The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Is the Burden of Proof in Deporting a Convicted Sex Criminal on America Rather Than on the Sex Criminal?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Fox News:

Man accused of raping woman on crowded train was released from immigration detention, never deported

Court records show Fiston Ngoy already had a criminal record

By Alex Pfeiffer, Adam Shaw | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: The man who allegedly raped a woman in front of passengers on a Philadelphia area-train already has a criminal record and had overstayed his student visa – but was protected from deportation by the immigration system.

Tucker Carlson Tonight has confirmed that Fiston Ngoy, who was arrested last week for allegedly raping the woman in a brutal attack on a SEPTA train in front of other passengers, came to the U.S. legally in 2012 on a student visa.

However, the 35-year-old Congolese national’s visa was terminated in 2015 because he failed to remain a student.

But, hey, that was only six years ago.

Meanwhile, court records show that he racked up “multiple arrests and two misdemeanor convictions, one for controlled substances and one for sexual abuse.” Ngoy pled guilty in 2017 in Washington D.C. to the sexual abuse misdemeanor and was sentenced to 120 days in prison and nine months probation.

He was put in immigration detention in Jan. 2018. However, he was never deported because he received a “withholding of removal” from an immigration judge in March 2019 after the Board of Immigration Appeals found that his misdemeanor sex offense was not a “serious crime” that would have made him ineligible for such a stay.

As a result, Ngoy was released and only had to report into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under an order of supervision (OSUP). OSUPs involve conditions being placed on those who have been temporarily released from custody until they are able to be deported, typically involving regular check ins.

An obvious problem is that the U.S. government treats deportation as the final, ultimate, irreversible step like execution, so deportation proceedings, like death penalty appeals, get dragged out forever, since deportation can’t possibly be rescinded if any mistake has been made. Except … that’s not true.

We could just change the order of events around: you illegally overstay your visa and then get imprisoned for a sex crime? Well, when you get out of jail you are immediately put on a flight back to your home country. You are then free to file all the appeals you are entitled to from back home. And, in the unlikely event that it turns out you shouldn’t have been deported for some reason, you are then free to come back to the U.S. Heck, we’ll send you a ticket.

But you don’t get to hang around in the U.S. filing appeals for why you shouldn’t be deported for your sex crime and committing more sex crimes.

Does this make sense?

 
Hide 105 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. How many sex crimes did he commit without being caught in the meantime as he advanced to the ‘openly raping females in the subway’ level?

  2. Does this make sense?

    Information technology breakthroughs like the printing press and the internet so overload the senses of those who came of age before the breakthrough that they prefer the senseless to exacerbating the overload.

    So you have things like the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the unraveling we see around us. This is what new generations are for.

    • Thanks: Abe
    • Replies: @Rob
    @Desiderius

    This makes intuitive sense. It makes the hoped-for (by some) development of tech to stop aging kind of scary. Hopefully, we will also develop the tech to return people to the neuroplasticity people have at younger ages, at least to the younger twenties.

    More pragmatically, it is why we desperately need younger people in upper levels of government. It is why people in government believed Facebook ads and memes “stole” the election. Their first response was “what’s Facebook?” Their response to the answer was “why would anyone use it?” They had no clue that no one clicks on Facebook ads or notices them. They did not know that one does not need a CS degree and a lifetime in intelligence agency propaganda to make a meme that goes viral. One needs a picture and witness.

    It is why the Republican reaction to social media censorship was non-existent. Hunter Biden's laptop was maybe the most egregious, but who knows how many stories or memes would have gone viral, had there not been a heavy thumb on the scale. Unfollowing people from various accounts is a (perhaps) newer ones, and far more potent. By controlling who gets popular, they can control what issues reach the zeitgeist. I am sure that if one's Tweets are clever, funny, and focus on preventing social media censorship, taxing capital, and creation of a government agency to regulate tech companies from the boardroom to the code itself to prevent tech companies, which employ many foreigners, from ever interfering in an election again, one’s feed will never “go viral.” We have been overly informed by the Democrats and their media that foreign interference in elections is not only intolerable but makes the winner illegitimate. There is no concern that at tech companies foreign nationals, many from countries with no tradition of free speech or deep internalization of American norms, can control information relevant to an election. Therefore, Biden was illegitimately elected. #MakeAmericaResistAgain

    The Republicans tend towards gerontocracy because their voters are older, but also because the schools work hard to undermine white boys and men, especially conservative ones, that few white men who have run the course of honors that would get normies to vote for a younger candidate are available. That Bootyjudge was gay is not incidental to how successful he was in getting into Harvard, working at Goldman Sachs, and getting a (fraudulent) military commission. Gay men are, if not genetically, unchangeably on team D. No Republican who had been the mayor of a small city in the Midwest would have been treated as a serious candidate. It is also telling to the talent pool of team D that the only white midwesterner moderate they could find had such a thin resume and was gay.

    The D team tends toward gerontocracy because the younger generations are all minorities and women. The minorities don’t like each other. The popularity of the Karen meme strongly suggests that the minorities are none too fond of the white women, but the women are the ones who have brains. Some young white men are Democrats, but they are half-hearted ones, at best. Being the natural and designated enemy demographic, even firm Democrat men tend to be there for niche reasons, like homosexuality, environmentalism, or because that’s where the pussy is. Being niche or there for fun, the younger white men are neither successful as candidates nor irreversibly on the team. Here, bioleninism holds. I left out the Jews, who provide most of the Democrats’ brains because they dislike being the ass in the seat, preferring to influence the ass behind the scenes. I have read that a big chunk of Democrats’ funding comes from Jews, though I have read that in places that would claim that even if it were not true. The overwhelming presence of jews in the brainy part of the party, smart whites having left and the remaining ones being niche or self-hating, coupled with white women’s desire for social conformity makes the Democrats extremist on immigration, to name one issue.

    The other group of white men on the D team are the college-educated, they currently face little competition from immigrants, though the coming full infotech realignment, there will be Indians raised by parents who are being shaped by American corporate culture. Not to mention, the Indians in America will have climbed to the very top of the corporate totem pole. They will be more comfortable dealing with Indians than the outsourcingest white corporate honcho. Maybe Indian caste-ism will limit Indian solidarity.

    This suggests a strategy for immigration “reform.” Insist on piecewise reform, or, and this might be better pairwise reform. In piecewise reform, the Asians do not benefit from DACA, nor do H1b’s who’ve been here for years. Set a quota: we will accept this many new legals. You DACAs and younH1b’s decide amongst yourselves how this quota should be split. “Temporary” Protected Status aliens from third world countries with third world problems? They can go into a pool with people on student visas who want to stay. Do the same thing: we will legalize this many. The temps will call the students entitled and privileged. The students will call the temps unskilled and a permanent burden. The worst outcome, that the bill passes and some get to stay? Well, at least we have fewer than “comprehensive reform” done by Democrats. The most likely outcome? The Dems don’t support it, and enough Republicans can bow out on ‘my Indian friends don’t like their limit’ or ‘this is unfair, and my DACAs’ American citizen siblings don’t support it, so the bill dies. The benefits are overwhelmingly good. There is now bad blood between former allies. The smart aliens will have spent months calling the dumbs dumb and parasitical. The dumbs will have called out how many of the students “attended” online degree mills, and are as low-skilled as the temps, plus, they can go home to their rich families.

    Let’s say the bills don’t die very quickly, we make compromises, like however many thousand more aliens, but none of the newly legal can import aliens of their own, ever. So, however many do not become five times the quota in a few years. Offer great deals that they cannot take. Everyone here on date such-and-such gets legalized. In exchange, we get a Constitutional amendment prohibiting future immigration. None, zip, zero, but everyone who has “made a life” here gets to stay. Hmm, since the country has passed the point of no return, maybe this offer is a bad idea, but then the other side will be torn, white women D’s who are sure that their demographic dominance is already guaranteed, versus the DACAs who want cousin Tito to come. Restricted residency of aliens so the political balance is not changed. LA can have all the aliens it wants, but none in the red districts. Also, Americans who want to live in America can. Think of Res States as reservations.

    Sorry, back to age. Younger politicians on the right would be more based than the old men. The old men live in the “hyper white” old (lol) America. The younger whites went to school with integrated blacks, so they know they are dumb and legally privileged. They went to school with endless Hispanics, they know that, while the best are the salt of the earth, the worst are in league with cartels. Etc. They know exactly how non-white America is. They surely don’t want it to become more so?

    On the D side, younger leadership is also great. For us. Why? Because they are insane! Every political issue is a black and white moral issue -- which is racist, white supremacist language, by the way -- so they cannot compromise on anything without the other shitlibs tearing up the shitlib in charge. Plus, younger leadership on the D side shows normies just how non-white they are. We better get this soon, while voters are still much whiter than the population.

    But in a decade, maybe two, the current young political set will be in charge. Hopefully, they get authority before their neuroplasticity has gone, and they are fully Twitterfied.

  3. You ask “why”?

    I don’t know why.

    But,I’ll bet alot that it doesn’t have anything to do with the judicial system,or followers of the dominating religion that forgives the poor sinners.Just turn the other cheek and pay more
    to the lawyers who God spoke so highly of in his book.Then they can get elected to represent
    the faithful in the greatest representative republican democracy of all time.

    “Burden of proof” would require TRUTH…and, we don’t have that…Prai\$e

  4. Multiple arrests and convictions? Why, this migrant is a Democrat hero straight from Central Casting!

    If the other SEPTA passengers recorded the crime rather than intervene or call for help–as has been alleged–people are saying that the victim must be white. It’s about the only way it makes “sense”.

    The MSM version will have her be a black mother, gang raped by white frat boys. Netflix series?

    • Agree: Enemy of Earth
    • Replies: @guest007
    @Charon

    Image how the Central Park Jogger case would have been different if it had occurred during the age of the smart phone. There would have video of the attack all over the internet and sites like TheRoot or TheGrio would have been posting the video, naming the women attacked, and trying to justify why she needed to be raped.

    , @J1234
    @Charon

    And most of the witnesses were likely non-white. A transit cop said that most or all of the witnesses didn't call 911. They took video, though. That's a very black thing to do.

  5. I would say he should have been deported once he was found to have overstayed his student visa. Is there a good reason he was not? It is interesting and not surprising that when his case came up under the Trump administration, they did not send him back, either.

    I do not think the idea of shipping people back immediately and then let them fight to get back in will fly legally but who knows.

    Certainly the facts of this case show there is great reluctance within our own criminal justice system and our immigration courts to follow and enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration. How much of this resistance is due to individuals within the system using their own discretion and how much of it comes from various regulations and executive orders I am not sure. But instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office

    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how “serious” their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.

    • Replies: @Sick 'n Tired
    @notsaying

    Go over stay your visa in Switzerland, and they will show up at your door, and escort you to the airport.

    , @Joseph Doaks
    @notsaying

    "instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office"

    This proves the existence of a "deep state" whose roots extend deep into the government and even society at large. Not only have immigration laws been routinely ignored for decades, but the average American, if polls are to be believed, thinks that once they have avoided deportation, illegals should be allowed to stay forever stealing jobs and benefits intended for U.S. citizens. The rights and privileges of all citizens are constantly being diluted by this endless invasion and the only justification seems to be "but they're nice people, they're just like us."

    Replies: @notsaying

    , @Boy the way Glenn Miller played
    @notsaying


    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how “serious” their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.
     
    I can't imagine illegally immigrating somewhere and deciding to do anything other than follow the straight and narrow. When an illegal alien decides to show his ass, spitting on the sidewalk ought to be grounds for deportation.
  6. Any info yet on the race of the victim?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Random info from the Internet. It hinges on what the meaning of "incredibly strong woman" is:


    [Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt] said the “incredibly strong woman” told police that she remembered getting on the train around 9:15 p.m. in Philadelphia. He said he couldn’t remember anything after that until cops pulled his attacker out of her, the Inquirer reported.

    The woman told police that she had a few beers after work, but she got on the wrong train. About a minute later, Ngoy also got on, according to the affidavit.
     

    He came, he saw ... he raped!

    Is Ngoy from the Republic of the Congo (Congo Republic, Congo Brazzaville, ex-French, Bantu), more or less calm, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Kinshasa, Zaire, ex-Belgian-King "Beast Rabban" Leopold II, Bantu) (war-riven hellhole)?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bridgeport_IPA, @Gabe Ruth

  7. Anonymous[283] • Disclaimer says:

    The analogy of ‘deportation’ with ‘execution’ is both apt and odd.

    The left/Economist seems to view the deportation of miscreant aliens as being akin to the capital punishment of the individual in its gravity and finality – and it incites the same horror in them.

    But, in reality, all repatriation amounts to is the return of the native son to the warm bosom of his ancestral homeland, the land of his family, cousins and kinfolk, the tender loving embrace of one’s own people, home and culture.

    That the unfeigned horror of the left/Economist is so strong and extreme concerning repatriation – it is indeed a fate worse than death – must, surely, invoke the reality of the ‘warm bosom’ of third world kith and kin.

    You have been warned.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Anonymous


    ...must, surely, invoke the reality of the ‘warm bosom’ of third world kith and kin.
     
    Indeed.

    But every immigrant with which I've chatted insists that the home country is as good or better than the US. They are just here to expand the brand and pick up money.

    Replies: @Technite78

    , @Charlotte
    @Anonymous

    This tension between two mutually exclusive ideas is evident in so many of the preoccupations of modern leftists. Is that why they are so militant? Because on some level, they know the tenets of their faith don’t make sense?

    Nonwhite, third world countries are absolutely not sh*tholes! / sending third world migrants back to their horrid, dangerous countries of origin would be tantamount to murder!

    Race does not exist, is a recent invention, and doesn’t mean anything / pretty much all of history consists of dull, genocidal whites oppressing vibrant blacks and browns out of racial animus

    Sex/gender is a spectrum, and in any case, sex and gender are not linked, which is why we refer to birthing people instead of “women” / helping unhappy children mutilate themselves to better approximate “boys” and “girls” is a literal matter of life or death!

  8. Why Is the Burden of Proof in Deporting a Convicted Sex Criminal on America Rather Than on the Sex Criminal?

    Is it at least possible that convicted sex criminals know something about the people who run this place that the rest of us don’t? Not a joke. I’ve seen the faces of some of these “refugees” and they look like they know plenty more about Some Things than, say, “people who work hard and play by the rules.”

    Just a thought on this Night of the Full Hunter’s Moon.

  9. He came on a student visa in 2012, when he was (presumably) aged 26. I know people are staying in education for longer than in the past, but 26 seems late to be starting new studies. Perhaps an age cap on student visas is required?

    • Replies: @beavertales
    @Andrew M

    What was his study program? What kind of pre-requisites did he show, and what were his grades like in high school? A person should be exceptional to be granted a study visa, not just wave a few dollars around. What institution accepted him, and how did he afford rent for the years 2012-2015?

