The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted long ago that those from outside the U.S. who are NOT U.S. citizens when stepping foot on U.S. soil are given the rights of all U.S. citizens “under the Law.” This includes all those illegal immigrants who sneak into the country through our southern border. If you’ve ever wondered what is their reasoning for sneaking in and taking such great risk in doing so, now you know. Once here, the path to citizenship is not nearly so simple nor easy. It takes a long time and it’s intense. Americans are comfortable that it should take a long time and should be intense. After all, these immigrants are all desirous of living in the greatest country on Earth. And “anything worth having is worth hurting for.” (a country song was written by my brother)
Sadly though, most of these illegals that find there way into the United States have no desire to emigrate to America legally — this in spite of the fact that one million come to the U.S. legally each year. They are actually enticed to come to the U.S. outside of the legal process to do so! There are Mexican cartels very willing to accommodate their travels and sneak them into the U.S., though at a hefty price. And then there are those in Washington who are willing to do just about anything to facilitate their easy entry and permanent status when arriving.
“Round Them Up”
President Trump promised in his 2016 campaign when elected he would fix the illegal immigration problem in America. But his hands are tied. Congress makes all the laws. Even a President cannot do that. He can (and does) issue executive orders, which every president in history has done, but they are not comprehensive and as enforceable as laws. And Congress simply refuses to pass new or repair OLD immigration laws sufficient to stop the flood of illegals into the South.
For two weeks President Trump has publicly warned that ICE agents would be canvassing several large U.S. cities to find and arrest illegals who have had deportation orders issued by an immigration court and have ignored those orders to remain in the U.S. illegally. When the news came out, Democrats went stark raving crazy! The Leftist mantra damning this president skyrocketed. You have certainly read and seen the media pundits going after Trump for doing this. And they ALL ignore one fact — and the MOST important fact of this immigration situation: THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!
But that makes no difference to elitists.
A few heavyweights have even got into the fray regarding these Trump/ICE roundups:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) each gave detailed instructions to illegals in the U.S. on how to avoid deportation. This was a direct result of pending ICE roundups of illegals who have defied deportation orders from immigration judges and have remained illegally in the U.S. Pelosi said this, “If agents come to your house with an ICE immigration warrant, you do not have to answer the door. They cannot search your home without a judicial warrant signed by a judge authorizing a search.” AOC stated the exact same thing. Even Hillary Clinton weighed in with similar advice on Twitter: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in on Twitter, urging people to share Spanish-language guidelines such as ‘toma fotos y videos’ – meaning take photos and videos. ‘Por favor comparte,’ Clinton wrote, or please share.”
Please keep in mind the following: two of these are currently serving members of Congress one of whom is the Speaker of the House and one was a U.S. Senator and a candidate for the U.S. presidency. And they are advising non-citizens on how to circumvent the law!
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
All three took the above oath of office with one hand on a Bible and the other in the air to affirm their sworn oath to the Nation. Is it not something of a paradox that all three are instructing illegals how to evade U.S. immigration law — a law that was passed by the United States Congress?
Some will say that all of those illegals these three are speaking to are NOT criminals — they just came here illegally. Saying that is absolutely wrong. Regardless of what has been said in national media reports, those who are being sought in these ICE processes are not just illegals who recently crossed over our border. The Trump Administration is going after illegals who came to the United States and were detained, were then found by a court of law to have committed some offense that warrants deportation. They have each been through that entire process — including appeals for immigration court findings against them — and have been ordered by the court to be deported! These are NOT innocent immigrants as Pelosi, Cortez, and Clinton want Americans to believe. These are those who U.S. courts have given the full remedies of U.S. law to prove the innocence of charges made against them and have been adjudicated to be guilty and sentenced to deportation.
How Should Illegals Seek Assylum the Right and Legal Way?
U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).
There is a common misconception that U.S. embassies and consulates are basically the same as U.S. soil. It is true that international law protects national embassies and consulates from being destroyed, entered, or searched (without permission) by the government of the country where they are located (the host country). However, this does not give those embassies or consulates the full status of being part of their home nation’s territory. Therefore, U.S. law does not consider asylum seekers at U.S. embassies and consulates to be “physically present in the United States” (or at a U.S. border or point of entry).
