is to a short article published by the Council of Foreign Relations dated December 1, 2022. It goes into additional detail about the worsening illegal immigration crisis, especially the growing number of children dumped on the border and the rising number of applicants for Foreign Worker Visas. If you want to know more about the current status of our illegal immigration crisis, I urge you to read the CFR report below:

 

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

USCIS:Asylum

Remainin Mexico Policy

ForeignBorn Population Hits nearly 48 Million in September 2022

 

Migrant border crossings in fiscal year 2022 topped 2.76million , breaking previous record

Arrests along U.S.---Mexico border tops 2 million a year forthe first time

UNHCR: What is Asylum?

USCIS: Refugees and Asylum

Amnesty International: Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants

 

 

Children on the Border: Facing Illegal Immigration...Again

I find myself puzzled about the continuing waves of illegal immigrants showing up on our border, despite knowing they aren't welcomed. When I say "not welcomed", it's not racial, ethnic, or even class bias. It's because we're a nation of laws. We expect those wanting to come here to live to abide by those laws.

We're not asking for anything unusual or out of the ordinary. The same countries where these individuals come from have similar laws when it comes to immigration. If there's a difference, it's that their laws are harsher when dealing with illegal immigrants than ours.

Nevertheless, how do they not understand that they aren't welcomed to the United States as illegal immigrants? It's no secret. The U.S. has made it abundantly clear for over a century. If they sneak in, they'll be forever looking over their shoulder. If caught, they will be detained and quite likely deported. They risk losing everything, from their cars, furniture, and whatever else they may have. They may face prison time before being deported. Is this the life they want for themselves or their children?

Some ten thousand young adults and children are currently on our border, hoping to enter. Why just kids? It's because they hope that by being here without their parents, the media will run tear jerk pieces about them. They think we'll feel sorry for them and let them in despite our laws.

Of course, what we're not suppose to know is that once they've gained entry, they can request that their parents and family join them. That means not just mom and dad, but their brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. So for each individual who enters, you might end up with ten others.

As an aside, of those ten thousand or so young adults hoping to enter the US, some critics claim that up to 50% are positive for the COVID virus (the actual percentage ranges from 5% to 50%. Of those actually tested about 7% have been positive). Nevertheless, they have the same access to COVID vaccines in their native country as they would in the US.  But why would we allow anyone who tested positive or couldn't provide proof of vaccination into this country anyway?

Speaking of which, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), illegal immigrants bring a disproportionate amount of other infectious diseases with them due to the lax immunization requirements in their home country; most of which have been eradicated in this country.

These highly contagious diseases includes TB, mumps, measles, smallpox, influenza, leprosy, and polio. Other diseases commonly include syphilis, cholera, and chickenpox, and that's just to mention a few.  The Border Patrol reported spending over $700,000 on medical cost for 2018 alone.

So, you and I will find ourselves having to support these kids and ultimately, their families with our tax dollars. Most Americans are already taxed to the breaking point, and yet we're being expected to pay more?  So, why are churches, religious institutions, social group, and businesses  encouraging all these thousands of individuals to come here illegally?

I'm sure some believe their actions are motivated  by good intentions or that they have some "moral" imperative which supersedes national or even global laws. Meanwhile, others are looking at self interest such as cheap and disposable labor; a way to bypass labor, safety, health laws or minimum wage (if they're here illegally, who are they going to complain to?).

From a political perspective, Democrats have been the most vocal supporters of illegal immigration. Despite their high minded claims about compassion, their true motive is all about building up their numbers into a undefeatable majority; one that will all but deny Republicans public office at the national level, and quite possibly even the state and local levels as well.

Of course, that means not just getting them into the country, but giving them the right to vote. Some states with Democratic majorities have already started moving in that direction by allowing illegal immigrants to vote at the local level such as the nine metro governments in Maryland and in San Francisco California. Meanwhile, two states, Arizona and North Dakota, allow illegals to vote in non-federal elections.

Meanwhile, efforts by the Democrats to give illegals already in this country "amnesty" goes on nonstop in the hope they'll register Democrat. Ironically, it was the Republicans under President Reagan which was the first party to extend amnesty to illegals already living in the country back in 1986.

Currently, just under 70% of eligible Hispanics are registered as Democrats while 83% of blacks identify as Democrats. Asians on the other hand, tend to register non-partisan or Independent. However, they lean Democrat when they vote, depending on the local majority. 

By the next presidential election, there will be an estimated 32 million Hispanics eligible to vote, which is about two million more than the number of potential black voters, making Hispanics the most important minority demographic in the country. Additionally, around 11 million Asians available to vote. However, about 13% of Hispanics don't vote. Why?

They are simply here for work; not to vote, become a citizen or even learn the language. They just want a job and earn enough money to send part of it home to help their family there. This money is critical in keeping local economies going, which, in turn, actually helps to prop up the national government.