    How much income did he bring to live on while studying?

    I'm going to venture a guess he's a low I.Q., semi-literate retard, and started accessing the welfare system as soon as he arrived.

    Reporters, where are you?

  10. • Replies: @Anonymous
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Just want you want to have settle in your country - those with the DNA to sell their country's secrets to the highest bidder.

  11. But Congo is a sh, um, never mind.

  12. @Anonymous
    The analogy of 'deportation' with 'execution' is both apt and odd.

    The left/Economist seems to view the deportation of miscreant aliens as being akin to the capital punishment of the individual in its gravity and finality - and it incites the same horror in them.

    But, in reality, all repatriation amounts to is the return of the native son to the warm bosom of his ancestral homeland, the land of his family, cousins and kinfolk, the tender loving embrace of one's own people, home and culture.

    That the unfeigned horror of the left/Economist is so strong and extreme concerning repatriation - it is indeed a fate worse than death - must, surely, invoke the reality of the 'warm bosom' of third world kith and kin.


    You have been warned.

    Replies: @bomag, @Charlotte

    …must, surely, invoke the reality of the ‘warm bosom’ of third world kith and kin.

    Indeed.

    But every immigrant with which I’ve chatted insists that the home country is as good or better than the US. They are just here to expand the brand and pick up money.

    • Replies: @Technite78
    @bomag

    Agreed, they all miss their home country; that's why there are endless ethnic festivals, mini flags flown from rear-view mirrors, etc. It's also why they almost immediately try to recreate the environment of their home country upon arriving (no matter how counter-productive that seems to us).

    They just want demand semi-functional infrastructure and government handouts... and will happily supply the dysfunctional culture.

  13. Perhaps its his parents fault for giving him such an unfortunate name?

    As for the rest, it is actually easier to remain as an illegal alien criminal raping women in subways than to be a productive white immigrant from an European country doing everything according to the rules.

    The current immigration system rewards cheaters, liars and frauds, and punishes honest people. That’s how it works. And not just in America, in all the current Western world.

    Anyway, I never understood this need to keep foreign criminals instead of deporting them immediately. Doesn’t the country already have enough criminals as it is?

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Dumbo

    Diversity is its own reward.

  14. ‘Does this make sense?’

    You say that like making sense is still a requirement.

    So often, when people’s actions appear stupid or even nonsensical, it’s because you mistake their purpose. In this case, assume the powers that be are trying to wreck America, and things will fall into place nicely.

  15. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://twitter.com/wstorr/status/1450377107968774149

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Just want you want to have settle in your country – those with the DNA to sell their country’s secrets to the highest bidder.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  16. Why are we deporting these animals instead of executing them?

    • Agree: Adam Smith, Ben tillman
  17. You are then free to file all the appeals you are entitled to from back home.

    I’m not saying this should be disqualifying, but aren’t appeals of this nature generally held in person?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @ScarletNumber

    You can visit the American embassy in your homeland to file your appeal.

    Replies: @Stonewall Jackson, @Catdompanj

    , @Matttt
    @ScarletNumber

    According to the Board of Immigration Appeals' website, "Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings - it decides appeals by conducting a 'paper review' of cases." It looks like the immigration courts have their own electronic document filing system as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the BIA held oral arguments, in the few cases that it decides to hear them, by Zoom.

    So, no. Not only is the alien's presence unnecessary, but it looks like the attorneys don't have to be there either. All you need to file an appeal is a computer and internet connection.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ScarletNumber

  18. anonymous[950] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe too many black people tend to not do well on their own in mixed company on trains.

    It’s almost as if there was some functional reasoning based on experience regarding segregation as practiced in the fifties, but the current young have no idea of the “before time,” so they just can’t figure out what’s gone wrong:

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  19. @Dumbo
    Perhaps its his parents fault for giving him such an unfortunate name?

    As for the rest, it is actually easier to remain as an illegal alien criminal raping women in subways than to be a productive white immigrant from an European country doing everything according to the rules.

    The current immigration system rewards cheaters, liars and frauds, and punishes honest people. That's how it works. And not just in America, in all the current Western world.

    Anyway, I never understood this need to keep foreign criminals instead of deporting them immediately. Doesn't the country already have enough criminals as it is?

    Replies: @El Dato

    Diversity is its own reward.

  20. “Does this make sense?”

    It makes sense for petty crimes like shoplifting or driving without a license. For violent crime? Death. If some visiting alien abuses the trust of a nation and assaults (or worse) one of its citizens, he dies. And make sure the Associated Press correspondent from his home country gets sent the story.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Mike Tre

    “Driving without a license” is not a “crime”, it is a violation of commerce.
    I otherwise completely agree with your comment.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @petit bourgeois

  21. Here’s yet another example of the benefits of cultural diversity enrichment; years of living in domestic terror and a child’s body stored next to the popsicles:

    https://richmond.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/father-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-young-son-whose-remains-were-found-in-freezer/article_d7646ab8-4da4-5644-9f32-320d0309b584.html

  22. I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.

    • Replies: @res
    @Erik Sieven


    US immigration services seem to have two faces.
     
    Just another manifestation of anarcho-tyranny.
    , @duncsbaby
    @Erik Sieven


    I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.
     
    Americans can't travel into Canada if they have a DUI conviction, no matter how old the offense. Of course that was pre-pandemic, now I don't know what hoops and garters you've got to jump through to get into the Great White North. Too many for just a casual visit, I'm sure.

    Replies: @EdwardM

  23. @International Jew
    Any info yet on the race of the victim?

    Replies: @El Dato

    Random info from the Internet. It hinges on what the meaning of “incredibly strong woman” is:

    [Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt] said the “incredibly strong woman” told police that she remembered getting on the train around 9:15 p.m. in Philadelphia. He said he couldn’t remember anything after that until cops pulled his attacker out of her, the Inquirer reported.

    The woman told police that she had a few beers after work, but she got on the wrong train. About a minute later, Ngoy also got on, according to the affidavit.

    He came, he saw … he raped!

    Is Ngoy from the Republic of the Congo (Congo Republic, Congo Brazzaville, ex-French, Bantu), more or less calm, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Kinshasa, Zaire, ex-Belgian-King “Beast Rabban” Leopold II, Bantu) (war-riven hellhole)?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @El Dato

    "Incredibly strong woman" doesn't provide much of a clue, at least not that I can decipher.

    However, "had a few beers" is a code word for blind drunk. Philadelphia has only 2 subway lines and they only intersect at one station so it's pretty much impossible to "get on the wrong train" unless perhaps you are blind drunk.

    , @Bridgeport_IPA
    @El Dato

    Interestingly, "ungoy" in Tagalog means "a monkey."

    , @Gabe Ruth
    @El Dato

    What is going on with the pronouns in that story? And "out of her"? Makes sense, just never saw it put like that before.

  24. @bomag
    @Anonymous


    ...must, surely, invoke the reality of the ‘warm bosom’ of third world kith and kin.
     
    Indeed.

    But every immigrant with which I've chatted insists that the home country is as good or better than the US. They are just here to expand the brand and pick up money.

    Replies: @Technite78

    Agreed, they all miss their home country; that’s why there are endless ethnic festivals, mini flags flown from rear-view mirrors, etc. It’s also why they almost immediately try to recreate the environment of their home country upon arriving (no matter how counter-productive that seems to us).

    They just want demand semi-functional infrastructure and government handouts… and will happily supply the dysfunctional culture.

  25. @ScarletNumber

    You are then free to file all the appeals you are entitled to from back home.
     
    I'm not saying this should be disqualifying, but aren't appeals of this nature generally held in person?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Matttt

    You can visit the American embassy in your homeland to file your appeal.

    • Replies: @Stonewall Jackson
    @Steve Sailer

    No appeals are not held in person. The Board of Immigration Appeals rarely holds hearings...if they do it is for high profile cases, not like this guys... his is run of the mill...it is done entirely on paper.

    So your idea works practically.. The only thing you will have to counter is the bullshit liberal crap about how HE IS FACING a DEATHSQUAD... that is why he got withholding of removal... it is a lower standard below asylum.. theoretically you could be deported or now removed,unlike agrant ofasylum which leads to LPR status. Withholding of removal does not lead to that... unlessthereis some future amnesty..

    , @Catdompanj
    @Steve Sailer

    OT, my apologies. Its about that College Bowl 1979 picture running under your bio. Is that you rocking the '79ish Alex Trebeck look Steve?

  26. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    What does a rape charge add? He should have been deported when he overstayed his student visa.

    The State Department should be monitoring entries and exits, visas tracked, and everyday a list should be generated of overstays. Every visa holder should have a sponsor, and the sponsor should be held responsible for overstays. You want foreign students at your university? You’d better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you’ll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. “Bought your ticket back yet?”

    • Replies: @Elli
    @Anon

    Cap visas per country. If a student or visitor overstays, the number available goes down by one.

    Ten thousand overstay, goes down by ten thousand.

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Anon

    Most other countries you have to go through immigration check when leaving the country to make sure that you have not overstayed your Visa.

    For example in Ecuador if you have overstayed your initial 90 day tourist visa and have not renewed it or extended it, then you are subject to pay a fine in Ecuador before you are allowed to re-enter the country. (You could have somebody like a Visa agent or an attorney paid the fine for you after you leave the country.)

    In other countries like the Dominican Republic, if you have overstayed your tourist visa, you are fined on the spot and have to pay before you are allowed to depart.

    I am pretty sure that you do not have to go through passport control when leaving the United States, only when entering, which seems very odd, unless I am mistaken!

    Perhaps the Immigration and Nationalizations Service of the United States has overlooked this somewhat basic element of border control.

    Of course all countries probably have some undocumented aliens and if they are leading blameless lives it is probably difficult to track them down and expel them, however the UK seems to do a fairly effective job of expelling Windrush immigrants who have been in the country 50 years or more and were born as British subjects, but failed to regularize their documents.

    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver's license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.

    With the United States having 50 component statelets, each of which is ruled by an eccentric governor, it is difficult to have a consistent way of dealing with illegal immigrants.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Alfa158

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Anon


    You’d better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you’ll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. “Bought your ticket back yet?”
     
    How about tell the University administrator who wants to bring in a student from The Congo "At the end of the visa, somebody is going back to The Congo. It can be him or it can be you."
    , @anon
    @Anon

    Yea, the US is rare in not tracking departures. Serious countries with serious borders all do it.

  27. It brings up the question: If immigrants are such a benefit to America, surely their own countries must be great places? Congo hasn’t just one Ngoy, but millions of them. But whenever there’s a prospect of anyone being deported, the countering argument often centres around what a hell-hole he’ll have to return to.

    Another frequently used argument is that the immigrant’s life would be in danger if he went back. Judging someone’s suitability for residency in America by the amount of people who want to kill him in his home country doesn’t sound like a great immigration policy.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Rob McX


    Another frequently used argument is that the immigrant’s life would be in danger if he went back. Judging someone’s suitability for residency in America by the amount of people who want to kill him in his home country doesn’t sound like a great immigration policy.
     
    What's really amazing is the number of "refugees" who allegedly came here in fear for their lives who make annual trips back to their home countries. The news these days is full of stories of Afghan immigrants who went back to Afghanistan with their children. There are 38 children from Sacramento alone who are stuck there because there parents took them to visit and they didn't leave before the Taliban took over.

    None of the arguments the open borders nuts roll out to justify all of this make any sense. Their goal is to replace the white American majority, to do everything possible to rip neighborhoods apart, and to lower the cost of labor for big business.
  28. Deportees should not have any rights at all to judicial proceedings and appeals. If the executive branch finds an illegal it should deport him immediately and the judicial branch should not be involved.
    Your right to be here starts with American citizenship, not before. The executive should have the power to deport any non-citizen for any reason, with no judicial proceedings, reviews, appeals, etc. allowed.

  29. Does this make sense?

    Doesn’t have to. When you’re demoralising and destroying a nation, the irrationality of laws and court decisions is a feature, not a bug. You don’t want people arguing about the rights or wrongs of what you do. You want to leave them mute with frustration and despair.

  30. Will anyone have the balls to make a Fiston Horton ad?
    Someone must have called the cops for them to get there before he came and went.

  31. @Andrew M
    He came on a student visa in 2012, when he was (presumably) aged 26. I know people are staying in education for longer than in the past, but 26 seems late to be starting new studies. Perhaps an age cap on student visas is required?

    Replies: @beavertales

    What was his study program? What kind of pre-requisites did he show, and what were his grades like in high school? A person should be exceptional to be granted a study visa, not just wave a few dollars around. What institution accepted him, and how did he afford rent for the years 2012-2015?

    How much income did he bring to live on while studying?

    I’m going to venture a guess he’s a low I.Q., semi-literate retard, and started accessing the welfare system as soon as he arrived.

    Reporters, where are you?

  32. @Anon
    What does a rape charge add? He should have been deported when he overstayed his student visa.

    The State Department should be monitoring entries and exits, visas tracked, and everyday a list should be generated of overstays. Every visa holder should have a sponsor, and the sponsor should be held responsible for overstays. You want foreign students at your university? You'd better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you'll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. "Bought your ticket back yet?"

    Replies: @Elli, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon, @anon

    Cap visas per country. If a student or visitor overstays, the number available goes down by one.

    Ten thousand overstay, goes down by ten thousand.

  33. @Charon
    Multiple arrests and convictions? Why, this migrant is a Democrat hero straight from Central Casting!

    If the other SEPTA passengers recorded the crime rather than intervene or call for help--as has been alleged--people are saying that the victim must be white. It's about the only way it makes "sense".

    The MSM version will have her be a black mother, gang raped by white frat boys. Netflix series?

    Replies: @guest007, @J1234

    Image how the Central Park Jogger case would have been different if it had occurred during the age of the smart phone. There would have video of the attack all over the internet and sites like TheRoot or TheGrio would have been posting the video, naming the women attacked, and trying to justify why she needed to be raped.

  34. @Anon
    What does a rape charge add? He should have been deported when he overstayed his student visa.

    The State Department should be monitoring entries and exits, visas tracked, and everyday a list should be generated of overstays. Every visa holder should have a sponsor, and the sponsor should be held responsible for overstays. You want foreign students at your university? You'd better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you'll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. "Bought your ticket back yet?"

    Replies: @Elli, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon, @anon

    Most other countries you have to go through immigration check when leaving the country to make sure that you have not overstayed your Visa.

    For example in Ecuador if you have overstayed your initial 90 day tourist visa and have not renewed it or extended it, then you are subject to pay a fine in Ecuador before you are allowed to re-enter the country. (You could have somebody like a Visa agent or an attorney paid the fine for you after you leave the country.)

