I guess I’m going to need somebody to please explain to me what it is that might make the current president, as well as 2 former presidents, of that cesspool that lies just beyond our southern border, think that they are somehow able to dictate to us in America how we can, or how we cannot, determine for ourselves who it is that should be allowed into our country?  Off course I realize that it doesn’t help matters to have a political party in this country offering them encouragement.

Anyway, it was in an interview published this past Monday that current Mexican el presidente Enrique Pena Nieto, you know the same guy who has a wall along his southern border with Guatemala to keep the riff-raff out, went so far as to actually compare the language of Donald Trump to that of dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, saying it has hurt U.S.-Mexico relations.  From where I’m sitting it’s this guy, Nieto, who more might more closely resemble a dictator.

And it was when asked about Trump, that ‘el presidente’ complained to the Excelsior newspaper about “these strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions” and said that sort of language has led to “very fateful scenes in the history of humanity.” Pena Nieto said, “That’s the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived.”  Well maybe if this supposed leader were to behave a bit more like a responsible neighbor we wouldn’t even be discussing the need for a wall.

Up until now Pena Nieto seems to have avoided direct comments on Trump, who has pledged to build a wall along the two countries’ borders and has said Mexican immigrants bring crime and drugs, let alone diseases, with them to America.   But as the New York businessman has built a lead in the GOP primary, current and former Mexican officials have begun to publicly express alarm.  Ex-presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon also have alluded to Hitler whenever describing Trump.

In the interview with Excelsior, Pena Nieto said that “there is no scenario” under which Mexico would pay for the border wall, as Trump proposes.  Well I guess we’ll just have wait and see who might be right about that.  He said, “I hope that prudence and restraint will prevail among the voters there, and at the end of the day there will be a government that we can seek dialogue with, as we have done with the government of the United States.”  Again, we’ll just have to wait and see,

He went on to say that he would work with whoever eventually wins this year’s U.S. presidential election and to maintain a climate “of mutual respect and joint agreements.”  Mutual respect?  Apparently he doesn’t quite understand the concept of ‘mutual respect’ when it’s so obvious that he doesn’t respect our country.  It would be much easier to believe that he did if he wasn’t quite so busy assisting so many of his people in their efforts to violate our laws.

And then it was in another interview published Monday, this one in the newspaper El Universal, that ‘el presidente’ actually claimed that he would be “absolutely respectful” of the U.S. political process.  But, he added, “It appears to me that (Trump’s comments) hurt the relationship we have sought with the United States.”  But how is it that this clown can be seen as being “absolutely respectful” when at the same time he’s working to do all he can to have an effect on it?

This guy would do well to keep his freaking nose out of our business.  And wouldn’t you think that he’d have more than enough to occupy his time there in his little drug-infested-cesspool-of-a-country?  But apparently not.  And as I have said before, if anything has served to damage the relationship between our two countries it has had much more to do with the willingness of such men as Fox, Calderon and now Nieto to actively encourage their citizens to break American immigration laws.



Don’t you just love it when we have leaders from various third world countries who presume to tell us all what’s best for America?  And how they think they are able to dictate to us how it is that we should go about allowing illegal parasites into our country.  And I find it more than a little irritating when the leaders of these very same countries lecture us when we are trying to do nothing more than what they themselves do when it comes to being watchful of who it is that comes into our country.

And it was none other than the ex-president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, who was the most recent example of those who feel that they somehow are entitled to dictate to us how is it that we are to manage our immigration policy.  And judging by some of his idiotic comments I can only assume that Fox must actually be a card-carrying member of the American Democrat Party.  Because Democrats also seem comfortable with allowing those outside of our borders to tell us who we MUST allow into our country.

It was just last night that this hypocrite from ‘South of the Border’ made an appearance on the ‘Fox News’ Sean Hannity show.  And when Fox said, “I respect very much America. That’s why I intervene, “I thought my head would explode.  This moron went on to say, “Let me start by saying please wake up, America, from this Republican nightmare that is causing a lot of noise outside of United States.  And I say it with clarity that (it) is nothing personal but is really worrying us outside of the United States.”

Fox seems to particularly object to Trump’s immigration plans.  Trump has said he will build a big, beautiful wall to keep illegal immigrants, as well as drugs, out of the United States. And he says he would deport the millions of people who are here illegally, eventually letting only the “good ones” back in, once a process for doing that was established.  Fox agreed that people are entering America illegally (most from his country). “Of course it (illegal immigration) exists. But you don’t finish with that with a stick or with violence or being aggressive.”

Hannity noted that Trump isn’t calling for violence. “We’re just building a barrier. What’s wrong with building a wall, sir?”  Fox said, “No, it’s your right. It is your right. But walls don’t work.”  But if walls don’t work, as Mr. Fox so enthusiastically claims, then why is it that Mexico has a pretty substantial wall on its southern border with Guatemala?  And I’d be curious to know why is it that Fox seems to think that it’s ok for Mexico to build a nice big, beautiful wall and yet he sees it as being racist for us in America to want to build one?

And it was from there that Fox then went on to warn that Trump is “going to take this nation to the desert. He doesn’t understand about creating jobs. He only lies and lies and lies and uses whatever is convenient for him without any attention to facts. That’s why I say he’s an egocentric. He’s only looking for himself and not for the rest. He believes in the white supremacy.”  White supremacy?  Doesn’t understand about creating jobs?  It was at that point that Hannity, apparently, had had enough, saying, “That’s ridiculous, I have to go.”

But Fox wasn’t quite done.  He continued with his idiotic rant, saying, “That’s Hitler. I mean, that’s–” And it was then that Hannity interrupted him by saying, “That’s Hitler?”  Hannity said, “That’s a disgraceful comment, sir, for you to say.”  Senor Fox then repeated, “I say, wake up, America.”  It is on that point that I can heartily agree with Fox.  America had better wake up, and soon, or we’re not going to have a country left to pass down to our kids.  And we’re already going broke trying to pay for all of those who a flood into our country illegally.

I’d like to ask Fox why it is that he feels America should somehow be prevented from enforcing that which is nearly identical to the type of immigration policy that Mexico has not only established for itself, but has also very strictly enforced for decades.  Does he consider Mexican leaders to also be like ‘Hitler’?  Or is such a sentiment reserved only for those of us in this country simply because we seek only to keep out those who wish to come here and break our laws?  What is it, I’d like to know, that makes Mexico so much better than America?

So anyway, what follows here is but a brief summary, of sorts, of how, when it comes to the subject of immigration policy, Mr. Fox’s own country of Mexico chooses to address the issue. And as you will be able to recognize almost immediately is how what American wishes to do, isn’t all that different from what Mexico does.  And you will also see how Mexico welcomes only those foreigners who will be ‘useful’ to Mexican society.  And that’s something that Senor Fox views as being racist when practiced by the United States.

So it is then that according to Mexico’s central immigration law:

  1. Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”
  2. Immigration officials must “ensure” that immigrants will not only be useful additions to Mexico, but that they have the necessary funds to sustain themselves and their dependents.
  3. Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics”; if they are deemed to be detrimental to “economic or national interests”; if they have broken Mexican laws; and if they are not found to be “physically or mentally healthy.”
  4. The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners” if he determines such action to be in the national interest.”



I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “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.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.