Some estimates indicated that approximately 15% of the money earned by these individuals is sent home (the average check is about $250-$300, which doesn't sound like much, but given the cost of living in some countries, $250 could spend like $1000). The most recent study shows that local communities receive as much as $150 billion dollars yearly from this informal "foreign aid".

It's worth nothing too that while roughly 13% Hispanics don't vote, the second largest minority, blacks, do, and they turn out in high percentages. Combined, black, Hispanic, and Asian voters will make up just under half of all eligible voters in America by the next presidential election.

This is compounded by the fact that in states where the Hispanic vote is growing the fastest include states with largest number of Congressional representatives like California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Other key states are New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, Colorado, Arizona, Illinois and Georgia. The end result? More bang for the buck...or vote.

There's another interesting perspective to consider. Independents are the country's largest voting bloc, followed by Democrats and  Republicans. Politically appointed committees and boards go to the largest voting bloc, Independents are denied their fair share of seats at all levels of government. Not exactly "fair and equal" elections is it?

On state and local levels, illegal immigrants usually find themselves on taxpayer funded programs. Many are coached by various religious or church backed organizations on how to sidestep local, state, or federal laws and avoid the authorities. Others learn by word of mouth. Either way, they end up getting taxpayer based services they are neither entitled to or paid for through their tax dollars.

The group most adversely affected by this (aside from taxpayers), are existing low income families who are citizens, either by birth or naturalized. Since there is a fixed budget, the increasing numbers of illegal immigrates, by virtue of their numbers alone, redirect services to them and away from U.S. citizens.  Just how does illegal immigration cost taxpayers?

Because of different reporting requirements, it's difficult to give a precise answer. However, the best estimate is around $116 billion dollars a year though estimates go as high as $135 billion when you factor in lost revenue from payroll and property taxes, medical cost, etc. The residents of Florida, California, and Texas,  pay the lion's share of that with $6 billion, $23 billion, and $11 billion respectively. Rounding out the rest of the top ten states are New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. However, no state is unaffected.

So, the issue of young adults and smaller children on the border is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to consider. Most of those wanting to enter the U.S. admit they are doing so strictly for economic reasons.

The United Nations does not recognize economic migration as a legitimate requirement for anyone seeking "asylum" (neither does Amnesty International for that matter). Those seeking political or religious asylum are required, by international law, to go to the closest non-hostile country. Unless there's something happening in Northern Mexico, that isn't the United States.

We also face integration issues by those coming here who refuse to integrate. By integration, we are talking about use of the English language, and the adherence of our laws, customs, and traditions. In short, becoming Americans. That creates divisions in this country. Do we really want that? If you go elsewhere as an immigrant, you're expected to integrate. So why not here?

Another potential problem is obviously health issues. Many of  these individuals bring with them diseases which have long been eradicated from this country. Those entering illegally are not screened, which presents a serious national threat.

While political parties use these individuals as pawns in their partisan power grab game, religious institutions use them to increase their membership, and hopefully their coffers, as well as their political clout. Essentially the same as some cash strapped unions, forgetting that these are flesh and blood human beings. Unscrupulous businesses see warm bodies trapped and unable to do anything but work low paying jobs. 

Immigration is the right of every individual. So is seeking sanctuary due to ethnic, racial, or religious persecution. However, there are laws and guidelines to follow. America has always been a welcoming country. We are a nation of immigrants. Nevertheless, like every other country on this planet, we expect our immigration laws to be adhered to. Coming to this or any other country illegally is not just wrong. It also shows a disrespect for that country, its laws, and its people.  

 

Remittances matter: 8 facts you don't know about the money migrants send back home

Mapping the 2020 Latino Electorate

Key facts about Black eligible voters in 2020 battlegroundstates

Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Report: Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $116 billion annually....

Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across the US...

Infectious Diseases Making Border Crisis Worse

Does the United States have the Right to Secure its Border?

I'm intrigued by the fact that the presidents of several South American countries have publicly stated that the United States does not have the "right" to prevent migrants, illegal or otherwise, from entering our country at will. They've gone as far as to say that America may not secure its southern borders at any time or for any reason. Now why is that I wonder? The US is a sovereign nation like every other country. We have not just the legal right to secure our borders, wherever they may happen to be, but even a moral reason in order to protect the rights and safety of our citizens and to uphold our laws.

These same countries who believe that the US doesn't have a "right" to secure its borders happen to have among the strictest immigration policies of practically any country anywhere, and how they go about both protecting their national sovereignty and punishing those who violate their immigration laws are downright barbaric. I'm talking about countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Honduras among others.

These are places where illegal immigrates are often robbed, raped, beaten and in some cases, tortured...and that's by the police! Anyone who aids them in any way is subject to arrest and imprisonment for the first offense. In some cases, local police or government law enforcement will ransack their homes and, well, things happen to go missing. In a few cases some individuals are able to bribe their way out of arrest or jail time, but it's always a high price.