    In other countries like the Dominican Republic, if you have overstayed your tourist visa, you are fined on the spot and have to pay before you are allowed to depart.

    I am pretty sure that you do not have to go through passport control when leaving the United States, only when entering, which seems very odd, unless I am mistaken!

    Perhaps the Immigration and Nationalizations Service of the United States has overlooked this somewhat basic element of border control.

    Of course all countries probably have some undocumented aliens and if they are leading blameless lives it is probably difficult to track them down and expel them, however the UK seems to do a fairly effective job of expelling Windrush immigrants who have been in the country 50 years or more and were born as British subjects, but failed to regularize their documents.

    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver’s license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.

    With the United States having 50 component statelets, each of which is ruled by an eccentric governor, it is difficult to have a consistent way of dealing with illegal immigrants.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Jonathan Mason


    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver’s license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.
     
    You missed the two biggest: birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe that required states to give public education to illegal immigrant children. The fact that illegal immigrants were now provided with taxpayer-funded child care definitely opened up the flood gates.

    Until those two policies are changed it will be difficult to ever fully gain control of our borders. American law is now basically a suicide pact.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    , @Alfa158
    @Jonathan Mason

    The Federal government regards open borders as a sacred institution and immigration (non) enforcement as it’s exclusive prerogative.
    State or local attempts to enforce immigration laws at any level will bring down the hammer blows of the Federal government and about 900 different open borders lobbying organizations. It’s been tried and slapped down every time.

  35. Can I really be the first one to note that Fiston Ngoy is phonetically pronounced “Fistin’ Goy”?

  36. If they can’t prove he was at the Capitol on January 6th, why should he be deported?

  37. Gamecock has argued for years that illegal immigration can be easily solved by . . . making it illegal.

    Here without a visa? 6 months in jail. Caught a second time? Felony, 2 years in prison. Third time, 10 years. All with the option of being paroled back home for a nice sum of money.

    The American people have the will to make it happen; the government doesn’t. The irony being that controlling immigration is the government’s raison d’être. It’s their damn job.

    • Replies: @Boy the way Glenn Miller played
    @Gamecock


    Here without a visa? 6 months in jail. Caught a second time? Felony, 2 years in prison. Third time, 10 years. All with the option of being paroled back home for a nice sum of money
     
    Get caught immigrating illegally? Fingerprint \ DNA sample & immediate trip to the turnstile at the Mexican border.

    Get caught a second time? Six months hard labor digging footers and mixing concrete for the border wall. QR code tattoo on your cheek before you get your trip to the turnstile.
  38. Does this make sense?

    It’s not about making sense. It’s about replacing us.

  39. @ScarletNumber

    You are then free to file all the appeals you are entitled to from back home.
     
    I'm not saying this should be disqualifying, but aren't appeals of this nature generally held in person?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Matttt

    According to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ website, “Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings – it decides appeals by conducting a ‘paper review’ of cases.” It looks like the immigration courts have their own electronic document filing system as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BIA held oral arguments, in the few cases that it decides to hear them, by Zoom.

    So, no. Not only is the alien’s presence unnecessary, but it looks like the attorneys don’t have to be there either. All you need to file an appeal is a computer and internet connection.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Matttt


    “Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings – it decides appeals by conducting a ‘paper review’ of cases.”
     
    Perhaps the other BIA should hold these proceedings.



    https://www.ncpedia.org/sites/default/files//styles/anchor_images/public/pocahontas_illustration.jpg

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Matttt

    OK, I'm convinced. I endorse Steve's idea now.

  40. Jes’ spressin’ hisself as a black man. Whoops, I mean Black man. This woman is only one of those eggs ya gotta break so you can make an omelet. Besides, it’s all White America’s fault so…move on, nothing here to see.

  41. @Anon
    What does a rape charge add? He should have been deported when he overstayed his student visa.

    The State Department should be monitoring entries and exits, visas tracked, and everyday a list should be generated of overstays. Every visa holder should have a sponsor, and the sponsor should be held responsible for overstays. You want foreign students at your university? You'd better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you'll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. "Bought your ticket back yet?"

    Replies: @Elli, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon, @anon

    You’d better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you’ll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. “Bought your ticket back yet?”

    How about tell the University administrator who wants to bring in a student from The Congo “At the end of the visa, somebody is going back to The Congo. It can be him or it can be you.”

    • Agree: JerseyJeffersonian
  42. Keep rearranging those deck chairs, Sailer. It’s made such a difference thus far.

  43. Does this make sense?

    Of course it does, that’s why it’s novel.

  44. @Rob McX
    It brings up the question: If immigrants are such a benefit to America, surely their own countries must be great places? Congo hasn't just one Ngoy, but millions of them. But whenever there's a prospect of anyone being deported, the countering argument often centres around what a hell-hole he'll have to return to.

    Another frequently used argument is that the immigrant's life would be in danger if he went back. Judging someone's suitability for residency in America by the amount of people who want to kill him in his home country doesn't sound like a great immigration policy.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Another frequently used argument is that the immigrant’s life would be in danger if he went back. Judging someone’s suitability for residency in America by the amount of people who want to kill him in his home country doesn’t sound like a great immigration policy.

    What’s really amazing is the number of “refugees” who allegedly came here in fear for their lives who make annual trips back to their home countries. The news these days is full of stories of Afghan immigrants who went back to Afghanistan with their children. There are 38 children from Sacramento alone who are stuck there because there parents took them to visit and they didn’t leave before the Taliban took over.

    None of the arguments the open borders nuts roll out to justify all of this make any sense. Their goal is to replace the white American majority, to do everything possible to rip neighborhoods apart, and to lower the cost of labor for big business.

    • Agree: Ben tillman, New Dealer
  45. @Jonathan Mason
    @Anon

    Most other countries you have to go through immigration check when leaving the country to make sure that you have not overstayed your Visa.

    For example in Ecuador if you have overstayed your initial 90 day tourist visa and have not renewed it or extended it, then you are subject to pay a fine in Ecuador before you are allowed to re-enter the country. (You could have somebody like a Visa agent or an attorney paid the fine for you after you leave the country.)

    In other countries like the Dominican Republic, if you have overstayed your tourist visa, you are fined on the spot and have to pay before you are allowed to depart.

    I am pretty sure that you do not have to go through passport control when leaving the United States, only when entering, which seems very odd, unless I am mistaken!

    Perhaps the Immigration and Nationalizations Service of the United States has overlooked this somewhat basic element of border control.

    Of course all countries probably have some undocumented aliens and if they are leading blameless lives it is probably difficult to track them down and expel them, however the UK seems to do a fairly effective job of expelling Windrush immigrants who have been in the country 50 years or more and were born as British subjects, but failed to regularize their documents.

    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver's license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.

    With the United States having 50 component statelets, each of which is ruled by an eccentric governor, it is difficult to have a consistent way of dealing with illegal immigrants.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Alfa158

    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver’s license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.

    You missed the two biggest: birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe that required states to give public education to illegal immigrant children. The fact that illegal immigrants were now provided with taxpayer-funded child care definitely opened up the flood gates.

    Until those two policies are changed it will be difficult to ever fully gain control of our borders. American law is now basically a suicide pact.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Wilkey

    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    This is what happened to Boris Johnson whom the US wanted to tax for the sale of a home in England due to him having been born in the USA.

    Chile gives birthright citizenship to anybody born in Chile, provided that the parents have a temporary or permanent residence in Chile, but if the parents are visiting they can still apply for citizenship for the child through a process that is not automatic.

    Any child born in Brazil immediately becomes a citizen, and a parent can qualify for citizenship after one year of residence.

    The US could of course change its requirements a little bit, but since the Big Enders and the Small Enders can never agree on anything, almost any change in any federal law is impossible to affect in the US.

    There is nothing to stop the parents of US citizens from being thrown out of the country.

    https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/birth-tourism-countries-that-give-citizenship-by-birth/

    On a slightly different note, regarding the kidnapping of 17 American missionaries in Haiti. Heinous though this crime is, I suspect that a lot of Haitians will see this as tit for tat for the summary treatment of Haitians at the Texas border.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Pincher Martin

  46. @Mike Tre
    "Does this make sense?"

    It makes sense for petty crimes like shoplifting or driving without a license. For violent crime? Death. If some visiting alien abuses the trust of a nation and assaults (or worse) one of its citizens, he dies. And make sure the Associated Press correspondent from his home country gets sent the story.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    “Driving without a license” is not a “crime”, it is a violation of commerce.
    I otherwise completely agree with your comment.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Adam Smith

    Fair enough. I was just giving an example.

    , @petit bourgeois
    @Adam Smith

    You sound like one of those "sovereign citizen" nut jobs who doesn't believe you have to follow any motor vehicle laws like having a license, registration or license plates. Of course driving without a licence is a crime. In most jurisdictions, it's a misdemeanor. People like you will eventually wind up in the pokey, where you belong.

    Jaywalking is a crime. Going 1 mph over the speed limit is a crime. You don't live in the country you think you do.

    If the cops want to take you to jail for not making your children wear seat belts, they can do that. See, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001):

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1408

    The law isn't what it says, it's what is does in the real world.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  47. Most likely a news blackout will descend regarding this crime and it will never be heard of again in the MSM.

  48. @Erik Sieven
    I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.

    Replies: @res, @duncsbaby

    US immigration services seem to have two faces.

    Just another manifestation of anarcho-tyranny.

  49. Here’s an example of American society feeding the ever-hungry ego:

    Simone Biles Says She Learned How Courageous and Brave She Is At Tokyo Olympics
    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10015372-simone-biles-says-she-learned-how-courageous-and-brave-she-is-at-tokyo-olympics

    Simone has a lot to be proud of in her career. Quitting in the middle of the Olympics shouldn’t be one of them.

  50. @Wilkey
    @Jonathan Mason


    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver’s license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.
     
    You missed the two biggest: birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe that required states to give public education to illegal immigrant children. The fact that illegal immigrants were now provided with taxpayer-funded child care definitely opened up the flood gates.

    Until those two policies are changed it will be difficult to ever fully gain control of our borders. American law is now basically a suicide pact.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    This is what happened to Boris Johnson whom the US wanted to tax for the sale of a home in England due to him having been born in the USA.

    Chile gives birthright citizenship to anybody born in Chile, provided that the parents have a temporary or permanent residence in Chile, but if the parents are visiting they can still apply for citizenship for the child through a process that is not automatic.

    Any child born in Brazil immediately becomes a citizen, and a parent can qualify for citizenship after one year of residence.

    The US could of course change its requirements a little bit, but since the Big Enders and the Small Enders can never agree on anything, almost any change in any federal law is impossible to affect in the US.

    There is nothing to stop the parents of US citizens from being thrown out of the country.

    https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/birth-tourism-countries-that-give-citizenship-by-birth/

    On a slightly different note, regarding the kidnapping of 17 American missionaries in Haiti. Heinous though this crime is, I suspect that a lot of Haitians will see this as tit for tat for the summary treatment of Haitians at the Texas border.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Jonathan Mason


    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.
     
    The big division in birthright citizenship is Old World vs. New World. Most countries in the Western Hemisphere have birthright citizenship. Most Old World countries do not.


    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    The intention was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment provides the (questionable) basis of birthright citizenship. It was adopted at a time when the US was trying to populate a continent, when most immigrants were European, and we didn't have a welfare state. America has moved so far to the brink of insanity that we simply haven't been able to change the policy.

    Even if it is the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment all they have to do to change that is do what they've done to so many other Constitutional rights: ignore them.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Jonathan Mason


    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.
     
    That sounds entirely wrong to me.

    How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship? Not much if any.

    Do you have any proof for this claim?

    Replies: @res

  51. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt start a full scale war with Spain (Spanish American War) when he was the “Assistant Secretary of the Navy”?

    I never learned who the secretary of the Navy was then.

    We just need some, one tough guy, strong man somewhere who gets things done, doesn’t worry too much about the legal process – just starts massively deporting this Congolese sexual criminals, rapists that overstay their student visas.

    Why couldn’t anybody in the George W Bush administration deport the likes of Muhammed Ata who also overstayed his student visa and then proceeded to mass murder our people on 9-11-01?

    I must also say that the 9-11-01 conspiracy folks that lurk here on Unz Review and elsewhere are pretty much idiot, losers – nothing is as it seems. Obvious sh*** like not allowing our people to be mass slaughtered by Arabs/Pakistanis, not have our women, girls raped by these Congolese Africans that seems rather simply to just oppose these horrors, oppose the Great Replacement.

  52. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    This looks like best political advert for any populist, law and order GOP candidate – the best since Willie Horton done by Lee Atwater that won George HW Bush Sr. the Presidency, erased a 20 point deficit to Massachusetts cover Mike Dukakis.

    But, the Stupid Party will probably miss this one and Libertarian, Economic Conservative Constitutionalists, Pro Life, Guns, Guns, Guns types will prefer to talk about stuff that doesn’t matter to White and just anti rape voters.

  53. My understanding is that you don’t get a public defender for a deportation hearing, but instead need to contact a private charity to get your lawyer. But, lucky you, the list of such private organizations in your area goes on for pages. I am guessing that once you have a lawyer, that’s a hard enough shell; the federal prosecutor will drop your case and move on to an easier target. My guess is you show up at a master-calendar hearing with your lawyer, the judge assigns an actual hearing date, and then the prosecution dismisses the case. Everything is either fake, or secret, so I am guessing.

  54. @notsaying
    I would say he should have been deported once he was found to have overstayed his student visa. Is there a good reason he was not? It is interesting and not surprising that when his case came up under the Trump administration, they did not send him back, either.

    I do not think the idea of shipping people back immediately and then let them fight to get back in will fly legally but who knows.

    Certainly the facts of this case show there is great reluctance within our own criminal justice system and our immigration courts to follow and enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration. How much of this resistance is due to individuals within the system using their own discretion and how much of it comes from various regulations and executive orders I am not sure. But instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office

    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how "serious" their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.

    Replies: @Sick 'n Tired, @Joseph Doaks, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    Go over stay your visa in Switzerland, and they will show up at your door, and escort you to the airport.

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Thanks: Joseph Doaks
  55. Ours is a clown country. I used to look askance at people who said things like this, but no longer.

    What’s a country for if its government can’t protect the citizens from the depredations of foreigners (or maintain basic civil order)?

    Please, when can we have an American Franco who will sweep aside the insanity and bring back some semblance of order and arrest, if not reverse, this degradation?

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Twinkie


    Please, when can we have an American Franco who will sweep aside the insanity
     
    American Franco has heard your pleas and has a message:

    “Bad news, Twinkie. The insanity must INCREASE. It is the only way.”