However, this does not mean that embassy personnel cannot offer any help at all to people who are in danger and seek their protection. In extreme or exceptional circumstances, U.S. embassies and consulates may offer alternative forms of protection, including (in most countries) temporary refuge, a referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or a request for parole to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
A foreign national who seeks asylum in the United States may do so either affirmatively or defensively. An affirmative asylum seeker is physically present in the United States. This person must apply for asylum within one year of his arrival in the United States. He may be undocumented, living in the United States without status, or may have entered the U.S. on a visa which will soon expire.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services reviews affirmative asylum claims through a non-adversarial interview with an asylum officer at one of eight offices nationwide. The affirmative asylum seeker requests asylum by completing an I-589 Application, which asks for personal information about the seeker and her family and for the grounds of asylum, whether she has ever experienced “harm or mistreatment or threats,” whether she “fears harm or mistreatment” if forced to return home, whether she’s been imprisoned or detained in countries outside of the United States and other questions. By answering these questions, the asylum seeker can demonstrate that she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in the immigration laws.
After interviewing the applicant, the asylum officer may grant the asylum status or refer the applicant to immigration court for removal proceedings, where she may pursue the application for asylum before an immigration judge.
A defensive asylum applicant is a person who is apprehended after entering the United States at a border and applies for asylum while the threat of removal by the Department of Homeland Security looms. An applicant must be in removal proceedings in immigration court to request asylum in this manner. The application is the same, but the asylum seeker must file his application with the immigration court with jurisdiction over the applicant’s case. The applicant must show that persecution is more probable than not if he is forced to return home.
What does an asylum seeker have to prove?
Those seeking asylum must prove that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum, having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.
Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.
Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention to societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs. As such, the social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”
The Four “HorseWOMEN” of the Apocalypse
There will be some who term me as a racist or sexist for referring to Rep. Ilan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Rashid Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) as the “Four HorseWOMEN of the Apocalypse” that comes from the book of Revelation in the Bible. My doing so is neither racist nor sexist for those Bible character’s sex is unknown. The point is, whenever these four appear before a crowd with microphones, it seems they are there to discuss only gloom and doom — very similar to an apocalypse.
After the weekend tweets about them from President Trump, in their responses on Monday, it is apparent those on the Left to whom these four speak support those untrue characterizations of the President, his policies, but more importantly, they support the ignoring of the Rule of Law. Their speeches and attacks on the President are NOT to inform the public but to spread a political ideology that is NOT truthful. There is NO mass incarceration at the southern border. There is NO unilateral action being taken by Border Patrol agents regarding detainees or their incarceration. Border Patrol and ICE agents are simply enforcing United States law.
Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, AOC, Tliab, Omar, and Presley each not only support law-breaking, but they also stomp on the U.S. Constitution, the Rule of Law and the rights of every American who look-on as Democrats in Congress refuse to honor their Oaths of Office while aiding those who systematically break the law daily.
They ignore the fundamentals of America, though they each muttered a few sentences from the Constitution while ignoring THE principles upon which this nation was founded and the most important characteristic of this nation that led them here: “The Rule of Law.” None even mentioned the truth about those being deported. Is that surprising to you?
It’s also fair to mention that as they railed against the Trump Administration for “inhumane conditions for immigrants at the southern border while keeping children in cages,” they forgot to mention THEY WERE THE ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED “NO” FOR THE $4.4 BILLION BILL CONGRESS PASSED LAST WEEK TO FINALLY GIVE BORDER PATROL AND ICE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO BUY BEDDING, FOOD AND CLOTHING, MEDICAL CARE, AND TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR ILLEGALS WHILE THEY ARE PROCESSED.
Talk about hypocrisy!
Yes, sadly there are those who hang on their every word. After all, in this social media America, many get their news ONLY from social media and scarcely seek facts on their own.
Sadly, it doesn’t get much better looking around either of the Democrat Party debate stages: all the 2020 candidates seem to be of the same ilk. When asked who among them supports doing away with criminal charges for those illegals who cross into the U.S., all but one raised a hand.
In closing, remember this: without borders, there is NO nation. And a nation without laws and laws that are enforced, those nations become banana republics with mob rule: sort of like Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and even Mexico to some extent.