Showing posts sorted by date for query immigration. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query immigration. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “It is lawful to be unlawful—if you’re Joe Biden, according to the courts. But it is unlawful to be lawful—if you’re Donald Trump.”

It is not a legal paradox; it is Bolshevik Justice, which has nothing to do with the law, and everything to enforcing revolutionary agenda.  --Diana West

Thank you to Diana West.  Note that this tweet is from May 2, 2025, a full 4 months ago. 

But what happens when a new president tries to undo that damage done? According to Hanson, the courts have flipped the rules. “The incoming administration who wants to rectify that abuse, in other words, it wants to enforce the law and say that you came in illegally and you shouldn't have because of the prior laxity of this government, now you've got to leave because you're still breaking the law.” But the courts are not applying the law evenly: “And they’re stopping these deportations for the most part.” Hanson concluded: “It is lawful to be unlawful—if you’re Joe Biden, according to the courts. But it is unlawful to be lawful—if you’re Donald Trump.” In other words, the rogue judiciary can pick and choose when the law applies or not.

Monday, September 8, 2025

🚨 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just given President Trump the green light to conduct SWEEPING immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, 6-3

As to Chicago . . . 

Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago.  

Thursday, September 4, 2025

DIANA WEST: yes, immigration [is] an important, important tactic used by the Communists to infiltrate the United States and other Western countries

the Communist Party never really trusted it's American acolytes.  Always wanted to have foreign born controllers here.  I mean this is a matter of command and control.  So right from the Russian Revolution forward, you see the Left, the Communist Left, the fellow Travelers agitating for immigration in order to be able to bring in these kinds of people, bring in these Legions who are also hostile to the American way as part of their unrestricted warfare we might call it today.  --Diana West

7:35. Stanley Rothman's book on the new left.  He made the point there that there are two counter types on the new left: the gentile people on the new left, who are in genuine revolt against the families, and the Jews who were supportive by the families.  

7:45.  It does continue today, and I would even add that the New Left in my experience and in analysis, I go into this in The Red Thread, the New Left was just a name, a new name, for a younger generation of the Old Left.  They tried to pretend that it was something different.  It really wasn't.  It was just a continuation of the same communist war against America.  But that is true, and these people replicate themselves.  You mentioned we only scratched the surface in terms of outing any of these people.  Most of them never suffered anything in terms of coming to trial for, say, treason or something, something serious like that.  That did not happen except they point to the Rosenberg case. I always think of them as sort of small fry in a much larger conspiracy, one conspiracy amongst so many.  So these people were never truly revealed the thought of people like Whittaker Chambers, and Elizabeth BentleyIgor Gouzenko, the defector out of Canada, they believe there were multiple rings that were being run in the middle of the 20th century that never ever were exposed.  Now they only had a window into one or two of these rings and some other people, so if you had all these other rings running inside the federal bureaucracy, well, who did those people ensure moved into their seats, into their slots, into their network after they left?  So we've seen this replication of regenerations of like-minded people who are, now, we call it the Deep State, now call it the Swamp, but this is the origin of it, and it does go back that far. People tend to think everything went wrong with Obama, you know, talking about the short memory we observe.  But it goes back at least 100 years in terms of the assault.  Also, through immigration, to tip onto your bailiwick here, but the notion that the Communist Party never really trusted it's American acolytes.  Always wanted to have foreign-born controllers here.  I mean this is a matter of command and control.  So right from the Russian Revolution forward, you see the Left, the Communist Left, the fellow Travelers agitating for immigration in order to be able to bring in these kinds of people, bring in these Legions who are also hostile to the American way as part of their unrestricted warfare we might call it today. 

10:13.  Can you tell us what the Venona transcripts are?

10:20.  Sure, they even know the transcripts are decrypts, about 2000 released decrypts of KGB conversations that took place largely in the 1940s that were copied by Western Union during World War II.  And they were actually along the order of something like 2 million of these communications.  We only have about 2,000 that have been released, and they attest to the maneuvering and more administrative in some ways, activities of Soviet agents working here, many of them, hundreds of them, inside the federal government and surrounding institutions with their controllers with Moscow Center.  They were released, it is important to know, by the US government by the intelligence agencies.  So in other words, it wasn't as if there was a wholesale release and scholars could go pick and choose what they would like to read.  We were given a set of these things and we've been using them ever since sort of to corroborate what the actual deal . . . 