Prison in these places are best described as "hell holes" almost in the literal sense. Individuals typically get one very badly and often infested mattress on concrete floor. Their tiny cells are usually either freezing in the winter or unbearably hot in the summer; it's not uncommon that they are open to the elements. Food (if you call it that) is bare minimum. Often not much more than watery soup, stale bread or crackers twice a day. If prisoners want anything more, it's up to their friends or families to provide it. If you're there illegally, that's rather hard to do.

Even if you're a citizen, it can be difficult to make sure you actually receive additional blankets, clothing, food, or even proper medical care. Jail time for illegal immigrants can range from a few months for a first offense to several years for secondary offenses. Same goes for anyone who help you. Is there any wonder some of these individuals, especially criminal gang members, laugh at our prisons? Is it any wonder these people see our border security as a mere inconvenience?

Nevertheless, we're told that we don't have a "right" to impose our immigration laws on those attempting to come here; immigration laws that every single country in the world has and legally applies. So, why is it that America isn't suppose to have this same right? Some like to argue that the original settlers were no different than "illegal immigrants" or that they stole land from the Native Americans. What do you think? Were the first settlers simple land grabbing interlopers or was there something more to it?

Of course we know that when many of the native immigrants arrived in the Americas, there were already other groups who had come here earlier. Also, while Native Americans really didn't have any concept of land ownership per se, they did establish certain areas in which they hunted and grew food. Anyone who impeded on that land faced attack. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Native Americans throughout the Americas to fight over good crop and hunting land. So, when the first Europeans arrived, there was no usurping of land since there was no ownership of the land. The construct of "ownership" was essentially a European one. As more and more Europeans arrived, they occupied lands held by Native Americans, often at the point of a gun, but also just as often, by trade. But how was this different from how the Native Americans interacted with each other over the use of land?

It wasn't until the US was firmly established, and legal agreements with Native Americans came into being that the notion of "stealing" land came into being. Why? Because both the Native American tribes came to recognize the European concept of legal ownership or possession. It was here that the real problems developed; where the federal government would enter into a signed agreement with the Native Americans, only to ignore the terms and push the Native Americans off of the lands they had agreed to. More often than not, this was done for mining--particularly gold and silver.

Whenever the Native Americans complained or fought back to protect what was legally theirs under the terms of the treaty or agreement, the interlopers would convince the local "Indian Agent" or other federal authority to send in the military, which they routinely did. The result became nothing less than a intentional genocide of a proud people; a national tragedy which remains uncorrected to this day. However, for the sake of our discussion, it addresses the notion the Europeans settlers were in some way "illegal immigrants", which they clearly were not.

In terms of immigration laws, every country on this planet has some form of restrictions and quotas. The United States is not unique in that regard. Anyone wanting to enter this country may, assuming they meet some specific requirements such as age, health, and employability. Once approved, they can then apply for a "Green Card" which would allow them to live and work here (most individuals need a sponsor, a family member or employer). Others can apply for temporary residence under special circumstances such as seeking asylum or as a refugee, provided they meet a very narrow definition of a "asylee" or "refugee". Application for any of these procedures can be obtained at any US Embassy or Consulates office in the world (there are typically multiple offices scattered through a given country, but at least one in the capital or main city)and where US officials can help you through the process.

So, I bet you're wondering what constitutes an "asylee" or a "refugee"? Well, someone seeking asylum is called a "asylee". These are individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their native country out of fear of persecution due to their race, religion, ethnic group, social group, political status, or more recently, their sexual preference according to the US Department of Homeland Security. As a rule, this would Yazidis, Buddhists, or Assyrian Christians fleeing Syria due to persecution by Muslim extremists like ISIS/ISIL or the Syrian military. Recently, white South Africans, many of whom have roots dating back to the 1600's, have been forced from their lands, attacked, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered by black members of the pro-Communist ANC. Unfortunately, however, the US has been slow in accepting applications for asylum from these white South Africans although some other countries, such as Russia, have. Also, as an aside, the US has also not been particularly pro-active in allowing groups like Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists from the Middle East asylum status as well.

A refugee is typically someone who has been forced to flee their country due to war, violence, or some environmental disaster such as famine. A refugee may start off as a asylee and ultimately be accepted as a refugee once a decision is made regarding their status and reason for leaving. As a rule, international law requires both types to leave the country where they are endangered and seek entry in the next closest country where there is no danger.