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d3/2f/f2/d32ff208cf562c185f22e38f1a8cda1b.jpg
  56. Isteve’s proposal is unfair. It DISCRIMINATES against IMMIGRANTS. Citizens can’t be deported, but illegals can. Thus for the same crime, the punishment is worse for the illegal: disparate impact. QED.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @New Dealer


    Isteve’s proposal is unfair. It DISCRIMINATES against IMMIGRANTS. Citizens can’t be deported, but illegals can. Thus for the same crime, the punishment is worse for the illegal: disparate impact. QED.
     
    Bullshit. The illegal immigrant isn't being removed because of the particular crime he committed. He is being removed because he is not a citizen, and has no right to remain. Deportation is the "punishment" for being here illegally, not for raping or assaulting someone.

    Besides that, safely repatriating a person to his country of citizenship is not a punishment. The government has every right to remove any person illegally in this country, no matter how law abiding he or she may be.

  57. @Steve Sailer
    @ScarletNumber

    You can visit the American embassy in your homeland to file your appeal.

    Replies: @Stonewall Jackson, @Catdompanj

    No appeals are not held in person. The Board of Immigration Appeals rarely holds hearings…if they do it is for high profile cases, not like this guys… his is run of the mill…it is done entirely on paper.

    So your idea works practically.. The only thing you will have to counter is the bullshit liberal crap about how HE IS FACING a DEATHSQUAD… that is why he got withholding of removal… it is a lower standard below asylum.. theoretically you could be deported or now removed,unlike agrant ofasylum which leads to LPR status. Withholding of removal does not lead to that… unlessthereis some future amnesty..

  58. The government should do this. It should do that .. More and more government.

    The attacker came here, why? To attend a public education institution? The attack was committed on a public transit car. (His idiotic, fellow riders did nothing but record the incident for YT.) His immigration case was argued over endlessly by government bureaucrats, scumbag immigration lawyers, and other parasites.

    If we had small government, e.g. a_p_e, the borders could be kept wide OPEN and creeps like him would still not come here. Indeed, the only way we’re ever going to get rid of the millions of our native-born tax leeches is first to shrink government, and then open the gates so as to allow them to leave unimpeded. Bon voyage.

  59. @Jonathan Mason
    @Wilkey

    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    This is what happened to Boris Johnson whom the US wanted to tax for the sale of a home in England due to him having been born in the USA.

    Chile gives birthright citizenship to anybody born in Chile, provided that the parents have a temporary or permanent residence in Chile, but if the parents are visiting they can still apply for citizenship for the child through a process that is not automatic.

    Any child born in Brazil immediately becomes a citizen, and a parent can qualify for citizenship after one year of residence.

    The US could of course change its requirements a little bit, but since the Big Enders and the Small Enders can never agree on anything, almost any change in any federal law is impossible to affect in the US.

    There is nothing to stop the parents of US citizens from being thrown out of the country.

    https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/birth-tourism-countries-that-give-citizenship-by-birth/

    On a slightly different note, regarding the kidnapping of 17 American missionaries in Haiti. Heinous though this crime is, I suspect that a lot of Haitians will see this as tit for tat for the summary treatment of Haitians at the Texas border.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Pincher Martin

    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.

    The big division in birthright citizenship is Old World vs. New World. Most countries in the Western Hemisphere have birthright citizenship. Most Old World countries do not.

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    The intention was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment provides the (questionable) basis of birthright citizenship. It was adopted at a time when the US was trying to populate a continent, when most immigrants were European, and we didn’t have a welfare state. America has moved so far to the brink of insanity that we simply haven’t been able to change the policy.

    Even if it is the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment all they have to do to change that is do what they’ve done to so many other Constitutional rights: ignore them.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Wilkey

    My solution to birthright citizenship is to deport the parents at the hospital or when they try to get a birth certificate. Let them take the kid with them if they want to.

  60. @notsaying
    I would say he should have been deported once he was found to have overstayed his student visa. Is there a good reason he was not? It is interesting and not surprising that when his case came up under the Trump administration, they did not send him back, either.

    I do not think the idea of shipping people back immediately and then let them fight to get back in will fly legally but who knows.

    Certainly the facts of this case show there is great reluctance within our own criminal justice system and our immigration courts to follow and enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration. How much of this resistance is due to individuals within the system using their own discretion and how much of it comes from various regulations and executive orders I am not sure. But instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office

    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how "serious" their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.

    Replies: @Sick 'n Tired, @Joseph Doaks, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    “instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office”

    This proves the existence of a “deep state” whose roots extend deep into the government and even society at large. Not only have immigration laws been routinely ignored for decades, but the average American, if polls are to be believed, thinks that once they have avoided deportation, illegals should be allowed to stay forever stealing jobs and benefits intended for U.S. citizens. The rights and privileges of all citizens are constantly being diluted by this endless invasion and the only justification seems to be “but they’re nice people, they’re just like us.”

    • Agree: notsaying
    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Joseph Doaks

    I do not know exactly what polls you are referring to. I think a lot of Americans do not approve of what is happening at the border and do not want a lot more people coming in. The idea of sending millions of people home after bring here for decades is another question to them.

    There are those people of course who just want more and more. They are the ones encouraging asylum claims from everybody to mask illegal immigration with a false legitimacy.

  61. @New Dealer
    Isteve’s proposal is unfair. It DISCRIMINATES against IMMIGRANTS. Citizens can’t be deported, but illegals can. Thus for the same crime, the punishment is worse for the illegal: disparate impact. QED.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Isteve’s proposal is unfair. It DISCRIMINATES against IMMIGRANTS. Citizens can’t be deported, but illegals can. Thus for the same crime, the punishment is worse for the illegal: disparate impact. QED.

    Bullshit. The illegal immigrant isn’t being removed because of the particular crime he committed. He is being removed because he is not a citizen, and has no right to remain. Deportation is the “punishment” for being here illegally, not for raping or assaulting someone.

    Besides that, safely repatriating a person to his country of citizenship is not a punishment. The government has every right to remove any person illegally in this country, no matter how law abiding he or she may be.

    • Agree: notsaying
  62. Why Is the Burden of Proof in Deporting a Convicted Sex Criminal on America Rather Than on the Sex Criminal?

    1) Because brown people have been elevated to the status of gods, and they are above reproach

    2) Because brown illegal alien criminals are a Democratic Party constituency, and the Democrats need their votes

    Simple, really.

  63. @Charon
    Multiple arrests and convictions? Why, this migrant is a Democrat hero straight from Central Casting!

    If the other SEPTA passengers recorded the crime rather than intervene or call for help--as has been alleged--people are saying that the victim must be white. It's about the only way it makes "sense".

    The MSM version will have her be a black mother, gang raped by white frat boys. Netflix series?

    Replies: @guest007, @J1234

    And most of the witnesses were likely non-white. A transit cop said that most or all of the witnesses didn’t call 911. They took video, though. That’s a very black thing to do.

    • Agree: Hangnail Hans
  64. Does this make sense?

    From the immigrationist POV it makes complete sense. Immigrationists start from the assumption that the entire population of the planet are all potential US citizens, they just haven’t fully perfected their US citizenship rights just yet.

    Imagine that you are a US citizen, born and bred here. One day you make a mistake and you accidentally pick up a pack of gum at CVS without paying for it. Should you be deported to some foreign land for this trivial offense?

    Well, Fiston Ngoy is just like you, he is just a bit less far along in the citizenship process. He has been here for almost a decade and has built a life in America (albeit as a homeless person – homeless people in America have a higher standard of living than average Congolese). Perhaps Fiston made a slight mistake – he believed that the woman who he is now accused of raping was a woman that he knew and that this woman wanted to have consensual sex with him on a subway train. Anyone could make such a mistake.

    See, Steve, it makes perfect sense.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  65. @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Random info from the Internet. It hinges on what the meaning of "incredibly strong woman" is:


    [Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt] said the “incredibly strong woman” told police that she remembered getting on the train around 9:15 p.m. in Philadelphia. He said he couldn’t remember anything after that until cops pulled his attacker out of her, the Inquirer reported.

    The woman told police that she had a few beers after work, but she got on the wrong train. About a minute later, Ngoy also got on, according to the affidavit.
     

    He came, he saw ... he raped!

    Is Ngoy from the Republic of the Congo (Congo Republic, Congo Brazzaville, ex-French, Bantu), more or less calm, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Kinshasa, Zaire, ex-Belgian-King "Beast Rabban" Leopold II, Bantu) (war-riven hellhole)?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bridgeport_IPA, @Gabe Ruth

    “Incredibly strong woman” doesn’t provide much of a clue, at least not that I can decipher.

    However, “had a few beers” is a code word for blind drunk. Philadelphia has only 2 subway lines and they only intersect at one station so it’s pretty much impossible to “get on the wrong train” unless perhaps you are blind drunk.

  66. @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Random info from the Internet. It hinges on what the meaning of "incredibly strong woman" is:


    [Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt] said the “incredibly strong woman” told police that she remembered getting on the train around 9:15 p.m. in Philadelphia. He said he couldn’t remember anything after that until cops pulled his attacker out of her, the Inquirer reported.

    The woman told police that she had a few beers after work, but she got on the wrong train. About a minute later, Ngoy also got on, according to the affidavit.
     

    He came, he saw ... he raped!

    Is Ngoy from the Republic of the Congo (Congo Republic, Congo Brazzaville, ex-French, Bantu), more or less calm, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Kinshasa, Zaire, ex-Belgian-King "Beast Rabban" Leopold II, Bantu) (war-riven hellhole)?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bridgeport_IPA, @Gabe Ruth

    Interestingly, “ungoy” in Tagalog means “a monkey.”

  67. @Steve Sailer
    @ScarletNumber

    You can visit the American embassy in your homeland to file your appeal.

    Replies: @Stonewall Jackson, @Catdompanj

    OT, my apologies. Its about that College Bowl 1979 picture running under your bio. Is that you rocking the ’79ish Alex Trebeck look Steve?

  68. At least Fiston didn’t fist her.

  69. @Matttt
    @ScarletNumber

    According to the Board of Immigration Appeals' website, "Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings - it decides appeals by conducting a 'paper review' of cases." It looks like the immigration courts have their own electronic document filing system as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the BIA held oral arguments, in the few cases that it decides to hear them, by Zoom.

    So, no. Not only is the alien's presence unnecessary, but it looks like the attorneys don't have to be there either. All you need to file an appeal is a computer and internet connection.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ScarletNumber

    “Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings – it decides appeals by conducting a ‘paper review’ of cases.”

    Perhaps the other BIA should hold these proceedings.

    [MORE]

    • LOL: SafeNow
  70. @Wilkey
    @Jonathan Mason


    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.
     
    The big division in birthright citizenship is Old World vs. New World. Most countries in the Western Hemisphere have birthright citizenship. Most Old World countries do not.


    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    The intention was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. The 14th Amendment provides the (questionable) basis of birthright citizenship. It was adopted at a time when the US was trying to populate a continent, when most immigrants were European, and we didn't have a welfare state. America has moved so far to the brink of insanity that we simply haven't been able to change the policy.

    Even if it is the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment all they have to do to change that is do what they've done to so many other Constitutional rights: ignore them.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    My solution to birthright citizenship is to deport the parents at the hospital or when they try to get a birth certificate. Let them take the kid with them if they want to.

  71. @Jonathan Mason
    @Anon

    Most other countries you have to go through immigration check when leaving the country to make sure that you have not overstayed your Visa.

    For example in Ecuador if you have overstayed your initial 90 day tourist visa and have not renewed it or extended it, then you are subject to pay a fine in Ecuador before you are allowed to re-enter the country. (You could have somebody like a Visa agent or an attorney paid the fine for you after you leave the country.)

    In other countries like the Dominican Republic, if you have overstayed your tourist visa, you are fined on the spot and have to pay before you are allowed to depart.

    I am pretty sure that you do not have to go through passport control when leaving the United States, only when entering, which seems very odd, unless I am mistaken!

    Perhaps the Immigration and Nationalizations Service of the United States has overlooked this somewhat basic element of border control.

    Of course all countries probably have some undocumented aliens and if they are leading blameless lives it is probably difficult to track them down and expel them, however the UK seems to do a fairly effective job of expelling Windrush immigrants who have been in the country 50 years or more and were born as British subjects, but failed to regularize their documents.

    If a country makes it impossible for a person who does not have legal status to rent a place to live, buy a home, get employment, or get a public transportation ticket, driver's license, or register ownership of a vehicle, then it makes it a great deal easier to deal with illegal immigrants.

    With the United States having 50 component statelets, each of which is ruled by an eccentric governor, it is difficult to have a consistent way of dealing with illegal immigrants.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Alfa158

    The Federal government regards open borders as a sacred institution and immigration (non) enforcement as it’s exclusive prerogative.
    State or local attempts to enforce immigration laws at any level will bring down the hammer blows of the Federal government and about 900 different open borders lobbying organizations. It’s been tried and slapped down every time.

  72. This is the best response to why didn’t anyone intervene

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Anonymous

    I agreed with your post even though I suspect that if we could take a close look at demographics of the viewers of the rape on that Philadelphia train, it would show that they were less cowed by the liberal woke authorities and more titillated by believing that bitch got what she deserved.

    If I'm right then they weren't using their phones to capture the rape on camera so that they could turn it in as state's evidence against the rapist, but to post it online.

  73. @notsaying
    I would say he should have been deported once he was found to have overstayed his student visa. Is there a good reason he was not? It is interesting and not surprising that when his case came up under the Trump administration, they did not send him back, either.

    I do not think the idea of shipping people back immediately and then let them fight to get back in will fly legally but who knows.

    Certainly the facts of this case show there is great reluctance within our own criminal justice system and our immigration courts to follow and enforce the law when it comes to illegal immigration. How much of this resistance is due to individuals within the system using their own discretion and how much of it comes from various regulations and executive orders I am not sure. But instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office

    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how "serious" their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.

    Replies: @Sick 'n Tired, @Joseph Doaks, @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    When somebody should not have been here, why does it matter how “serious” their sex related misdemeanor was to finally be deported?

    What did his earlier victim think when he was not deported because of her and now he has done something to somebody else? I would be sick with rage and fury myself. I expect that is what the current victim and her family and friends feel also.

    I can’t imagine illegally immigrating somewhere and deciding to do anything other than follow the straight and narrow. When an illegal alien decides to show his ass, spitting on the sidewalk ought to be grounds for deportation.

  74. @Adam Smith
    @Mike Tre

    “Driving without a license” is not a “crime”, it is a violation of commerce.
    I otherwise completely agree with your comment.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @petit bourgeois

    Fair enough. I was just giving an example.

  75. @Gamecock
    Gamecock has argued for years that illegal immigration can be easily solved by . . . making it illegal.