11:25.  When were they released?

11:26.  They were released in the 1990s . . . I would say early 90s, 1993, '94. After we started seeing some revelations coming out of Moscow, not before.  Again, they were control-released by government authorities in the former Soviet Union.  So, in other words, we do see this not as something really a free-wheeling revelation, but a controlled revelation which has been very helpful but I do not believe it attests to what was really known inside the security agencies.

12:02.  So the question is why doesn't Donald Trump just order them to be released?

12:06.  I don't know if he's aware of this particular not you know at this point Tempest I mean I wish I actually Drew up a plan to declassifier in Chief in 2016 because there are just piles and piles probably miles and miles archives that should be of archives that should be unredacted and released to the public that go back 100 years 80 years spy rings that everyone is long deceased of black ink if you look at the paperwork and then going forward through so many other scandals that have been kept from the American people and important National Security issues that tend to by staying secret perpetuate the power of the swamp the stature of the traitors in our midst and all the rest of it.  They don't protect anyone good in other words.

13:04.  One of the things that fascinates me about this is this is so often hereditary.  That's one of the things that Rothman pointed out the new Left literally was the second generation of the old left and of course they've continued to reproduce themselves the strong personal connections across the generations.  One of my other great interests is you know have a great speech which Enoch Powell who gave a great speech that kicked off the immigration debates in Britain in 1968 and Powell was sort of like a subtle Trump in that he was able to throw bombs and can then defend himself one of the bombs he threw in the years after he gave his great speech on immigration and was a major figure in British politics, conducting a kind of guerilla war against the establishment.  At one point, he said he wondered if the revelations about communist infiltration the Hallmark of the Department of Interior for them that there had been communist infiltration there, if it hadn't continued to be responsible for the Paradox of the immigration policy where they're letting in people who were obviously of course his point was he simply said I said I wonder I wonder about it I wonder about it too in the context of the US where is immigration policy in the US come from?

14:46.  Absolutely there has to be because no Institution was impervious to the same kind of subversion infiltration embeddedness.  I mean this is what you really do start to get a better sense of when you look at the Venona, the Vasiliaev, the FBI declassifications, the Senate sessions, that were declassified later, you know, the executive sessions later declassified.  I mean this is what comes through loud and clear.  Many of our lawmakers had a real handle on it going back to the 1950s and we're doing things about it but they were constantly assaulted by the same left and media infiltration is also something real.  Whittaker Chambers wrote about the communist cell in Time Magazine.  We know about the various departments and agencies of the US government that were infiltrated.  So, yes, immigration is an important, important tactic here.  As I mentioned earlier you know there was a very good Roosevelt, I consider him, Archibald Roosevelt, who is the son of Teddy Roosevelt.  He was very big on unmasking communist infiltration, and he gave a really important testimony before Congress in the mid 50s.  And he was discussing how communism used immigration everywhere to advance their armies going back to the Russian Revolution and forward.  He was using the example, for example, Hungary after the Russian Revolution.  You saw Bolsheviks entering Hungary after World War II, the same, so that by the time you get to the takeover in 1956 of Hungary you had this whole Trojan Army in place and he was making the case at the same thing happened here.  So you are exactly dead on in terms of people coming in through immigration and then the government pushing for this kind of thing from the Left.  I mean again, it's always the same kind of combination.  You actually have the hardened actors and agents then you have your fellow travelers who believe in the same goals, and you also have your dupes.  I mean always with these activities there are so many people who have no idea they are being manipulated, however, they are part of essentially what we might think of as communist fronts.  Our government becomes a  Communist front, various sectors of a Communist front once there is this kind of infiltration.  I mean just look at the Roosevelt White House, where you have senior advisors to the president later unmasked just in Venona as Soviet agents, whether it was Lachlan Currie, some of the other people in the offices there.  The case against Harry Hopkins is quite strong.  I go through that piece by piece in American Betrayal.  I mean these were the men influencing American policy making at the highest level.  So, yes, it definitely happened in the State Department we know, and the related immigration agencies.  Has to be.  Has to be.

