RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/trending/illegal-alien-released-in-nj-charged-with-triple-murder-in-missouri/

Advocates of sanctuary policies really don’t care if you live or die.

An exaggeration? I don’t think so. Not when they justify their policies after incidents like this.

An illegal alien, arrested in New Jersey in December 2017 on domestic battery charges, was released by local authorities even after ICE requested a detainer on him. Luis Rodrigo Perez then made his way to Missouri, where earlier this month he went on a murder spree — killing three people in two days.

Washington Times:

“Had ICE’s detainer request in December 2017 been honored by Middlesex County Jail, Luis Rodrigo Perez would have been placed in deportation proceedings and likely sent home to his country — and three innocent people might be alive today,” said Corey Price, acting ICE executive associate director.

John Tsoukaris, ICE’s deportation operations field director in Newark, New Jersey, called Middlesex County’s policy “reckless.”

He said Perez had a history of violence and would have been a clear candidate for cooperation.

Middlesex officials reject the notion that they are to blame, pointing the finger at ICE instead.

In a statement the county government rejected blame and said it was ICE that dropped the ball.

Officials said they have repeatedly told ICE they will only cooperate in some instances, such as someone convicted of a “first or second degree offense.” They said Perez’s case didn’t reach that level.

Still, they said, ICE had 51 days while Perez sat in jail during which the agency could have tried to get a deportation order for Perez. The county said it would have honored that order.

“Instead ICE officials chose to do nothing, which places all responsibility of Mr. Perez’s actions squarely upon ICE,” the county government said in a statement.

Police in Missouri say Perez attacked a home which he had been kicked out of. The victims could be heard “begging for their lives,” The Associated Press reported, citing charging documents.

So if Perez had been charged with a first-degree felony, they would have held him indefinitely? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge over the Chicago River I can sell you.

The fact that he was illegal and proven violent should have been enough to assure his indefinite detention. But under sanctuary laws, drunk driving, slapping around your girlfriend, and other “lesser” offenses aren’t enough to protect the people from violent criminals.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271864/establishment-media-nixes-trump-ad-about-dangerous-michael-cutler

On Monday November 5, 2018, NBC news posted a report, NBC, Fox News pull Trump immigration ad, Facebook blocks paid promotion. The online article included a tweet from Donald Trump, Jr which included a supposedly racist ad.

The article began with these two paragraphs:

NBC and Fox News said on Monday morning that they would no longer air an immigration ad from President Donald Trump that has been widely derided as racially divisive.

“After further review, we recognize the insensitive nature of the ad and have decided to cease airing it across our properties as soon as possible,” said Joe Benarroch, a spokesperson for NBC’s advertising sales department.

The article included this statement:

Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted that NBC, CNN and Facebook “have chosen to stand” with undocumented immigrants.

By standing with illegal aliens, these “news” organizations that refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have turned their backs on lawful immigrants and have harmed their reputation in the eyes of the American public.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/05/citizenship-

As caravans of would-be illegal migrants heads for our southern border, each bigger and better organized than the last; as Chinese travel agencies schedule trips to America for mothers-soon-to-be; as the number of births to foreigners and illegals added to the results of chain migration (a.k.a “family reunification”) make up an ever-growing part of the voting public; and as the Democratic Party stakes its future power on importing a new set of Americans it can control, more and more of today’s Americans are realizing that our immigration system since the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 is a political scam.

It is past time we address the question of whom we shall call to join this political enterprise called the United States of America as full members—and why we should be calling them—with the seriousness it deserves. The short answer has to be: that we choose to admit them because they understand, love, and are eager to support what this country is about.

With few exceptions (Indians, descendants of slaves and of the fewer than 3 million who set the country’s character in 1776-89) today’s Americans are people or descendants of people who chose to join this country and its character. Uniquely in history, America has been able to assimilate people of all colors and creeds because these people very much wanted to be assimilated. Many were Americans at heart before they got here. That’s why they came.

My friend, Peter Schramm, recalled his father—realizing that the 1956 revolution against the Soviets was going to fail—telling the family that they would flee to America. Now Peter, who was 10 years old at the time, would have gone anywhere his father asked him to go, but he was confused about why his dad had chosen America, so he asked, “Why America?” His father’s answer is instructive: ““Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

S hortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children.

Status questions about the children of aliens have moved to the fore in recent months. Central Americans, enticed by laws that perversely incentivize illegal immigration, have sought entry en masse at our southern border. This week, with an oncoming “caravan” of migrants galvanizing President Trump’s base on the eve of the midterm elections, these questions have stoked a heated debate — with all the shopworn smears of racism and bad faith that are now staples of American public discourse.

In campaign mode, the president floated the idea of issuing an executive order that would purport to deny “birthright citizenship,” i.e., to end the policy of granting American citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents who are not legally present here. I highlight “purport” and “policy” because the president’s opponents counter that these newborn children of illegal aliens are granted citizenship by the Constitution, specifically, by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the argument goes, this grant of citizenship is not a mere policy but a command of the highest law of the land; it may not be reversed by an executive order, or even by a law of Congress, the branch empowered to set the terms of citizenship.