    Here without a visa? 6 months in jail. Caught a second time? Felony, 2 years in prison. Third time, 10 years. All with the option of being paroled back home for a nice sum of money.

    The American people have the will to make it happen; the government doesn't. The irony being that controlling immigration is the government's raison d'être. It's their damn job.

    Replies: @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    Here without a visa? 6 months in jail. Caught a second time? Felony, 2 years in prison. Third time, 10 years. All with the option of being paroled back home for a nice sum of money

    Get caught immigrating illegally? Fingerprint \ DNA sample & immediate trip to the turnstile at the Mexican border.

    Get caught a second time? Six months hard labor digging footers and mixing concrete for the border wall. QR code tattoo on your cheek before you get your trip to the turnstile.

  76. @Joseph Doaks
    @notsaying

    "instead of deportation being the natural and routine response to illegal immigration, it is the opposite: rare and resisted by our own government, no matter who is in office"

    This proves the existence of a "deep state" whose roots extend deep into the government and even society at large. Not only have immigration laws been routinely ignored for decades, but the average American, if polls are to be believed, thinks that once they have avoided deportation, illegals should be allowed to stay forever stealing jobs and benefits intended for U.S. citizens. The rights and privileges of all citizens are constantly being diluted by this endless invasion and the only justification seems to be "but they're nice people, they're just like us."

    Replies: @notsaying

    I do not know exactly what polls you are referring to. I think a lot of Americans do not approve of what is happening at the border and do not want a lot more people coming in. The idea of sending millions of people home after bring here for decades is another question to them.

    There are those people of course who just want more and more. They are the ones encouraging asylum claims from everybody to mask illegal immigration with a false legitimacy.

  77. @Twinkie
    Ours is a clown country. I used to look askance at people who said things like this, but no longer.

    What’s a country for if its government can’t protect the citizens from the depredations of foreigners (or maintain basic civil order)?

    Please, when can we have an American Franco who will sweep aside the insanity and bring back some semblance of order and arrest, if not reverse, this degradation?

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Please, when can we have an American Franco who will sweep aside the insanity

    American Franco has heard your pleas and has a message:

    “Bad news, Twinkie. The insanity must INCREASE. It is the only way.”

  78. What would make even more sense is if the US would withdraw from any conventions that don’t provide reciprocal benefit for Americans.

    Americans will never under any circumstances need asylum in, say, Liberia. So why should any Liberian get to claim asylum here? It would make more sense to have a treaty with Canada and *maybe* Mexico, but no more than that.

    And for student visas, why wouldn’t we simply deport immediately upon any police contact, regardless of circumstance? Why is this even something to think about?

  79. @Jonathan Mason
    @Wilkey

    The United States is by no means the only country to have birthright citizenship. So does Canada for a start, plus another 30 countries.

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    This is what happened to Boris Johnson whom the US wanted to tax for the sale of a home in England due to him having been born in the USA.

    Chile gives birthright citizenship to anybody born in Chile, provided that the parents have a temporary or permanent residence in Chile, but if the parents are visiting they can still apply for citizenship for the child through a process that is not automatic.

    Any child born in Brazil immediately becomes a citizen, and a parent can qualify for citizenship after one year of residence.

    The US could of course change its requirements a little bit, but since the Big Enders and the Small Enders can never agree on anything, almost any change in any federal law is impossible to affect in the US.

    There is nothing to stop the parents of US citizens from being thrown out of the country.

    https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/birth-tourism-countries-that-give-citizenship-by-birth/

    On a slightly different note, regarding the kidnapping of 17 American missionaries in Haiti. Heinous though this crime is, I suspect that a lot of Haitians will see this as tit for tat for the summary treatment of Haitians at the Texas border.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @Pincher Martin

    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.

    That sounds entirely wrong to me.

    How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship? Not much if any.

    Do you have any proof for this claim?

    • Replies: @res
    @Pincher Martin

    Typical Mason BS. The temporal order of the income tax and birthright citizenship should make that immediately clear. Not sure why anyone takes him seriously. Though he says seemingly sensible things often enough that he is not a complete idiot--which just makes me wonder if the BS is intentional.

    P.S. Though that is a possible explanation for why birthright citizenship keeps being reaffirmed.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

  80. @Pincher Martin
    @Jonathan Mason


    The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.
     
    That sounds entirely wrong to me.

    How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship? Not much if any.

    Do you have any proof for this claim?

    Replies: @res

    Typical Mason BS. The temporal order of the income tax and birthright citizenship should make that immediately clear. Not sure why anyone takes him seriously. Though he says seemingly sensible things often enough that he is not a complete idiot–which just makes me wonder if the BS is intentional.

    P.S. Though that is a possible explanation for why birthright citizenship keeps being reaffirmed.

    • Thanks: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @petit bourgeois
    @res

    Birthright citizenship is not a part of the 14th Amendment:


    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
     

    https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

    The 14th Amendment was meant to grant citizenship to freed black slaves, not the hordes of invaders coming from the southern border.

    Replies: @res

  81. That sounds entirely wrong to me. How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship?

    We didn’t even have an income tax until 45 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. So the answer would be…none.

    Mostly the current interpretation if the 14th Amendment re: birthright citizenship came from a time when we weren’t experiencing large amounts of illegal immigration. Before the welfare state, before modern telecommunications allowed people to spread the word of the welfare state, and before modern transportation allowed them to arrive in insane numbers.

    It’s as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Wilkey


    It’s as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.
     

    President Biden on 2nd Amendment: "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government? You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."
     
    OK!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMUQU4m9Z5U

    Replies: @Rob

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Wilkey

    The problem with modern interpretation of the 14th amendment is that it was designed to give citizenship to slaves who were born here. Very specifically, children of foreign diplomats who are born here are not US citizens. I would argue that illegal immigrants are closer in legal status to the diplomats than to slaves.

    Of course you also have children born here while their mothers are here on tourist visas and as well as parents who are here as students like Boris Johnson. I would argue they shouldn't be US citizens either, but they are on firmer legal ground.

    Finally you have Prince Albert, who was a US citizen because he is the son of Grace Kelly. Both Albert and Johnson renounced their US citizenship for political and tax reasons.

    Replies: @Rob

  82. @Adam Smith
    @Mike Tre

    “Driving without a license” is not a “crime”, it is a violation of commerce.
    I otherwise completely agree with your comment.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @petit bourgeois

    You sound like one of those “sovereign citizen” nut jobs who doesn’t believe you have to follow any motor vehicle laws like having a license, registration or license plates. Of course driving without a licence is a crime. In most jurisdictions, it’s a misdemeanor. People like you will eventually wind up in the pokey, where you belong.

    Jaywalking is a crime. Going 1 mph over the speed limit is a crime. You don’t live in the country you think you do.

    If the cops want to take you to jail for not making your children wear seat belts, they can do that. See, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001):

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1408

    The law isn’t what it says, it’s what is does in the real world.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @petit bourgeois

    You sound like one of those “statist” nut jobs...

    All “crimes” involve an injured party (victim).
    Jaywalking is a violation of commerce.
    Driving without a license is a violation of commerce.
    Failure to wear a seatbelt is a violation of commerce.

    (6) Motor vehicle.—
    The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.


    (10) Used for commercial purposes.—
    The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.


    License, registration and license plates all involve contractual obligations.
    Violating one of those contracts has absolutely nothing to do with the so called “law”.

  83. @res
    @Pincher Martin

    Typical Mason BS. The temporal order of the income tax and birthright citizenship should make that immediately clear. Not sure why anyone takes him seriously. Though he says seemingly sensible things often enough that he is not a complete idiot--which just makes me wonder if the BS is intentional.

    P.S. Though that is a possible explanation for why birthright citizenship keeps being reaffirmed.

    Replies: @petit bourgeois

    Birthright citizenship is not a part of the 14th Amendment:

    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

    https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

    The 14th Amendment was meant to grant citizenship to freed black slaves, not the hordes of invaders coming from the southern border.

    • Replies: @res
    @petit bourgeois

    I get what you are saying, but disagree that is how birthright citizenship IS treated in the US (should be is distinct from that and we agree there).

    Here is a Wikipedia quote from the Wong Kim Ark decision (emphasis mine).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


    the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
     
    Note that it only says "resident aliens" (contrast with "the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents " in your quote, but also note the wording "have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business" in the question before the court).

    It appears to me the court ruled more broadly than the question before it (intentionally or not). In any case, Plyler v. Doe 1982 clarified that illegal aliens were eligible.

    My point was that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was before the modern income tax (1913). Therefore Mason's statement "The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship." does not make sense. To add to that, in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in a way which made an income tax not practical until after the Sixteenth amendment was ratified (i.e. no income tax in 1898).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_federal_income_taxes

    P.S. I am not a lawyer. If anyone has a better understanding of this please correct. But address the specific points I made if doing so.

    Replies: @V. Hickel

  84. @Wilkey

    That sounds entirely wrong to me. How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship?
     
    We didn't even have an income tax until 45 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. So the answer would be...none.

    Mostly the current interpretation if the 14th Amendment re: birthright citizenship came from a time when we weren't experiencing large amounts of illegal immigration. Before the welfare state, before modern telecommunications allowed people to spread the word of the welfare state, and before modern transportation allowed them to arrive in insane numbers.

    It's as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @ScarletNumber

    It’s as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.

    President Biden on 2nd Amendment: “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government? You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

    OK!

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Joe Stalin


    President Biden on 2nd Amendment: “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government? You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
     
    I wrote a recent comment about an article on our failure to maintain the maintenance crews in the Air Force, but I cannot find the Tweet or the article it linked to that discussed all the dead pilots and airmen. Maybe the military got it scrubbed? Maybe my Google-Fu is weak.

    When serious break-up-level events start, the government will have F-15s for around three days. Maybe a week. The military has a hard time maintaining planes right now. Do you think the Air Force maintenance crews are even liberals, much less woke? Sure, the military could replace them with BIPOCs, but not with very good mechanics. They’d need to drastically lower ability standards. Asians could do it, but Asians don’t enlist. They are here to make money and climb socially. Would you enlist in a foreign country’s military? The military has been trying to make techs out of blacks for decades, but haven't made much progress. Does the technology of Africans in Africa impress you? Why would relocating them make them gadgeteers? Hispanics? When things seriously decline, a lot of them are going home, like Asians. Hispanics are smarter than blacks, but not by much. The more recent arrivals from Southern Mexico and Central America are about as smart as blacks. The closer to the equator a population has been under selection for a long time, the lower their IQ. Eskimo average 90, tilted strongly to visuospatial, but Central American Indios average ~80. Not to mention, strength matters for air force techs. In terms of keeping a bunch of F-whatevers in the sky for war, there are no women who can do it.

    Not to mention, “F-” are fighters. They are for shooting down planes. They might not be worth much in a counter-insurgency. Especially since the rebels will be in rural areas, snd the cities need to get supplies in. So on the unbombed roads, there will be lots of trucks, or city folk go hungry. Which truck(s) has a bomb? Plus, with cities attached to renewable wind and solar far away from the city, transmission lines can be cut in a lot of places. Sure, one break is easily repaired. For as long as you have replacement wire. And replacement work crews.

    There is also the matter of China paying for our government, which sure is nice of them! I, for one, do not suspect an ulterior motive. But if one were suspicious, would an insurrection severe enough that DC was using F-whatevers in America make them think the US government was stable enough to justify the 0.5% rate on T Bills? When the US is experiencing inflation that’s so high that a large chunk of the populace pulled a Doug and said, “I’m outta heeeere”? Might the US have a lot of trouble convincing the Chinese to hold their treasuries, much less buy new ones?

    The capitalist have not paid full freight since Ray Gun. They will not take kindly to wartime taxation and a war disrupting their consumers, if not their producers. Might the capitalists jump ship? Do you think a New York with starving parasites, as well-armed (with pistols) as the rebels can make them, will still be the world’s financial hub? The US consumer will have a hard time buying the Asian manufactured goods that keep us pacified. Even American-made things will be expensive. The replacement parts for factories will be mostly made in Asia. When the Jews flee, every nation is going to look unkindly upon immigration. It was the proximate cause of America dying. Will they want smart, educated, skilled immigrants? After what the Jews did to America!?! Not to mention, educated in woke, American universities.

    Whither the American capitalists when they go to see “their” factories in Asia? Remember when third-world countries were nationalizing American companies’ holdings? Might that happen again, when the US military is fighting a war at home that will leave it crippled for decades, perhaps forever, as all sides eat the seed corn of smart, capable people? Win, lose, or draw, the US won’t be throwing its weight around.

    Plus, the simple reality is that barring near-miraculous tech we invent that the Chinese cannot copy and execute better than the US, the military is in for a drastic cut in real dollars long before a serious Civil War. I hope “defense” spending on innovative research survives, but I have my doubts. They disbanded the Jasons, for one thing. I guess the military did not think listening to very, very intelligent people was worthwhile. They preferred expertise, but without reality testing, expertise can go far into fantasy and delusion. The military has failed every reality test since 1945, the first Gulf War, and Grenada excepted. Think an American war would be like either of those? The US will want to hold the territory that revolted, else the nuclear bombings were punitive, and US leaders are going to be on trial for war crimes, either here or abroad.

    Lol. Realistically, for there to be an armed rebellion, the majority-minority population would have to have worked its way through the workforce, as in the 50-70 year-olds who make decisions, the 40-50-year-old middle managers and especially (this will, of course, happen first) the 20-30-year-old boots on the ground.

    Oh yeah, war comes, and the brains of the D team, the Jews, jump ship for Israel! White men nominally on the D team might “vote their color” and join the team that does not think they are the boogeyman. It’s one thing to call the other side rubes. It’s quite another thing to realize you will be in a nation that is something like 25% black, 60% Hispanic nation. Maybe blacker than that, once the Red nations expel their minorities. For their own benefit of course. Wouldn’t want them to live under white supremacy when a paradise is right across the border.

    When people say America will be majority non-white in 2040 (or whenever) that is not an equilibrium point. Demographics will continue decaying with no obvious equilibrium point. The pressure for not just affirmative action where, as Steve said, “nice people pick a nice number” for minority employment or enrollment, they are going to want equity. Minorities percentage in a field that equals to their percentage of the population. Every institution will work even less well than it does today. Many, many organizations will work less and less well. I cannot take credit for the following insight. It comes from a brilliant commenter, literally the best single comment on iSteve (commenters, not you, Steve) Eventually with “equity in employment” job functions that were performed with 100% success in white America will be performed with 95% success (that is generous) for activities that consist of n steps in a series, (.95)^n rapidly approaches zero.