17:42.  The Red Thread is basically your account of how the intelligence agencies organized a coup against Trump.  Just tell us who the chief actors were.

18:03.  We're looking at your Brennans, your Comeys, your Clappers, your Nelly Ohr from the group Fusion GPS that came up with the  dossier.  Christopher Steele her opposite number of former MI6, she had . . even

18:21.  are you saying these people obviously had left wing connections obviously before we even saw them doing this kind of thing.

18:31.  Well I don't think they were obvious to anyone but themselves.  But they are obvious to anyone who takes a look to see what motivates these people.  I mean what motivates these people could I find their ideas because they are such cyphers when you see them in testifying or in print or just look at their CVs.  You don't really know who they are except officials but it turned out there was quite a lot of information about a number of them often in their own words, whether their college thesis.  John Brennan, for example, I mean, James Comey, for example, or John Brennan's Master thesis.  His own John Brennan actually fessed up in public that he had been, that he had voted for Gus Hall in 1976 in his CIA interview and was not cut off.  I mean this is such an extraordinary thing.

19:29.  People tend to think of the FBI particularly the CIA as being right wing.  But of course the Nazis started it all particularly the CIA it's always been a liberal establishment operation.

19:41.  It's always been prey to infiltrators it's been prey to disinformation and party to it I mean this is the reality that we have to accept about these agencies the FBI I think fell at a later date but when you look at James Comey's own writings, his own behaviors he's a very much an "ends justifies the means" social justice warrior.  His ideal to this day starting from the time he was a young man and a self-professed communist at William and Mary was Reinhold Neibuhr.  He claims Reinhold Neibuhr to this day as his leading intellectual influence.  Well, Reinhold Neibuhr especially in the writings that Comey cites as having been so in influential on him was essentially a Marxist in a clerical collar, someone who was always pro-Soviet, pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, always an opponent of the anti-communist of the day.  He had a very clear record of writings actually, even proselytizing for violent overthrow of the established order on college campuses in the 1930s.  I mean he was a real radical.  And when you actually look at Comey the Communist falling in love intellectually . . .

21:00.  Do you think that Comey has left wing connections when he was at college?

21:02.  I don't know what connections he had but he described himself as a communist his own words in 2003 and my point being that Reinhold Neibuhr being his intellectual leader back when he was a communist it is very strange to me that someone who was not a communist is still so guided by him in terms of his communist leanings, social justice, using the law to redistribute wealth and justice, and these are the main ideas of Reinhold Neibuhr in the writings that Comey draws from.  So he's certainly not your typical FBI recruit who would have come in under J Edgar Hoover.  I mean this is what happened to that agency and he ran it.  And was involved in this Palace coup against the president along with all of these other ideological cohorts Christopher Steele, . . . 

21:58.  What did you think they were . . . the curious thing about this is that it developed after the election. I guess they thought . . . what do you think they were actually aiming to do to, get him impeached, or what? 

22:10.  Well, I think hey they were trying to protect themselves and what had been going on inside this government for generations. I mean I think that the fact that they all took such dangerous steps rather than just simply let Trump go come back in 2 years, take over the Congress, I mean that's what we normally do when you get thrown out of power, you come back into power.  So there was something abnormal here about these machinations, this International conspiracy that certainly efforts to subvert the election, the presidency, and the rest of it, and spy on the domestic opposition, that is not normal.  And so when you ask yourself why would they risk everything, of course they assumed Hillary would win, but still do the seditious things, you have to start wondering what the game really was.  My assessment of it is that they were, A) trying to cover everything up that they'd been doing; B) I think ideologically they could not be more opposed to Donald Trump and everything he stands for because he is the man who came to build the nation, again to impose, you know, to build a wall, to impose the immigration controls, to bring manufacturing home; in other words, to interrupt the New World Order, which had been in perfect motion since certainly 1945 in terms of taking away our sovereignty, our nationalism, and everything else, and ending up with this Global type governance, and International economy, and all the rest of it.  And going back to that period . . . just remember who set up the UN, who set up the IMF.  Two Soviet agents who worked very high, at high levels in the American government: Alger Hiss at the UN, and Harry Dexter White at the IMF.  I mean that's pretty astonishing when you actually think about it and where we are.