There is a third class of individual, which I think we need to pay close attention to since this directly pertains to the current situation on our southern border and to the approximately 8 million illegal immigrants living in the US right now, and that's the "Economic Migrant". These are individuals who are not endangered by their race, religion, political class, or any of the other factors previously mentioned. These are individuals who are simply looking for employment or a better job; they willingly chose to relocate rather than are forced to leave. As such, they are entitled to no protection under international law. This describes those who are currently "demanding" entry into the country right down along our southern border. It also describes the vast majority of the illegal immigrants present in America. Economic migrants often try to claim "refugee" or "asylee" status as a way to gain entry into a particular country which otherwise would be closed to them.

We should also bear in mind that their presence represents a "jump in the line" ahead of those who are trying to enter the US and/or become American citizens legally. In short, they are shoving law abiding potential immigrants aside; those who are trying to enter the country the right way. In addition, 85% of all illegal immigrants receive taxpayers assistance of some sort. That means that ordinary Americans are having to pay their way because they broke the law. Many of those are do work are paid cash and thus pay no taxes. Others find ways to use stolen social security numbers and draw on them. Meanwhile, churches and other religious organizations continue to aid immigrants, pretending that somehow the laws just don't apply to them while hiding behind their tax-exempt status. Why is that?

Here's a couple of interesting statistics for you. According to the Department of Justice, 26% of all federal inmates are illegal immigrants (the Center for Immigration Studies put that number at 32%). The Bureau of Prisons report that 66% of all inmates are illegal aliens, which means that one in five prisoners are in this country illegally. The majority are serving time for various drug offenses, followed by violent assault, robbery (including theft, burglary and armed), and homicide. So-called "sanctuary cities" have provided many illegal immigrants, especially those active in criminal gangs, with a safe haven akin to the "Hole-in-the Wall" and "Robber's Roost" of the Old West or the "safe cities" like Chicago, New York, or Miami during the glory days of organized crime in the 1920's and 1930's.

Lastly we come to another type of "immigrant" key to this discussion, the "Anchor Baby". So, just what is a "anchor baby"? Under current US immigration laws, if a non-citizen woman gives birth in the United States, her child automatically becomes a US Citizen. Thus, by extension, she gets to remain in the country along with her husband and family (that definition has been broadened to include grandparents, aunts and uncles, and in some cases, even cousins have been approved). As an aside, in Canada, this is often referred to as "Passport Baby" and has resulted in a cottage "Baby Tourism" industry worth millions (in the case of Canada, it's allegedly popular with wealthy Asians). How did this come about?

The Citizenship Clause under Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "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" was adopted on July 9, 1868, just three years following the end of the Civil War. It's intent was to ensure that all freed slaves were given the same rights as any other citizen of the United States. Thus, its intent was reinforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and clarify that all former slaves were citizens, subject to all the rights, privileges, and laws accorded to the ordinary US citizen. It was not envisioned as a means by which individuals could bypass immigration laws. Nevertheless, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 73% of all children of illegal immigrants qualified under this provision.

So what does all this mean? Basically, it means that the US does have a duty and obligation to secure and protect its borders as a sovereign nation; the same right afforded to every other nation without exception. It means that the majority of illegal immigrants now in this country, and the thousands on our southern border "demanding" to be allowed to enter do not qualify under the definitions of "asylee" or refugee", but rather are economic migrants, which entitles them to nothing under international law. It also means that those who protect illegal immigrants do so as the costs of those who are attempting to do the right thing; to follow the law.

It also means those who aid these individuals are defacto criminals as well ("aiding and abetting") while at the same time demonstrates that over 1/4 of prison population is comprised of those who in prison not because of their violation of US immigration law, but because of crimes they willingly committed. All of this totals billions of dollars---approximately $113 billion dollars at the federal, state, and local levels--- imposed upon the average American Taxpayer; money that could be used to improve roads, schools, infrastructure, medical research, and so forth. The only real question remaining to be answered is just how long are we going to allow this? Some cite that "No Human is Illegal" but fail to mention that their actions are. That's why we have laws and a legal system to enforce those laws. Continuing to grant amnesty simple encourages more to come illegally in the hopes that they can wait out the next call for amnesty. Meanwhile, taxpayers are continue to get crushed by mounting increase to cover not just the influx, but for medical claims, education (including tutors), subsidized public housing, food, and utility bills.

Perhaps the worst part, at least from my perspective, is that the majority of these individuals have no interest in becoming citizens, nor do they have any intention of assimilating as other immigrants have done in the past, thus creating a "melting pot". In fact, they seem to want everyone to adapt. Ultimately, this will result in a nation not of mixed cultures, but of mini-nations similar to other nations which have fractured and broken apart as the result of various conflicts, be it ethnic, racial, religious, or whatever. I have to wonder if that's our destiny. It would certainly appear that if we continue along these lines, it most definitely will be.


US Department of Homeland Security: Definition of a Asylee

Amnesty International: Difference between Refugee and Asylum Seeker

Center for Immigration Studies: 32% of Federal Inmates are Aliens