    Institutions functioning at zero percent are kind of hard to imagine, so we have to remember them. In the Soviet Union, many industries functioned at less than zero. Factories took ore and manufactured steel that was worth less than the ore. Other factories took leather and made shoes that were worse less than the skins off the animal. Maybe things have improved under Putin, but they are in a neo-colonial, maybe call it post-superpower economy, exporting raw materials and some military tech to cost-conscious third-worlders. On the plus side, if the military contractors don’t all fold, the post-Pax Americana world will be buying a lot of weapons.

    Maybe that happened in America, too? Manufacturing has always been especially vulnerable to affirmative action. A lot of jobs required ability instead of a degree. They hired reasonably bright high school graduates, though high school was harder to graduate, who did well in shop class, back when shop classes were not a joke (they were perhaps the first casualty of the verbal class rising. They hated shop) then trained them. Factories tended to be located in cities. They were expensive to move, and we’re safe enough themselves, plus they could afford “security” that could commit some crimes better than the criminals. So when the city turned black, there they were. EOE laws and the courts said having employment in a position that did not reflect the local population’s demographics in the relevant education range was discrimination. The early wokerati also made HS easy enough that a lot more blacks could graduate. So manufacturers either were sued into complying or just complied, as people tended to obey the law and hired blacks for line positions. Before, black factory employees did things like sweep and get the workers water. The quality of manufactured goods drastically declined. Were these things related? Or is this just post-hoc, ergo propter hoc?

    Unions that had been built to combat capitalist abuses had their contracts and rules, so it was difficult to fire incompetent or destructive blacks. At first, we imported higher quality goods from Asia made by Asian companies. Capitalists are no slouches mentally, or their servants are not, and pretty soon, American companies were taking advantage of Asian labor. Asian countries, or at least Japan, had strong unions. Japanese unions were not a piggy bank for ethnic mafia from imported alien peoples. Gangsters the FBI ignored because their cousins in Italy kept the peace post-conquest. A failure caused by invite and invade the world. Maybe now, with Italians more integrated and Americanized, new manufacturing unions could avoid gangsterism? Or maybe law enforcement could, like, enforce the law? European unions were not controlled by criminals. What were the reasons? Realistically, a populist America needs either lots of companies in an industry to keep them from colluding to suppress wages or unions to give labor some bargaining power.

    American raw materials are exported to Asia to be manufactured into goods exported to America. So, maybe our factories did not produce negative value products, but including opportunity costs their value was negative. The similarity with the Soviets is a bit eerie and very disheartening.

    The loss of standardized testing, assuming we don’t use something else that correlates as strongly to g as the SAT or GRE, the thinky classes are going to carry some real dross. Not just minorities, but whites with connections. The dumb kids of rich men do not know they are dumb! They have high prestige educations. They buy the self-serving environmentalist, non-hereditarian idea that school quality causes intelligence. They have impeccable upper-class etiquette, so important people listen to them. They are the types who can get multimillion dollars of venture capital to re-engineer the Y chromosome of chickens (roosters are chickens, right?) so hatcheries don’t waste space incubating male eggs, but the eggs you buy in the store are not genetically engineered. The company was called EggXYte, not sure if it’s folded yet. I don’t have the heart to tell them.

    Don’t get me wrong, the children of the Silicon Valley set are smarter than average, by a lot. But they are not as smart as their (mostly) fathers who were selected for intelligence. Regression hits the just and the unjust. The loss of the SAT is America’s loss, but not populism. There will be a lot of smart whites who never make it into the elite, or even the comfortable. They might oppose the billionaire/woke racial socialism in which the rich are lightly taxed because they are “job creators” -- establishment Republicans cannot meme -- but the middle-class and working classes are taxed heavily in ways both direct and indirect -- the insourcing, outsourcing, and integration taxes being the largest ones.

    If the wokers get their way, and college costs are drastically curtailed, the military loses anyone smart, and a ton of them are in it only for the college tuition payments. That leaves people who cannot get private-sector jobs, the patriots - basically a synonym for deplorable Trumpeter, and people who do cool, high-status stuff - pilots. Maybe the Pentagon gets a national service or the military requirement, but that just means a ton of deplorables get military training -- not good for the government come some sort of serious insurrection.

    The nukes are a problem, but if the government uses nuclear weapons on American non-military targets, and a multi-megaton warhead will kill civilians -- not like the rebels are going to be massing in the desert -- it becomes an international pariah. No other country wants a vastly declined America that is in a shooting war with a rebellion that is doing so well DC decides to launch Intra-Continental Ballistic missiles on its own citizens -- the teams will be alk higgledy-pigledy, they will kill lots of loyalists. A globalized America will not be able to keep F-15’s in the air at all without imports. Live by globalism, die by globalism.

    Rather than discuss what revolutionaries would need to defeat the government, which sounds like he’s not in a “governing by consent of the people” sort of situation, but is a tyrannical puppet-man installed by a week-long “vote-counting” exercise that saw record turnout in 90%+ Democratic precincts, and a lot of them, taunting the patriots.

    I’d really like the government to be working on, as a liberal might say, the “root causes” of the revolution, immigration, outsourcing, oligarchy, kyriarchy, though expect “respect” for the courts to decline drastically when the last few decades of decisions get overturned en masse, though these were never “democratically” chosen. I think the wrong one is being overturned first. I think Griggs needs to go, the one allowing illegal kids to get free public schooling -- this was decided based on the illegals remaining in the country. If the schools require proof of citizenship and the illegals are physically deported, then it becomes moot. What deportation means needs to be “clarified”-- it means removed from the country immediately. Dependents, even US citizen ones, get to go back, too. They lose citizenship, as the 14th amendment intended to make the descendants of slaves citizens. It did that. It’s done.

    Speaking of citizenship, let’s look at the text of the 14thA “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.“ This might be the first time I’ve bolded something. Are is present tense. All persons born in the US...are citizens. If they had intended the amendment to apply towards former slaves and future births, it would have said shall be.

    Let’s look at the beginning of Section 2 of the same amendment “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers...” looks like they knew how to refer to events that shall be occur ing in the future! “Shall be” appears 108 times in the Constitution. Are appears a mere 4 times. If the learned men who wrote the amendment intended an ongoing process, they would have written, are or shall be born. Is my reasoning “solid as Iraq”? Perhaps not, but is it any worse than reasoning that includes penumbras (penumbrae?) and emanations? Is it really that much worse? If you say yes then I shall be offended. Has that particular verb tense choice in that particular sentence of that particular amendment been ruled upon? No? Fantastic, no precious inviolate precedent would be violated. There are lots of leftist rulings that did not violate “precedent” only because no one was stupid enough to make that argument in court. If someone did, then it never made it to the Supreme Court. There was, therefore, no binding Supreme Court-level precedent to be invalidated. Not until the Eastern European Jews...

    Among other “concepts” that need to be invalidated are disparate impact and the recent racist thoughts I imagine the lawmakers had thunked “found” in the Constitution by a Vietnamese lady in Arizona ruling America's illegal entry law unConstitutional. Is my “if the law does not say shall be, then you go home free” really worse than that?

    Congratulations to anyone who finished this comment! At least I used a more tag!
  85. @petit bourgeois
    @res

    Birthright citizenship is not a part of the 14th Amendment:


    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
     

    https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

    The 14th Amendment was meant to grant citizenship to freed black slaves, not the hordes of invaders coming from the southern border.

    Replies: @res

    I get what you are saying, but disagree that is how birthright citizenship IS treated in the US (should be is distinct from that and we agree there).

    Here is a Wikipedia quote from the Wong Kim Ark decision (emphasis mine).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    Note that it only says “resident aliens” (contrast with “the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents ” in your quote, but also note the wording “have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business” in the question before the court).

    It appears to me the court ruled more broadly than the question before it (intentionally or not). In any case, Plyler v. Doe 1982 clarified that illegal aliens were eligible.

    My point was that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was before the modern income tax (1913). Therefore Mason’s statement “The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship.” does not make sense. To add to that, in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in a way which made an income tax not practical until after the Sixteenth amendment was ratified (i.e. no income tax in 1898).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_federal_income_taxes

    P.S. I am not a lawyer. If anyone has a better understanding of this please correct. But address the specific points I made if doing so.

    • Replies: @V. Hickel
    @res

    somebody here illegally does not have a permanent domicile and residence here

    Replies: @res

  86. Rob says:
    @Desiderius

    Does this make sense?
     
    Information technology breakthroughs like the printing press and the internet so overload the senses of those who came of age before the breakthrough that they prefer the senseless to exacerbating the overload.

    So you have things like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and the unraveling we see around us. This is what new generations are for.

    Replies: @Rob

    This makes intuitive sense. It makes the hoped-for (by some) development of tech to stop aging kind of scary. Hopefully, we will also develop the tech to return people to the neuroplasticity people have at younger ages, at least to the younger twenties.

    More pragmatically, it is why we desperately need younger people in upper levels of government. It is why people in government believed Facebook ads and memes “stole” the election. Their first response was “what’s Facebook?” Their response to the answer was “why would anyone use it?” They had no clue that no one clicks on Facebook ads or notices them. They did not know that one does not need a CS degree and a lifetime in intelligence agency propaganda to make a meme that goes viral. One needs a picture and witness.

    [MORE]

    It is why the Republican reaction to social media censorship was non-existent. Hunter Biden’s laptop was maybe the most egregious, but who knows how many stories or memes would have gone viral, had there not been a heavy thumb on the scale. Unfollowing people from various accounts is a (perhaps) newer ones, and far more potent. By controlling who gets popular, they can control what issues reach the zeitgeist. I am sure that if one’s Tweets are clever, funny, and focus on preventing social media censorship, taxing capital, and creation of a government agency to regulate tech companies from the boardroom to the code itself to prevent tech companies, which employ many foreigners, from ever interfering in an election again, one’s feed will never “go viral.” We have been overly informed by the Democrats and their media that foreign interference in elections is not only intolerable but makes the winner illegitimate. There is no concern that at tech companies foreign nationals, many from countries with no tradition of free speech or deep internalization of American norms, can control information relevant to an election. Therefore, Biden was illegitimately elected. #MakeAmericaResistAgain

    The Republicans tend towards gerontocracy because their voters are older, but also because the schools work hard to undermine white boys and men, especially conservative ones, that few white men who have run the course of honors that would get normies to vote for a younger candidate are available. That Bootyjudge was gay is not incidental to how successful he was in getting into Harvard, working at Goldman Sachs, and getting a (fraudulent) military commission. Gay men are, if not genetically, unchangeably on team D. No Republican who had been the mayor of a small city in the Midwest would have been treated as a serious candidate. It is also telling to the talent pool of team D that the only white midwesterner moderate they could find had such a thin resume and was gay.

    The D team tends toward gerontocracy because the younger generations are all minorities and women. The minorities don’t like each other. The popularity of the Karen meme strongly suggests that the minorities are none too fond of the white women, but the women are the ones who have brains. Some young white men are Democrats, but they are half-hearted ones, at best. Being the natural and designated enemy demographic, even firm Democrat men tend to be there for niche reasons, like homosexuality, environmentalism, or because that’s where the pussy is. Being niche or there for fun, the younger white men are neither successful as candidates nor irreversibly on the team. Here, bioleninism holds. I left out the Jews, who provide most of the Democrats’ brains because they dislike being the ass in the seat, preferring to influence the ass behind the scenes. I have read that a big chunk of Democrats’ funding comes from Jews, though I have read that in places that would claim that even if it were not true. The overwhelming presence of jews in the brainy part of the party, smart whites having left and the remaining ones being niche or self-hating, coupled with white women’s desire for social conformity makes the Democrats extremist on immigration, to name one issue.

    The other group of white men on the D team are the college-educated, they currently face little competition from immigrants, though the coming full infotech realignment, there will be Indians raised by parents who are being shaped by American corporate culture. Not to mention, the Indians in America will have climbed to the very top of the corporate totem pole. They will be more comfortable dealing with Indians than the outsourcingest white corporate honcho. Maybe Indian caste-ism will limit Indian solidarity.

    This suggests a strategy for immigration “reform.” Insist on piecewise reform, or, and this might be better pairwise reform. In piecewise reform, the Asians do not benefit from DACA, nor do H1b’s who’ve been here for years. Set a quota: we will accept this many new legals. You DACAs and younH1b’s decide amongst yourselves how this quota should be split. “Temporary” Protected Status aliens from third world countries with third world problems? They can go into a pool with people on student visas who want to stay. Do the same thing: we will legalize this many. The temps will call the students entitled and privileged. The students will call the temps unskilled and a permanent burden. The worst outcome, that the bill passes and some get to stay? Well, at least we have fewer than “comprehensive reform” done by Democrats. The most likely outcome? The Dems don’t support it, and enough Republicans can bow out on ‘my Indian friends don’t like their limit’ or ‘this is unfair, and my DACAs’ American citizen siblings don’t support it, so the bill dies. The benefits are overwhelmingly good. There is now bad blood between former allies. The smart aliens will have spent months calling the dumbs dumb and parasitical. The dumbs will have called out how many of the students “attended” online degree mills, and are as low-skilled as the temps, plus, they can go home to their rich families.

    Let’s say the bills don’t die very quickly, we make compromises, like however many thousand more aliens, but none of the newly legal can import aliens of their own, ever. So, however many do not become five times the quota in a few years. Offer great deals that they cannot take. Everyone here on date such-and-such gets legalized. In exchange, we get a Constitutional amendment prohibiting future immigration. None, zip, zero, but everyone who has “made a life” here gets to stay. Hmm, since the country has passed the point of no return, maybe this offer is a bad idea, but then the other side will be torn, white women D’s who are sure that their demographic dominance is already guaranteed, versus the DACAs who want cousin Tito to come. Restricted residency of aliens so the political balance is not changed. LA can have all the aliens it wants, but none in the red districts. Also, Americans who want to live in America can. Think of Res States as reservations.

    Sorry, back to age. Younger politicians on the right would be more based than the old men. The old men live in the “hyper white” old (lol) America. The younger whites went to school with integrated blacks, so they know they are dumb and legally privileged. They went to school with endless Hispanics, they know that, while the best are the salt of the earth, the worst are in league with cartels. Etc. They know exactly how non-white America is. They surely don’t want it to become more so?

    On the D side, younger leadership is also great. For us. Why? Because they are insane! Every political issue is a black and white moral issue — which is racist, white supremacist language, by the way — so they cannot compromise on anything without the other shitlibs tearing up the shitlib in charge. Plus, younger leadership on the D side shows normies just how non-white they are. We better get this soon, while voters are still much whiter than the population.

    But in a decade, maybe two, the current young political set will be in charge. Hopefully, they get authority before their neuroplasticity has gone, and they are fully Twitterfied.