24:00.  I was very taken with the releases of the list of journalists in 2008 and 9 when it became obvious that all of these Elite Left-wing journalist from different and allegedly.

25:50.  Well they'd work it out and publish it in a daily worker and other organs I mean it was a much slower day right now you can look on Twitter and look at the thought leaders and sort of pick it up right there.  They probably don't need anything like journalists although they may have one I don't know but yes you notice the coordination you notice the pressure to coordinate the pressure not to say something else that's a big part of this as well some of it is staged I'm sure as you say some of it I think becomes a psychological just a psychological on scene pressure I mean people definitely know how to play up to someone and make sure their career continues in a certain way right?  So someone I mean it is like a mass kind of psychosis I guess

Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, Peter Brimelow, 1995.  Thank you to this post

Monday, August 18, 2025

RAYOFREEDOM: This is California in 1984. Democrats haven’t [given] a damn about the American working class since . . . they realized immigration was the key to power.

This is how California could be, but Reagan's amnesty bill for 3 million illegal aliens killed it.

Then the state tried to save itself with California Proposition 187, which would have pushed illegals out of the state by cutting off their access to public services. But that was outlawed by judicial tyranny.
So now, with the amnesty bill having added perhaps over a million paper Americans and millions upon millions pouring in with the hope of more amnesty (and their kids becoming voters), Gavin gets to run the formerly Golden State into the ground.

FOX NEWS: USCIS affirmed the fear via a positive finding of fear, and he was released on a $5,000 immigration bond in January 2019 after being given a Notice to Appear. He has remained in immigration proceedings ever since.

BREAKING: DHS & ICE confirm to @FoxNews that the illegal alien truck driver who killed 3 in a crash in Florida is an Indian national who initially crossed the California border illegally in September 2018 and was arrested by Border Patrol. Harjinder Singh was processed for expedited removal (fast track deportation) by the first Trump administration but claimed fear of going back to India. USCIS affirmed the fear via a positive finding of fear, and he was released on a $5,000 immigration bond in January 2019 after being given a Notice to Appear. He has remained in immigration proceedings ever since.

Singh was arrested by US Marshals in California on Saturday on a warrant for three counts of vehicular homicide in connection to the deadly crash in Florida. Photo of his arrest provided to FOX via federal source. Florida officials say the sanctuary state of California gave him a commercial driver's license. More DHS background on Singh to FOX: "According to Singh, he has no serious physical or mental medical conditions. Singh claims to have no known immediate relatives serving in the U.S. military and is not the primary caretaker of a person with mental or physical disability, a minor or person with a serious illness. Singh claims to not be married and has no minor dependent children. Singh is not a victim of a domestic violence in the United States or human trafficking. After careful consideration of all factors and available records, Singh is considered a significant threat to public safety and is an exceptional circumstance warranting enforcement action due to the serious nature of his criminal history. ERO San Francisco is seeking HRO’s approval to place Singh in removal proceedings."

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

MIKE HOWELL: Democrats colluded with the United Nations, giving $6 billion to a conglomerate of over 200 NGOs to facilitate the largest illegal immigration invasion in U.S. history under Biden with migrants reaching nearly every congressional district according to executive director of the Oversight Projects, Mike Howell

BREAKING - It’s been revealed Democrats colluded with the United Nations, giving $6 billion to a conglomerate of over 200 NGOs to facilitate the largest illegal immigration invasion in U.S. history under Biden with migrants reaching nearly every congressional district according to executive director of the Oversight Projects, Mike Howell.

 

Thursday, August 7, 2025

BILL CLINTON, 1998: "Thanks to mass immigration, whites will be a minority in America." Listen to what the audience applauds

The above speech is not Clinton's State of the Union Speech given in 1998. 

It was a commencement address to the graduating class of 1998 at Portland [Oregon] State University.   Given on June 13, 1998.  President Clinton gave the commencement address at Portland (OR) State University in which he laid out his administration's policy regarding immigration

But now we are being tested again - by a new wave of immigration larger that any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in ten people in America was born in another country; one in five schoolchildren is from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.


Friday, July 25, 2025

DR. LAWRENCE SELLIN: The Chinese Fifth Column has thoroughly infiltrated the highest levels of U.S. business, academia, tech, media and government.