That is a lot of weight to put on an amendment that had nothing to do with regulating aliens — an amendment ratified in 1868, a time when there was no federal-law concept of illegal aliens.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/evidence_piles_up_about_caravans_criminals_terrorists_and_human_shields.html

As candy-coated accounts from lefty activists saturate the airwaves to assure Americans that “we have nothing to fear from the migrant march,” and President Trump’s warnings about criminals within the invading army are dismissed in the press as “without evidence,” the Department of Homeland Security put paid to the nonsense with a new report warning that the migrant army of mostly unemployed military-aged males has at least 270 convicted criminals within its ranks.

According to the Washington Examiner:

“We continue to be concerned about individuals along the caravan route. In fact, over 270 individuals along the caravan route have criminal histories, including known gang membership,” the statement said. “Those include a number of violent criminals – examples include aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, sexual assault on a child, and assault on a female.”

A DHS spokesperson told the Washington Examiner the 270 had previously been convicted, not just charged.

“We also continue to see individuals from over 20 countries in this flow from countries such as Somalia, India, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. There is a large segment of this population that we know nothing about and we must be prepared to defend our border and enforce our laws to protect the citizens of our country,” the department said.

Two hundred seventy criminals are merely those the Department of Homeland Security knows about based on their past convictions. The ones who haven’t been caught and convicted of crimes likely raise the number to something quite a bit higher.

Yet none of that matters to the candycoat press, which keeps repeating the mantra about all migrants just looking for “a better life.” Sexual assault on a child? The Catholic Church would love to get such “don’t worry” coverage from the press on that one. Assault on a female? Obviously, “believe all women” doesn’t apply when the convicted perpetrator is illegal. You’re on your own, ladies.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/02/heres-key-clause-birthright-citizenship-debate-briefly-explained/

President Trump recently disclosed plans to sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil. This would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and almost certainly trigger a legal battle.

The 14th Amendment states: “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.” While opponents to Trump’s proposed action opine that the constitutional language is cut and dry, this might not necessarily be the case.

Putting aside the question of whether Trump may end birthright citizenship by way of executive order, the main issue of contention revolves around the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment. Some opine that the 14th Amendment “was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.” In other words, if a parent is in the country illegally and is, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then, by association, neither is his or her newborn child.

Conversely, others interpret this provision to mean “the legal obligation of all foreigners and immigrants to follow U.S. law.” Stated another way, if a child is born to an illegal immigrant in the United States, the baby is automatically a citizen because he or she is obligated to follow U.S. law. The country of birth is paramount.

John C. Eastman highlighted the flaw(s) associated with this latter argument by way of a simple example in an article in National Review. He wrote:

When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a ‘temporary sojourner,’ to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/31/hello-

On the morning of March 16, 1916, with World War I already raging in Europe but America still neutral, the Mexican bandito Pancho Villa led a military raid on the dusty border town of Columbus, New Mexico. At that time, New Mexico had just passed the fourth anniversary of its statehood and remained a sparsely populated outpost in the desert southwest. Still, there was an U.S. Army garrison there—and it was our soldiers whom Villa attacked in his daring assault on American territory.

The raid was repulsed; the Americans killed 16 Mexican nationals on our side of the border, and chased Villa back into Mexico. But the incident outraged the nation, and President Wilson ordered a punitive expedition to hunt Villa down and bring him back, dead or alive. (Presidents didn’t fool around in those days.) Under the command of General “Black Jack” Pershing, the Army drove deep into Mexico, but 11 months of searching failed to locate Villa. The troops returned, having gained valuable combat experience; shortly thereafter the United States entered the war, with Pershing commanding the American Expeditionary Forces, and they took some of the lessons they’d learned in Mexico to France with them.

Today there’s another attempted invasion of America, also by Latin Americans: the various “caravans” (a charming, romantic label invented by the media to make the marchers seem less threatening and less, well, illegal), mushing their way up from the Central American hellholes of El Salvador (home of MS-13), Honduras, and Guatemala, bent on barreling through the absurd loopholes of “compassion” that mark American immigration law and straight into the arms of the American welfare system and the remittance offices. That they are “unarmed” matters not one whit, given their high predilection for violence that would make their Amerindian ancestors blush.

And yet, somehow, we’re not supposed to care. It’s as if America was a boundless charity instead of a sovereign nation, and a pitiful, helpless charity at that, with no say over who becomes the recipient of its deeply in-hock largesse. “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes,” says the Dodo Bird in Alice in Wonderland, and right now there’s no bigger Dodo than Uncle Sucker.

So President Trump’s order to send more than 5,000 troops to the border to prevent the illegal aliens from crossing the line is a welcome development. Forget the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military in domestic matters, i.e. law enforcement—this is no matter for local sheriffs or even just the Border Patrol, but is rather a national-security issue. There’s no question that the military can and should be used to repel an invasion; all that’s needed is to call the situation what it is. Instead of “caravans” and “migrants” let us speak instead of “armies” (ABC tried that and immediately got its mouth washed out with soap, which tells you something about the statement’s veracity) and “invaders.” But in the era of P.C.-speak, such plain talk is the truth that dare not utter its name.