Anyone who has a DACA permit expiring between now and March 5, 2018, can apply for a two-year renewal.Even those DACA recipients whose DACA permits expires after March 5, will be eligible for legal status for another two-plus year.

In other words, Pres. Trump is giving Congress what it wants most, the DACA amnesty decision to be postponed until AFTER the 2018 election. 

But all is not lost. I see yesterday's Fox News article* supporting what I have been calling for in relation to any DACA amnesty: birthright citizenship reform. And here's the best part: it can be addressed without a constitutional amendment, at least that's what Herry Ried said back in his S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, under TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP

SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

"In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

I agree. If Congress is going to offer DACA amnesty now to these lawbreaking illegal aliens, the very least they can do for their fellow law-abiding citizens in return is to restrict birthright U.S. citizenship to only those born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiances or attachments at birth to ensure this type of breach of law doesn't happen again, and to finally put an end to the ludicrous situation where the offspring born here of illegal aliens are considered natural born U.S. citizens at birth.

* Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/04/trump-gop-should-keep-dac...

Views: 287

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The United Nation's Immigration policies are not binding upon the United States... How many times do you need to be informed before you understand: 

The US is a Constitutional Republic, a sovereign Nation which prohibits foreign rule or interference from external sovereign entities.  The UN has no lawful jurisdiction over the US Government.... except by Treaty...  there are few Treaties with the UN... most regulate international trade. 

 Just do not believe ya, sorry, Congress says one thing, the UN states another, and by the way why does the UN Seats have a majority holders of the DNC?

 Why did the DNC help build the UN? And by the way what the heck was the RNC doing, oh thats right they were Celebrating Christmas. When the Fed took over our country, and thats odd because thats when the UN started pushing UN Policies for Immigration. So America would be more of a proper mix of different people from the world.

 Oh by the way The British Empire no longer holds any seats at the UN, like WOW9/11, what happened.

 Thats right the Islamic States took over the England's Government Parliament Positions.

 Now thats cute, sorry Ronald,but don't believe ya.

Just what do you believe Tif... that international law and the UN dictate US policy? The UN is a useless body of malcontents looking for a free lunch... they have no enforcement powers and the laws they pass don't... I repeat don't take precedent over US Law or our Constitution...

The US should remain in the UN for one reason... to VETO all the crap they put out and too foil their subversive plans for a one world government.  The US can't do that from the outside... they must remain a permanent member of the Security Counsel with the power to Veto any acts passed by the UN... which don't meet our approval.

Then like Hank stated, if the DNC takes Office, they will VETO again, its all BS! except this: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/first-uranium-one-indictme...

LOL Tif

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

We must have that veto for Israel's sake, and to know what they are up to because it is never good. Lying, propagandists, rapist pedophiles.

The beauty of staying in is that opportunities will come up to slap them silly, just like Trump does.

Exactly!

ONCE AGAIN-- MEMO TO DONALD J TRUMP: #1) Remember your campaign promises Donald.

Rid America of DACA, Chain Migration AND the LOTTERY if IMMIGRANTS. PLEASE ISSUE FEWER GREEN CARDS TOO! DO NOT LISTEN TO JEFF FLAKE-etal on DACA, they want to destroy America.

BUILD THAT WALL DONALD AND MAKE ICE's JOB MUCH EASIER

Repeal  OBAMA CARE IN FULL!

GET RID OF MS-13 EVERYWHERE!

PUT OBAMA, COMEY, HILLARY, LORETTA LYNCH ERIC HOLDER AND OBAMA's IRS Coneys in PRISON! ABOVE ALL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

SO OBAMA SAID: People who watch Fox news live on another planet---

Him saying that is equal to what Hillary said about TRUMP VOTERS BEING A DESPICABLE LOT and now you know where the mind of a deranged liberal dwells---in the SWAMPY GUTTER!

ONLY A CRETIN-DEGENERATE, A SUBHUMAN SPECIES WOULD SAY THAT: AND---OBAMA WANTS A 3rd TERM??

DREAM ON!

He wants to govern all yet lumps a majority of this country into a group that despises his face on TV. 

HE'S SUBHUMAN I TELL YOU. One who beats his chest when He has done nothing for AMERICA. HE NEEDS ALL REMNANTS OF HIS EXISTENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WIPED FROM EARTH'S HISTORY. 

Sorry Correction--- DEPLORABLE 'S

BUT

DESPICABLE could have been in there too!

Maxine Waters says Trump is a LIAR....HMmmmmm SOooo.....What does she call Lying Obama since he lied more then any president in History???

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service