Many Chinese people do not know what a “fifth column” is, and they do not understand what the “fifth column” does, but in fact, unknowingly, many people have been used by the fifth column.

The term “fifth column” first came from the Spanish Civil War, when Franco, the leader of the Spanish National Army and supported by Nazi Hitler, launched an attack on the capital city of Madrid in 1936.

Before the battle, a reporter asked Franco, “General, which unit do you think will be the first to reach the top of Madrid?

Franco replied: the Fifth Column.

The journalist was surprised to learn that the rebels had only four columns, so why was there a fifth column?Only after the war did we learn that the “fifth column” did not refer to the troops participating in the war, but to the “insiders” who had been spreading the word “imminent defeat” during the siege. The goal was to get more people to turn against the motherland when the great war came!

Compared to traitorous spies in the traditional sense, the Fifth Column is higher in status and more destructive. Mixing with socialites, possessing high social status, superior intelligence, and highly inflammatory rhetoric, the destruction generated by this group is strategic! They collaborate with the enemy from the inside and outside, and do whatever they can to subvert and destroy the united group of the country.

On the surface people do not come into contact with these people and do not cross paths with them, but in reality these people are all around, people just do not notice.

The Fifth Column, a potential organization that has been cultivated by the U.S. for years, has been confronted by China and the U.S., and the organization that has been carefully cultivated for years is coming more and more into view. China is now a superpower with nuclear weapons, its economic strength is the second highest in the world, and its military power is firmly in the top three. The United States then wants to dismantle China through military strikes is obviously not the best means, and the unpredictability of war also brings huge risks, so breaking from within is the best option.  --Cioppimrangm

The Chinese Fifth Column has thoroughly infiltrated the highest levels of U.S. business, academia, tech, media and government.

Sellin explains, 

I define a Fifth Column as a group of domestic actors, who support or work in cooperation with external rivals or enemies, like China, whose aims are contrary to or undermine the national interest of the United States. The activities of a Fifth Column can be overt or clandestine.

For over 40 years, the Chinese Communist Party has exploited bilateral agreements with the United States and pro-CCP Chinese have misused the legal immigration system to obtain permanent residency or U.S. citizenship, but having no intention of becoming loyal Americans.

Those pro-CCP Chinese now occupy prominent positions at every level of American society, including within the U.S. government. This extensive Chinese Fifth Column, many of whose leaders coordinate with Chinese officials in the United States and China, poses a significant national security threat to the United States.

Pro-CCP Chinese immigrants have established hundreds of Chinese-American professional, business, cultural and community-based organizations, which maintain close connections with the Chinese Communist Party and, specifically, with the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, which gathers intelligence and conducts influence operations world-wide, but particularly in the United States. 

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

DOJ Using Purse Strings to Get State and City Compliance

Sunday, July 20, 2025

ERIC WEINSTEIN, WEF, & WORLD BANK: Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages.

Eric Weinstein has succeeded in making Americans poor and poorer. 

Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives” 
Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore

Eric R. Weinstein’s “Great Replacement” by @JohnnyVedmore.  

Full article from Johnny Vedmore here.
At the turn of the millennium, the United Nations was busily trying to encourage economic migration to the Western world. However, encouraging unfettered economic migration as we are experiencing today is highly unpopular with native workers of the target countries. The United Nations International Labor Organization in Geneva set up "the MIGRANT Division" to analyze and find solutions to these issues. To lead the unit, the UN appointed Manolo Abella to be Chief of MIGRANT, who is now linked with the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the University of Oxford, and others. Their stated challenge was to: “Find a free market solution to let employers reap the productivity benefit from decreasing their costs while boosting the income of native workers to the point where their interests become aligned with their employers.” To achieve this goal they decided on a solution. They wrote: “Native workers will not support programs which lower their total incomes. Yet, migration can be counted upon to produce a reliable net benefit in host countries only if it is allowed to decrease wages. Thus the solution is to realize that total income must rise while wage income is allowed to fall. This suggests that any natural free market solution must involve a natural income stream to host country workers which has previously been obscured or hidden. We then discover that if the (highly valuable) right of host country citizens to block access to labor markets is properly converted into a salable right, workers are made better off (since a salable right is always more financially valuable than a non-salable one). We thus convert the rights to preferential labor market access into rights of workers to license migrant work permits to employers. We find that with a little bit of care the market will now return an efficient solution with all parties being made better off.” Essentially the UN decided that the democratic voters of a nation-state would oppose unfettered economic migration, as we are experiencing today, and the folks at this globalist entity believed they knew better. To achieve their goals, the United Nations needed to subversively introduce this agenda in an undemocratic manner without gaining the consent of the native citizens of the democracies that they were to target. The man they chose to analyse and map out this scheme, which many refer to now as “The Great Replacement” was Eric R. Weinstein, who has since become a central figure in the “Intellectual Dark Web” whose members include Ben Shapiro, David Rubin, Jordan B. Peterson, Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, and Eric’s brother Bret Weinstein.