    • Thanks: Desiderius
  87. I’ve interacted with many Africans throughout my working life, and I have developed some stereotypes. There is a lot of variation in values, personality, and beliefs across the different countries. Ghanaians impress me, and I know some extremely competent Nigerians (from all parts of that country). I can say something positive about everyone I’ve met from Cameroon. From eastern and southern Africa, I’ve had productive relationships with Kenyans, Zimbabweans, and Zambians. Ethiopians are a good-looking people, often intelligent, though I no longer trust them; Somalis are about as trustworthy and good-looking, though not as intelligent. However, of all the Africans I’ve known, the people from the Democratic Republic of the Congo stand out as the most difficult to deal with — every Congolese I’ve interacted with has been noticeably vain, in the sense that their self-esteem was ratcheted up way above what their abilities warranted. The rapist Fiston Ngoy may have genuinely believed that any woman would be thrilled to be raped by him.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Cato

    What did Ethiopians do to you?

    Replies: @Cato

  88. @Matttt
    @ScarletNumber

    According to the Board of Immigration Appeals' website, "Generally, the BIA does not conduct courtroom proceedings - it decides appeals by conducting a 'paper review' of cases." It looks like the immigration courts have their own electronic document filing system as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the BIA held oral arguments, in the few cases that it decides to hear them, by Zoom.

    So, no. Not only is the alien's presence unnecessary, but it looks like the attorneys don't have to be there either. All you need to file an appeal is a computer and internet connection.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ScarletNumber

    OK, I’m convinced. I endorse Steve’s idea now.

  89. @Anonymous
    The analogy of 'deportation' with 'execution' is both apt and odd.

    The left/Economist seems to view the deportation of miscreant aliens as being akin to the capital punishment of the individual in its gravity and finality - and it incites the same horror in them.

    But, in reality, all repatriation amounts to is the return of the native son to the warm bosom of his ancestral homeland, the land of his family, cousins and kinfolk, the tender loving embrace of one's own people, home and culture.

    That the unfeigned horror of the left/Economist is so strong and extreme concerning repatriation - it is indeed a fate worse than death - must, surely, invoke the reality of the 'warm bosom' of third world kith and kin.


    You have been warned.

    Replies: @bomag, @Charlotte

    This tension between two mutually exclusive ideas is evident in so many of the preoccupations of modern leftists. Is that why they are so militant? Because on some level, they know the tenets of their faith don’t make sense?

    Nonwhite, third world countries are absolutely not sh*tholes! / sending third world migrants back to their horrid, dangerous countries of origin would be tantamount to murder!

    Race does not exist, is a recent invention, and doesn’t mean anything / pretty much all of history consists of dull, genocidal whites oppressing vibrant blacks and browns out of racial animus

    Sex/gender is a spectrum, and in any case, sex and gender are not linked, which is why we refer to birthing people instead of “women” / helping unhappy children mutilate themselves to better approximate “boys” and “girls” is a literal matter of life or death!

  90. @Cato
    I've interacted with many Africans throughout my working life, and I have developed some stereotypes. There is a lot of variation in values, personality, and beliefs across the different countries. Ghanaians impress me, and I know some extremely competent Nigerians (from all parts of that country). I can say something positive about everyone I've met from Cameroon. From eastern and southern Africa, I've had productive relationships with Kenyans, Zimbabweans, and Zambians. Ethiopians are a good-looking people, often intelligent, though I no longer trust them; Somalis are about as trustworthy and good-looking, though not as intelligent. However, of all the Africans I've known, the people from the Democratic Republic of the Congo stand out as the most difficult to deal with -- every Congolese I've interacted with has been noticeably vain, in the sense that their self-esteem was ratcheted up way above what their abilities warranted. The rapist Fiston Ngoy may have genuinely believed that any woman would be thrilled to be raped by him.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    What did Ethiopians do to you?

    • Replies: @Cato
    @AndrewR

    That's private and I won't tell you. But I will advise you. Don't enter into a serious romantic commitment with an Ethiopian. And if you hire one, set up a system where it is impossible for your employee to pilfer inventory or divert revenue.

  91. Nothing happens in America when you over-stay your visa. The Government has no idea if you over-stay , since visitors do not go thru immigration when they leave the US.

    My wife entered the US legally in 1993 on a tourist visa which was good for 3 months. She never left. We were married in 1999. She never received any type of deportation notice until after we were married when she applied for her green card and they realized she had overstayed her visa by 6 years and she was told to go back to Chile to obtain her green card and pay a \$1,200 fine for overstaying her visa. They send the green card to the embassy which forces you to leave the country to get the green card.

    Obama created multiple loopholes to the 1996 immigration act. Spouses today are no longer required to leave the US to obtain their green cards even if they entered the US illegally. They can remain in the US until the green cards is issued and pick it up at the nearest immigration office.

  92. @Erik Sieven
    I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.

    Replies: @res, @duncsbaby

    I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.

    Americans can’t travel into Canada if they have a DUI conviction, no matter how old the offense. Of course that was pre-pandemic, now I don’t know what hoops and garters you’ve got to jump through to get into the Great White North. Too many for just a casual visit, I’m sure.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    @duncsbaby

    Given that Americans don't need a visa to enter Canada (or even if they did), how would the Canadians know? Does the immigration agent at the border have a system that somehow links your passport to every state's criminal database? I don't recall ever being even provided a questionnaire, so even a voluntary disclosure doesn't seem prevalent.

  93. @Anonymous
    This is the best response to why didn’t anyone intervene

    https://twitter.com/BiskyRusiness/status/1450865455695110155?s=20

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I agreed with your post even though I suspect that if we could take a close look at demographics of the viewers of the rape on that Philadelphia train, it would show that they were less cowed by the liberal woke authorities and more titillated by believing that bitch got what she deserved.

    If I’m right then they weren’t using their phones to capture the rape on camera so that they could turn it in as state’s evidence against the rapist, but to post it online.

  94. @Wilkey

    That sounds entirely wrong to me. How much global revenue could the U.S. have possibly hoped for when the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship?
     
    We didn't even have an income tax until 45 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. So the answer would be...none.

    Mostly the current interpretation if the 14th Amendment re: birthright citizenship came from a time when we weren't experiencing large amounts of illegal immigration. Before the welfare state, before modern telecommunications allowed people to spread the word of the welfare state, and before modern transportation allowed them to arrive in insane numbers.

    It's as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @ScarletNumber

    The problem with modern interpretation of the 14th amendment is that it was designed to give citizenship to slaves who were born here. Very specifically, children of foreign diplomats who are born here are not US citizens. I would argue that illegal immigrants are closer in legal status to the diplomats than to slaves.

    Of course you also have children born here while their mothers are here on tourist visas and as well as parents who are here as students like Boris Johnson. I would argue they shouldn’t be US citizens either, but they are on firmer legal ground.

    Finally you have Prince Albert, who was a US citizen because he is the son of Grace Kelly. Both Albert and Johnson renounced their US citizenship for political and tax reasons.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @ScarletNumber

    If we cannot get a re-interpretation of the 14th amendment (see my previous comment near the end) then we need to make it's retroactive (to the day after the 14th was ratified) repeal part of any immigration deal. That’s a compromise position. The negotiating position should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting any foreign national or child of a foreign national mother (for single moms) or married couple with no citizen parent (for good parents) from obtaining citizenship.

    Children born here have the legal status of their mother. Is she a citizen? Baby is a citizen. Illegal? Mother and baby go home on a mommy flight once out of the hospital. The home country gets a bill for the medical care she received, including the mommy flight. Tourist visa? Mommy and baby clear out on or before the last day of her visa. Otherwise, she and baby are illegals and get to go home on a mommy flight. Mommy flight or no, the home country gets the bill. No more Chinese women 8 months, 3 weeks pregnant flying over here, using the hospital free of charge, staying in a flophouse for the year Chinese mothers ate supposed to rest, and flying back..
    On birth tourism, we should follow up. Hit up the Chinese government now (while we still have some bargaining power for a list of dual nationals, plus DNA for future confirmation. Matter of fact, we should get a genetic sample (cord blood is fine) from every baby born here. Too easy to go back to wherever and sell your citizenship. Also, the Chinese government does the IRS work for us. Insist that they obey every American law on American nationals opening foreign bank accounts. Then hit them up at 18 for whatever national service the D’s have set up, Then hit them up at 30 for back taxes. Plus interest. Plus fees. Plus jail time if they knew they were a citizen.

    I realize that is a pipe dream. We are long past the tipping point of telling China what to do. Chinese billionaires own Mitch McConnel through his wife. Ooh, should populists start calling him Mitch, China’s Bitch? Being a Senator and married to a wealthy foreign family’s cadet branch in America is a clear conflict of interest. Maybe we can’t legislate against this, but con media should make more of this. He might “be” a conservative, but he cockblocked the wall — the whole “Trump” agenda. I put quotes there because it was the Bannon agenda, fat slovenly sot though he is. Tax cuts do not conserve America in today’s reality. They hasten the fall.

  95. @Joe Stalin
    @Wilkey


    It’s as if the government said that the 2nd Amendment required them to let people own nukes.
     

    President Biden on 2nd Amendment: "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government? You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."
     
    OK!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMUQU4m9Z5U

    Replies: @Rob

    President Biden on 2nd Amendment: “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government? You need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

    I wrote a recent comment about an article on our failure to maintain the maintenance crews in the Air Force, but I cannot find the Tweet or the article it linked to that discussed all the dead pilots and airmen. Maybe the military got it scrubbed? Maybe my Google-Fu is weak.

    When serious break-up-level events start, the government will have F-15s for around three days. Maybe a week. The military has a hard time maintaining planes right now. Do you think the Air Force maintenance crews are even liberals, much less woke? Sure, the military could replace them with BIPOCs, but not with very good mechanics. They’d need to drastically lower ability standards. Asians could do it, but Asians don’t enlist. They are here to make money and climb socially. Would you enlist in a foreign country’s military? The military has been trying to make techs out of blacks for decades, but haven’t made much progress. Does the technology of Africans in Africa impress you? Why would relocating them make them gadgeteers? Hispanics? When things seriously decline, a lot of them are going home, like Asians. Hispanics are smarter than blacks, but not by much. The more recent arrivals from Southern Mexico and Central America are about as smart as blacks. The closer to the equator a population has been under selection for a long time, the lower their IQ. Eskimo average 90, tilted strongly to visuospatial, but Central American Indios average ~80. Not to mention, strength matters for air force techs. In terms of keeping a bunch of F-whatevers in the sky for war, there are no women who can do it.

    Not to mention, “F-” are fighters. They are for shooting down planes. They might not be worth much in a counter-insurgency. Especially since the rebels will be in rural areas, snd the cities need to get supplies in. So on the unbombed roads, there will be lots of trucks, or city folk go hungry. Which truck(s) has a bomb? Plus, with cities attached to renewable wind and solar far away from the city, transmission lines can be cut in a lot of places. Sure, one break is easily repaired. For as long as you have replacement wire. And replacement work crews.

    There is also the matter of China paying for our government, which sure is nice of them! I, for one, do not suspect an ulterior motive. But if one were suspicious, would an insurrection severe enough that DC was using F-whatevers in America make them think the US government was stable enough to justify the 0.5% rate on T Bills? When the US is experiencing inflation that’s so high that a large chunk of the populace pulled a Doug and said, “I’m outta heeeere”? Might the US have a lot of trouble convincing the Chinese to hold their treasuries, much less buy new ones?

    The capitalist have not paid full freight since Ray Gun. They will not take kindly to wartime taxation and a war disrupting their consumers, if not their producers. Might the capitalists jump ship? Do you think a New York with starving parasites, as well-armed (with pistols) as the rebels can make them, will still be the world’s financial hub? The US consumer will have a hard time buying the Asian manufactured goods that keep us pacified. Even American-made things will be expensive. The replacement parts for factories will be mostly made in Asia. When the Jews flee, every nation is going to look unkindly upon immigration. It was the proximate cause of America dying. Will they want smart, educated, skilled immigrants? After what the Jews did to America!?! Not to mention, educated in woke, American universities.

    Whither the American capitalists when they go to see “their” factories in Asia? Remember when third-world countries were nationalizing American companies’ holdings? Might that happen again, when the US military is fighting a war at home that will leave it crippled for decades, perhaps forever, as all sides eat the seed corn of smart, capable people? Win, lose, or draw, the US won’t be throwing its weight around.

    [MORE]

    Plus, the simple reality is that barring near-miraculous tech we invent that the Chinese cannot copy and execute better than the US, the military is in for a drastic cut in real dollars long before a serious Civil War. I hope “defense” spending on innovative research survives, but I have my doubts. They disbanded the Jasons, for one thing. I guess the military did not think listening to very, very intelligent people was worthwhile. They preferred expertise, but without reality testing, expertise can go far into fantasy and delusion. The military has failed every reality test since 1945, the first Gulf War, and Grenada excepted. Think an American war would be like either of those? The US will want to hold the territory that revolted, else the nuclear bombings were punitive, and US leaders are going to be on trial for war crimes, either here or abroad.

    Lol. Realistically, for there to be an armed rebellion, the majority-minority population would have to have worked its way through the workforce, as in the 50-70 year-olds who make decisions, the 40-50-year-old middle managers and especially (this will, of course, happen first) the 20-30-year-old boots on the ground.

    Oh yeah, war comes, and the brains of the D team, the Jews, jump ship for Israel! White men nominally on the D team might “vote their color” and join the team that does not think they are the boogeyman. It’s one thing to call the other side rubes. It’s quite another thing to realize you will be in a nation that is something like 25% black, 60% Hispanic nation. Maybe blacker than that, once the Red nations expel their minorities. For their own benefit of course. Wouldn’t want them to live under white supremacy when a paradise is right across the border.

    When people say America will be majority non-white in 2040 (or whenever) that is not an equilibrium point. Demographics will continue decaying with no obvious equilibrium point. The pressure for not just affirmative action where, as Steve said, “nice people pick a nice number” for minority employment or enrollment, they are going to want equity. Minorities percentage in a field that equals to their percentage of the population. Every institution will work even less well than it does today. Many, many organizations will work less and less well. I cannot take credit for the following insight. It comes from a brilliant commenter, literally the best single comment on iSteve (commenters, not you, Steve) Eventually with “equity in employment” job functions that were performed with 100% success in white America will be performed with 95% success (that is generous) for activities that consist of n steps in a series, (.95)^n rapidly approaches zero.

    Institutions functioning at zero percent are kind of hard to imagine, so we have to remember them. In the Soviet Union, many industries functioned at less than zero. Factories took ore and manufactured steel that was worth less than the ore. Other factories took leather and made shoes that were worse less than the skins off the animal. Maybe things have improved under Putin, but they are in a neo-colonial, maybe call it post-superpower economy, exporting raw materials and some military tech to cost-conscious third-worlders. On the plus side, if the military contractors don’t all fold, the post-Pax Americana world will be buying a lot of weapons.

