Migrants from caravan suing President Trump…yes really

They’re the gift that keeps on giving.  Twelve migrants, half of them children, are suing President Trump, the department of Homeland Security, and others for allegedly violating their constitutional rights.  You read that correctly.  Did you know that invaders migrants from other countries that aren’t even on our soil, nor have ever been on our soil, can sue us for their (US) constitutional rights?  I was kind of under the impression our Constitution was for us and our country.  Silly me.  Via Fox News:

Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The suit, which was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said it is widely known that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis.” The lawsuit also claims that the plaintiffs’ right to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Declaratory Judgement Act were being infringed upon.

The Central American migrant caravan now numbers approximately 4,000 people, down from a high of 7,200.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s claim that he will prevent the caravan from entering the U.S. It claims that the president cannot stop asylum-seekers by employing the military — when they have a fair claim. The suit criticized the president’s alleged attempt at stoking “fear and hysteria” by claiming that criminals and gang members have joined the caravan.

The suit cited a Trump interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, where the president laid out plans to build tent cities to house migrants. The suit questioned the functionality of such a project, and asked if these living quarters would qualify under the Flores Agreement of 1997. The agreement protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.

Migrants

So at what point is it okay to declare one an invader rather than a “refugee” seeking asylum?  When can we actually defend our border?  If we’re not even allowed to stop anyone before they get into our country and they can sue us to claim they belong here and there’s nothing we can do about it, how is it even possible to defend our border?

This lawsuit is obviously BS.  International law dictates that if you declare yourself a refugee you are to seek asylum at the first country you enter into away from the homeland you claim is violating your human rights.  That country would have been Mexico.  Mexico offered asylum and they said no.  This SHOULD be an open and closed case.  But I’m sure it will not be.  Somebody will obstruct.  No doubt the end goal will be to delay long enough, I believe it’s 20 days now(?), before we are legally obligated to release them.  It is a total sham.

It’s interesting how this alleged poor group of migrants is able to round up a lawyer during their sojourn to America to sue before they even get there.  It’s almost like they’re having outside help or something.  Oh what’s this?  A staffer working for Beto O’Rourke was caught on tape admitting they used campaign money to fund the migrant caravan?  Nice work Beto.  That’s really showing your undying commitment and putting your constituents in Texas first.

Never forget this entire sham and coordinated invasion is entirely being funded by far left groups and being manipulated by politicians.  They do not care about these people.  All they want is their votes.  Third world populations overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The Judicial System in 2018

As we wait for the results of the 7th Kavanaugh investigation it gives time to reflect on the proceedings and the future implications going forward.  Without a doubt this has forever marred future Supreme Court Justice nominations.  Not surprisingly, only when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice is it ever this divided on party lines.  Once again the double standard reveals itself.  Consider for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably the most extreme and liberal Supreme Court Justice ever and nominated by Bill Clinton, was voted in 96-3.  Only when a Republican nominates a justice is it ever this painful and close.  You can make arguments both ways regarding Garland but the decision seemed pretty reasonable given the timing of it.

A larger thought as the country becomes ever more divided and diverse.  Would you still want to be judged by a jury of your peers in 2018?  Consider the case of Kavanaugh.  He was accused without any evidence from a woman who can’t even remember the year that she claims this happened.  And yet, half of the country is completely okay with this kangaroo court fiasco.  Would you really feel comfortable with them if you were on the stand for a rape accusation and there was zero evidence whatsoever against you?  Could you be that confident that they’d rule in your favor when we know that half the country makes the bulk of their decisions purely based on feelings and not facts?

Or how about a case where a person of color is on stand for a crime where there is a lot of evidence supporting the accusation.  Would it be that far fetched to see a jury of mostly people of color vote on racial lines and claim something ridiculous like institutional racism for validation of letting him or her off?  Or even just a run of the mill immigration case.  Where half the country doesn’t even want laws or borders I wouldn’t be confident they’d judge the case dispassionately and purely rationally.

Diversity here, as pretty much everywhere else, is not our strength.  We’ve seen this even with those who are supposedly held to a higher standard.  How many judges of color made ridiculous decisions, usually politically motivated, which is supposed to NEVER happen?  President Trump was entirely justified in his travel ban in 2017.  Obama did a similar ban in office with little resistance.  How many times was Trump’s ban shut down on absolutely ridiculous grounds?  They held the country hostage on political motivations in decisions they should never have had the power to make in the first place.

As the country becomes more diverse these are serious issues that need to be addressed.  I honestly don’t know how to proceed going forward if we’re to continue diversifying our country into extinction.  I do not have an answer for how to fix this in those conditions.  I’m skeptical it can be fixed under those conditions.

Santa Barbara to ban….plastic straws

In a move to make California coastal elites feel good about themselves the city of Santa Barbara is moving to ban plastic straws, with JAIL TIME as a potential sentence for repeat offenders.  Via Fox News:

A California coastal city has become the latest municipality to ban plastic straws, enacting what is potentially the strictest plastic prohibition in the country.

Santa Barbara earlier this month passed the ordinance authorizing hefty fines and even a possible jail sentence for violators who dole out plastic straws at restaurants, bars and other food establishments.

According to the ordinance, violators on their first offense will be given a written warning notice. But the second time a purveyor of plastic straws defies the ban is when the heavy hand of the law could clamp down.

In that case, the ordinance cites penalties from the city’s municipal code for a “fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months.”

In comparison, Seattle, which in the beginning of July became the first major city in the U.S. to ban plastic straws, only fines businesses $250 per offense.

Not that I’d expect anything less from the Communists running this state.  This isn’t the first time California has passed stupid plastic rules.  In 2014, California voted to add a 10 cent fee for every plastic bag purchased in stores.  For various reasons it didn’t go into effect until years later in some cities.  It went into effect in 2016 in San Diego and due to this homeless people began defecating in the streets rather than into what used to be free plastic bags.  This led to a hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego.  Quite the virtue signal backfire.

Further down in the article:

On Tuesday, the board of supervisors in California’s second-largest city, San Francisco, gave unanimous approval to a measure banning plastic straws alongside carryout containers and wrappers treated with fluorinated chemicals.

Supervisor Katy Tang called the negative environmental impact of single-use plastics astronomical.

“San Francisco has been a pioneer of environmental change, and it’s time for us to find alternatives to the plastic that is choking our marine ecosystems and littering our streets,” she said in a statement.

The legislation requires a second approval, which is expected next week, and the ban would go into effect July 1, 2019, along with a new requirement to make napkins, utensils and other to-go accessories available only upon request, unless a self-serve station is available where people can take what they need.

California has a lot of problems.  Plastic straws is not one of them.  It’s hard not to chuckle at San Francisco being “a pioneer of environmental change” given their massive shit problem at the moment.  Probably not the environmental change they’re dreaming about.

Incorrect interpretation of Birthright Citizenship?

Brian Lonergan at American Thinker has written a great post about how we’ve misinterpreted the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, specifically of illegals and those coming over in what is being deemed as birth tourism.  An excerpt from Mr Lonergan’s post:

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution.  This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the “anchor baby” phenomenon.  With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth.  In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States.  The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe.  The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship.  The Court’s decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.  This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not “reside” here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Immigration law in general needs to be reviewed and revamped.  The system simply cannot continue in its current form if we’re to survive as a country.  The spirit of too many of our laws is no longer respected, and loopholes have been abused such that programs that were initially created to help those in dire need are now seen as the prize for getting to America.  We cannot survive as a welfare state with our current immigration policies.  One has to go.  Ideally both.