was employed by the UN to produce a document entitled, "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." Weinstein was aware of the damage which economic migration was to do to the native populations in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom. In one part of the document he produced for this nefarious United Nations agenda entitled, “Preference for migrants, undercutting of natives”, Weinstein wrote: “When migrant and native workers of comparable value to an employer are asked to compete, it is to be expected that the employer will take the applicant who costs him/her less. If, however, the respective terms of employment of the native and the migrant workers differ considerably, the employer may develop a preference between otherwise equal candidates. If migrant workers are not permitted to seek alternative work in the host country, then their “company loyalty” is reduced to a matter of law and regulation. In such circumstances, employers know that they will not have to earn migrant worker loyalty with the expenditure of resources that would be needed in the case of native workers. Thus it is to be expected that in systems tethering migrant workers to their employer-sponsors, some migrants will out-compete natives of comparable or greater value simply by virtue of the terms of employment set by the MWP. Since this is precipitated by a rational market response on the part of native employers, this consequence must be seen as a natural, if unfortunate, by-product of direct migrant sponsorship.” The Weinstein plan was always going to cost the government money, as we see unfolding today. A meticulous and proactive plan would have to be enacted by the nation-state in question to deal with the impact of large-scale migration and the author makes this clear in the document, with Eric R. Weinstein stating: “In effect, the government would assume all the administrative and transport costs for a group of migrants, as well as calculating the additional external impacts of hosting them. To indicate these costs, the government would calculate the expected migrant impact cost as a function of the number of migrants. Such a function would be expected not only to grow as the number of migrants increased, but also to do so in accelerating fashion, because of concern for the environment, monitoring costs, societal stress, and security risks.” The plan which was set out by Eric Weinstein predisposes the necessity of what he describes as “a much larger redistribution of native income”. The influx of migrants will always take wealth and opportunities away from the native population and this has a knock-on effect on how the “self-interested electorate” of the nation-state involved will vote. “In the first instance, the tethering of migrants to employer-sponsors creates a non-market system with a host of inefficiencies, as well as the potential for human rights violations. Second, naively opening markets to migrants from lower-income countries can act as a kind of “tax”, redistributing native income away from workers and towards employers. Of course, it can be argued that any proposed redistribution is intrinsically neither good nor bad, yet such transfers can make it nearly impossible to reach broad consensus on many important migration issues within the host country electorate: rationality indicates that proposals which threaten to harm the majority of individuals are unlikely to be approved by a self-interested electorate.” While comparing and analysing different methods of controlling the influx of migrants, Weinstein also studies the “Borjas Model” of economic migration and the predictable effect of its implementation on native workers, stating: “Native workers in the sector concerned may experience none of the economic benefits of the migration program. In fact, in the absence of any compensation measures, they may experience a substantial loss of income, as the benefit to the host society stems from the ability to lower wages while simultaneously increasing the number of workers employed.”

The problems of “ghettoization” and issues relating to “long-term native shortages” are brought up by Weinstein as known consequences of the redistribution of income away from native populations, but at no point are these problems expressed as reasons not to force economic migration upon target populations. In this United Nations document, Eric Weinstein specifically pushes Marxist ideology concerning the redistribution of income and wealth which benefits economic migrants at the expense of the native populations. Eric Weinstein proudly advertised his work for the United Nations on his website at the time, as well as posing himself as an expert on the subject. Under the title of “International Migration”, Weinstein even had a special email address for issues concerning migration where it was written: “If you are interested in the creation of efficient markets for facilitating increased international labor migration, please contact me at migration@eric-weinstein.net regarding the article 'Migration for the Benefit of All' to appear in 2002 in the International Labor Review. It is a pleasure to thank the MIGRANT division of the United Nations ILO in Geneva for sponsoring this work.” Whether you like him or not, Eric Weinstein has not been honest about his part in designing the failed Globalist system of economic migration which many people today refer to as the “Great Replacement”. He also hasn’t advertised his previous involvement with the United Nations, and his connection to Edge while it was fully funded by Jeffrey Epstein. During this time, Weinstein was also producing models for JP Morgan, one of Epstein’s keenest employers. Find this article with source material at newspaste.com/2024/09/25/eri I have also linked the original UN sponsored document produced by Eric Weinstein, entitled: "Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration." in PDF format.

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Does the 14th Amendment mandate Birthright citizenship?

Many people assume that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause requires so called birthright citizenship, such that the children of illegal aliens must automatically become US citizens.  Donald Trump recently issued an executive order clarifying the meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, arguing that it does not mandate birthright citizenship, and he happens to be absolutely right.  Birthright citizenship is a terrible idea that only about 30 of the world's nearly 200 countries observe.  But in this video, I'm not focused on whether it's a good or bad thing, I'm looking instead at whether it really is true that the 14th Amendment mandates it.  

Trump is correct to say in his executive order that,

in no formal way that could bind anyone has "The 14th Amendment ever been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the United States." 

So I'm going to give you a quick run through of the issue.  First, I recommend a book called Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity, written by Peter Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, Yale University Press, 1985.  In that book, they make a compelling case that the 14th Amendment does not mandate Birthright citizenship.  Schuck and Smith begin a summer 2018 article in National Affairs this way,

If an unauthorized alien gives birth to a child on American soil, is a child automatically a United States citizen?

Americans have long assumed that the answer is yes, that the child is a Birthright citizen regardless of the parent's legal status and that such citizenship is required and guaranteed by the Constitution. 

But a closer examination of the matter suggests that this answer is actually incorrect, and that Birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants here illegally is better understood as a matter for Congress and the American people to resolve.

What makes their conclusion especially interesting is that Chuck and Smith describe themselves as scholars who,

"strongly favor even more legal immigration than the U.S. now accepts, and a generous amnesty for those now here illegally.

So even though their conclusion runs counter to their personal political beliefs and they are not Trump sympathizers in the least, they contend that the evidence is so strong against Birthright citizenship that scholarly honesty compels them to say so.  

The fact that many opponents of Birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized parents harbor anti-immigrant views does not mean that their bottom line position is wrong.

They argue that because the Constitution does not mandate Birthright citizenship, the matter may be regulated by Congressional statute instead, which is precisely what was done for Native Americans.

Let's examine the details of the argument against the birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution begins,

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.

What was the purpose of this clause?  As people agreed at the time, it involved the question of the Freedmen who, according to the 1857 Dred Scott Decision, we're not citizens.  A constitutional amendment would place the question beyond the reach of any statute but they couldn't just say that everyone born in the United States was a citizen because that would include Indians and their allegiance belong not to the United States but to the tribes of which they were members.  Hence the addition of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Black Americans born here were obviously subject to US jurisdiction, while Indians weren't.  So this clause made the precise distinction that the situation called for.  You'll notice that the reason Indians were excluded is that they had an allegiance to a foreign power, namely their tribal governments.  Illegal aliens would therefore be excluded by the same language and for the same reason.

That phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is therefore key to understanding the clause.  The argument of Trump's legal supporters is that illegal immigrants are subject to a foreign sovereignty are therefore not subject to us jurisdiction and thus the citizenship clause above does not apply to them.  Trump's opponents on the other hand are trying to argue that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wording does not exclude illegal aliens, and that it excludes only children who may be born to foreign diplomats who reside in the United States but are citizens of foreign countries.  But children born to parents who are diplomats to the United States constitute such a vanishingly small number of people that it is hard to credit the idea that they would have received such prominent positioning in a Constitutional Amendment.  In fact, the main argument in favor of Birthright citizenship these days is that "but . . . we've had it for such a long time." But of course whether something "has been done for a long time" has nothing to do with weather the practice is mandated by the Constitution or not.  What was meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment was that in order for you to be an American citizen you had to be subject to no other sovereign.  Congressman John Bingham, sometimes called the father of the 14th Amendment itself, held that the meaning of this clause was that,

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

So there it is parents not owing Allegiance to any foreign sovereignty but illegal immigrants are subject to a foreign power namely to the government where they legally reside and their children are there for excluded from the citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob Howard who introduced the 14th Amendment various provisions on the senate floor on May 23rd 1866, said, he regarded the citizenship class as,

Simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already declaratory of the law as it already existed.

This is a reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated that,

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens in the United States.  

I've heard some misinformed Libertarians argue that illegal immigrants are in fact subject to us jurisdiction after all because if they commit a crime they can get arrested by us authorities so that proves their subject to us jurisdiction they triumphantly argue and therefore the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause does indeed apply to their children born here.  But that would make everybody who visits the United States as a tourist into a U.S. citizen, because any tourist can also get arrested here for committing a crime.  

7:43.  The meaning of the clause which we can ascertain from the statements of its drafters, as well as from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, is that a person must be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US in order to be a US citizen.  So if a tourist comes to the United States from Iceland, that person has to obey our laws, including, for example, our traffic laws regarding roundabouts, which are different here than they are in Iceland.  If he violates these laws, he will find himself up against U.S. law enforcement.  But because he is not fully subject to us jurisdiction, he cannot be punished for treason and he can't be drafted into the US Military. So such are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States.  

8:31Thomas Cooley in his 1880 treatise The Great Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, says, that 

"Subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "meant that full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject and not any qualified or partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.  

Likewise, in the 1884 case of "Elk v. Wilkins," the Supreme Court said that,

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required that someone be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate Allegiance.

We also read in that decision, 

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent, power) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the first section of the 14th Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public Ministers of foreign Nations.

Did you catch that in noting that Indians were excluded from automatic citizenship the courts said they were no more citizens then were the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government in other words it was obvious to the court that of course the children of people who were subjects of foreign governments weren't US citizens .  The first time the Supreme Court mention this citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment though was 12 years earlier in 1872 Slaughterhouse cases just four years after the amendment was ratified. And just 4 years after the Amendment's ratification, the court said that,

The phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, councils, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. 

But in the 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided some 30 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Justice Horace Gray in a 5-4 decision suddenly adopted the opposite view and by assertion.  This is the case that Birthright citizenship supporters point to rather than the cases that were chronologically closer to the actual passage of the 14th Amendment.  But this isn't the first time and it won't be the last that the court has been wrong.  For one thing, we read in that case that when the Constitution is unclear, Americans have to rely upon the common law inherited from England.  According to the common law Doctrine of "Use solely," everyone born on the king soil owes allegiance to the king and perpetuity and thus Birthright citizenship is the rule in America well that's pretty weak we broke from that way of thinking in the Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, legal scholar John Eastman writes,

Wong Kim Ark involved a child born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States not those who were only here temporarily or illegally.

Indeed, honest Scholars will be forced to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants or even temporary lawful visitors are constitutionally entitled to automatic citizenship merely by virtue of their birth in the United States.  

Most people aren't even aware that there is a constitutional argument against birth rights citizenship that's because most of us were victims of educational malpractice in fact there are plenty of other controversial issues about which we've heard only the approved version but real American history, the politically incorrect kind, that hasn't been sanitized or falsified by wackos, is much more interesting and that's what I specialize in at Woodshistory.com, the history they kept from you.  Learn from me over there for free.  That's Woodshistory.com

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

WALL STREET APES: ICE raid at a California construction job site They are lined up, questioned and processed by immigration This is just one job site. Multiply this by thousands. American citizens have been replaced

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

CALIFORNIA: is expanding The California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to give illegal aliens 55 and older, regardless of immigration status, up to $2,000 per month in food assistance This is more than Americans get on social security

INSANE 🚨 California is expanding The California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to give illegal aliens 55 and older, regardless of immigration status, up to $2,000 per month in food assistance.. This is more than Americans get on social security That’s not all, Undocumented illegals are also eligible for WIC, Medical and additional programs:

This new CFAP expansion for illegal seniors is NEW and is set to begin October 1, 2027.