    Maybe that happened in America, too? Manufacturing has always been especially vulnerable to affirmative action. A lot of jobs required ability instead of a degree. They hired reasonably bright high school graduates, though high school was harder to graduate, who did well in shop class, back when shop classes were not a joke (they were perhaps the first casualty of the verbal class rising. They hated shop) then trained them. Factories tended to be located in cities. They were expensive to move, and we’re safe enough themselves, plus they could afford “security” that could commit some crimes better than the criminals. So when the city turned black, there they were. EOE laws and the courts said having employment in a position that did not reflect the local population’s demographics in the relevant education range was discrimination. The early wokerati also made HS easy enough that a lot more blacks could graduate. So manufacturers either were sued into complying or just complied, as people tended to obey the law and hired blacks for line positions. Before, black factory employees did things like sweep and get the workers water. The quality of manufactured goods drastically declined. Were these things related? Or is this just post-hoc, ergo propter hoc?

    Unions that had been built to combat capitalist abuses had their contracts and rules, so it was difficult to fire incompetent or destructive blacks. At first, we imported higher quality goods from Asia made by Asian companies. Capitalists are no slouches mentally, or their servants are not, and pretty soon, American companies were taking advantage of Asian labor. Asian countries, or at least Japan, had strong unions. Japanese unions were not a piggy bank for ethnic mafia from imported alien peoples. Gangsters the FBI ignored because their cousins in Italy kept the peace post-conquest. A failure caused by invite and invade the world. Maybe now, with Italians more integrated and Americanized, new manufacturing unions could avoid gangsterism? Or maybe law enforcement could, like, enforce the law? European unions were not controlled by criminals. What were the reasons? Realistically, a populist America needs either lots of companies in an industry to keep them from colluding to suppress wages or unions to give labor some bargaining power.

    American raw materials are exported to Asia to be manufactured into goods exported to America. So, maybe our factories did not produce negative value products, but including opportunity costs their value was negative. The similarity with the Soviets is a bit eerie and very disheartening.

    The loss of standardized testing, assuming we don’t use something else that correlates as strongly to g as the SAT or GRE, the thinky classes are going to carry some real dross. Not just minorities, but whites with connections. The dumb kids of rich men do not know they are dumb! They have high prestige educations. They buy the self-serving environmentalist, non-hereditarian idea that school quality causes intelligence. They have impeccable upper-class etiquette, so important people listen to them. They are the types who can get multimillion dollars of venture capital to re-engineer the Y chromosome of chickens (roosters are chickens, right?) so hatcheries don’t waste space incubating male eggs, but the eggs you buy in the store are not genetically engineered. The company was called EggXYte, not sure if it’s folded yet. I don’t have the heart to tell them.

    Don’t get me wrong, the children of the Silicon Valley set are smarter than average, by a lot. But they are not as smart as their (mostly) fathers who were selected for intelligence. Regression hits the just and the unjust. The loss of the SAT is America’s loss, but not populism. There will be a lot of smart whites who never make it into the elite, or even the comfortable. They might oppose the billionaire/woke racial socialism in which the rich are lightly taxed because they are “job creators” — establishment Republicans cannot meme — but the middle-class and working classes are taxed heavily in ways both direct and indirect — the insourcing, outsourcing, and integration taxes being the largest ones.

    If the wokers get their way, and college costs are drastically curtailed, the military loses anyone smart, and a ton of them are in it only for the college tuition payments. That leaves people who cannot get private-sector jobs, the patriots – basically a synonym for deplorable Trumpeter, and people who do cool, high-status stuff – pilots. Maybe the Pentagon gets a national service or the military requirement, but that just means a ton of deplorables get military training — not good for the government come some sort of serious insurrection.

    The nukes are a problem, but if the government uses nuclear weapons on American non-military targets, and a multi-megaton warhead will kill civilians — not like the rebels are going to be massing in the desert — it becomes an international pariah. No other country wants a vastly declined America that is in a shooting war with a rebellion that is doing so well DC decides to launch Intra-Continental Ballistic missiles on its own citizens — the teams will be alk higgledy-pigledy, they will kill lots of loyalists. A globalized America will not be able to keep F-15’s in the air at all without imports. Live by globalism, die by globalism.

    Rather than discuss what revolutionaries would need to defeat the government, which sounds like he’s not in a “governing by consent of the people” sort of situation, but is a tyrannical puppet-man installed by a week-long “vote-counting” exercise that saw record turnout in 90%+ Democratic precincts, and a lot of them, taunting the patriots.

    I’d really like the government to be working on, as a liberal might say, the “root causes” of the revolution, immigration, outsourcing, oligarchy, kyriarchy, though expect “respect” for the courts to decline drastically when the last few decades of decisions get overturned en masse, though these were never “democratically” chosen. I think the wrong one is being overturned first. I think Griggs needs to go, the one allowing illegal kids to get free public schooling — this was decided based on the illegals remaining in the country. If the schools require proof of citizenship and the illegals are physically deported, then it becomes moot. What deportation means needs to be “clarified”– it means removed from the country immediately. Dependents, even US citizen ones, get to go back, too. They lose citizenship, as the 14th amendment intended to make the descendants of slaves citizens. It did that. It’s done.

    Speaking of citizenship, let’s look at the text of the 14thA “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.“ This might be the first time I’ve bolded something. Are is present tense. All persons born in the US…are citizens. If they had intended the amendment to apply towards former slaves and future births, it would have said shall be.

    Let’s look at the beginning of Section 2 of the same amendment “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers…” looks like they knew how to refer to events that shall be occur ing in the future! “Shall be” appears 108 times in the Constitution. Are appears a mere 4 times. If the learned men who wrote the amendment intended an ongoing process, they would have written, are or shall be born. Is my reasoning “solid as Iraq”? Perhaps not, but is it any worse than reasoning that includes penumbras (penumbrae?) and emanations? Is it really that much worse? If you say yes then I shall be offended. Has that particular verb tense choice in that particular sentence of that particular amendment been ruled upon? No? Fantastic, no precious inviolate precedent would be violated. There are lots of leftist rulings that did not violate “precedent” only because no one was stupid enough to make that argument in court. If someone did, then it never made it to the Supreme Court. There was, therefore, no binding Supreme Court-level precedent to be invalidated. Not until the Eastern European Jews…

    Among other “concepts” that need to be invalidated are disparate impact and the recent racist thoughts I imagine the lawmakers had thunked “found” in the Constitution by a Vietnamese lady in Arizona ruling America’s illegal entry law unConstitutional. Is my “if the law does not say shall be, then you go home free” really worse than that?

    Congratulations to anyone who finished this comment! At least I used a more tag!

  96. @ScarletNumber
    @Wilkey

    The problem with modern interpretation of the 14th amendment is that it was designed to give citizenship to slaves who were born here. Very specifically, children of foreign diplomats who are born here are not US citizens. I would argue that illegal immigrants are closer in legal status to the diplomats than to slaves.

    Of course you also have children born here while their mothers are here on tourist visas and as well as parents who are here as students like Boris Johnson. I would argue they shouldn't be US citizens either, but they are on firmer legal ground.

    Finally you have Prince Albert, who was a US citizen because he is the son of Grace Kelly. Both Albert and Johnson renounced their US citizenship for political and tax reasons.

    Replies: @Rob

    If we cannot get a re-interpretation of the 14th amendment (see my previous comment near the end) then we need to make it’s retroactive (to the day after the 14th was ratified) repeal part of any immigration deal. That’s a compromise position. The negotiating position should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting any foreign national or child of a foreign national mother (for single moms) or married couple with no citizen parent (for good parents) from obtaining citizenship.

    Children born here have the legal status of their mother. Is she a citizen? Baby is a citizen. Illegal? Mother and baby go home on a mommy flight once out of the hospital. The home country gets a bill for the medical care she received, including the mommy flight. Tourist visa? Mommy and baby clear out on or before the last day of her visa. Otherwise, she and baby are illegals and get to go home on a mommy flight. Mommy flight or no, the home country gets the bill. No more Chinese women 8 months, 3 weeks pregnant flying over here, using the hospital free of charge, staying in a flophouse for the year Chinese mothers ate supposed to rest, and flying back..

    [MORE]

    On birth tourism, we should follow up. Hit up the Chinese government now (while we still have some bargaining power for a list of dual nationals, plus DNA for future confirmation. Matter of fact, we should get a genetic sample (cord blood is fine) from every baby born here. Too easy to go back to wherever and sell your citizenship. Also, the Chinese government does the IRS work for us. Insist that they obey every American law on American nationals opening foreign bank accounts. Then hit them up at 18 for whatever national service the D’s have set up, Then hit them up at 30 for back taxes. Plus interest. Plus fees. Plus jail time if they knew they were a citizen.

    I realize that is a pipe dream. We are long past the tipping point of telling China what to do. Chinese billionaires own Mitch McConnel through his wife. Ooh, should populists start calling him Mitch, China’s Bitch? Being a Senator and married to a wealthy foreign family’s cadet branch in America is a clear conflict of interest. Maybe we can’t legislate against this, but con media should make more of this. He might “be” a conservative, but he cockblocked the wall — the whole “Trump” agenda. I put quotes there because it was the Bannon agenda, fat slovenly sot though he is. Tax cuts do not conserve America in today’s reality. They hasten the fall.

  97. @petit bourgeois
    @Adam Smith

    You sound like one of those "sovereign citizen" nut jobs who doesn't believe you have to follow any motor vehicle laws like having a license, registration or license plates. Of course driving without a licence is a crime. In most jurisdictions, it's a misdemeanor. People like you will eventually wind up in the pokey, where you belong.

    Jaywalking is a crime. Going 1 mph over the speed limit is a crime. You don't live in the country you think you do.

    If the cops want to take you to jail for not making your children wear seat belts, they can do that. See, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001):

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1408

    The law isn't what it says, it's what is does in the real world.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    You sound like one of those “statist” nut jobs…

    All “crimes” involve an injured party (victim).
    Jaywalking is a violation of commerce.
    Driving without a license is a violation of commerce.
    Failure to wear a seatbelt is a violation of commerce.

    (6) Motor vehicle.—
    The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

    (10) Used for commercial purposes.—
    The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    License, registration and license plates all involve contractual obligations.
    Violating one of those contracts has absolutely nothing to do with the so called “law”.

  98. @res
    @petit bourgeois

    I get what you are saying, but disagree that is how birthright citizenship IS treated in the US (should be is distinct from that and we agree there).

    Here is a Wikipedia quote from the Wong Kim Ark decision (emphasis mine).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


    the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
     
    Note that it only says "resident aliens" (contrast with "the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents " in your quote, but also note the wording "have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business" in the question before the court).

    It appears to me the court ruled more broadly than the question before it (intentionally or not). In any case, Plyler v. Doe 1982 clarified that illegal aliens were eligible.

    My point was that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was before the modern income tax (1913). Therefore Mason's statement "The original intention of birthright citizenship was that anybody born in the US would have to pay taxes to the US on their worldwide income for the rest of their life, unless they went through the difficult process of renouncing their US citizenship." does not make sense. To add to that, in 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in a way which made an income tax not practical until after the Sixteenth amendment was ratified (i.e. no income tax in 1898).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Early_federal_income_taxes

    P.S. I am not a lawyer. If anyone has a better understanding of this please correct. But address the specific points I made if doing so.

    Replies: @V. Hickel

    somebody here illegally does not have a permanent domicile and residence here

    • Replies: @res
    @V. Hickel

    That's the crux of the matter. The problem is the ruling (see bolded text in my comment) only said "resident alien." Beyond that, most illegal aliens clearly have a domicile and residence here. As for whether or not those are permanent, that rather depends on what the government does.

    I think the focus should be on clarifying the status of:
    0. citizens
    1. permanent residents lawfully here
    2. tourists and business people lawfully here
    3. anyone here not lawfully

    I think those categories are fairly clear legally. One issue is the visa waiver program, but that has a time limit of 90 days.
    https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program

    It seems reasonable to apply birthright citizenship to children of 0 or 1. Note the level of obligation placed by the US on 1.
    https://www.wsmimmigration.com/immigration-resources/faqs/what-is-the-difference-between-u.s.-permanent-resident-status-and-u.s.-citizenship/

    I believe that covers both the 14th Amendment's intended purpose of granting citizenship to slaves and the intent of Wong Kim Ark.

    To me the fundamental language is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" which IMHO does not apply to 2 or 3 (note how that is in line with the exclusion of diplomats as well).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

    There are of course some big problems with this.
    1. We have been slack about this for so long it would leave many people in a legal limbo.
    2. Many voters want open borders.
    3. Our "elites" seem to REALLY want open borders.

  99. @V. Hickel
    @res

    somebody here illegally does not have a permanent domicile and residence here

    Replies: @res

    That’s the crux of the matter. The problem is the ruling (see bolded text in my comment) only said “resident alien.” Beyond that, most illegal aliens clearly have a domicile and residence here. As for whether or not those are permanent, that rather depends on what the government does.

    I think the focus should be on clarifying the status of:
    0. citizens
    1. permanent residents lawfully here
    2. tourists and business people lawfully here
    3. anyone here not lawfully

    I think those categories are fairly clear legally. One issue is the visa waiver program, but that has a time limit of 90 days.
    https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program

    It seems reasonable to apply birthright citizenship to children of 0 or 1. Note the level of obligation placed by the US on 1.
    https://www.wsmimmigration.com/immigration-resources/faqs/what-is-the-difference-between-u.s.-permanent-resident-status-and-u.s.-citizenship/

    I believe that covers both the 14th Amendment’s intended purpose of granting citizenship to slaves and the intent of Wong Kim Ark.

    To me the fundamental language is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” which IMHO does not apply to 2 or 3 (note how that is in line with the exclusion of diplomats as well).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

    There are of course some big problems with this.
    1. We have been slack about this for so long it would leave many people in a legal limbo.
    2. Many voters want open borders.
    3. Our “elites” seem to REALLY want open borders.

  100. @Anon
    What does a rape charge add? He should have been deported when he overstayed his student visa.

    The State Department should be monitoring entries and exits, visas tracked, and everyday a list should be generated of overstays. Every visa holder should have a sponsor, and the sponsor should be held responsible for overstays. You want foreign students at your university? You'd better make sure they go back, or the visas will dry up for your school, and maybe you'll be billed for the costs of tracking down the illegals. Fire the DEI staff and replace them with dozens of staff tracking visa students. "Bought your ticket back yet?"

    Replies: @Elli, @Jonathan Mason, @Mr. Anon, @anon

    Yea, the US is rare in not tracking departures. Serious countries with serious borders all do it.

  101. As Michelle Malkin has said, “It ain’t over until the illegal alien wins.”

  102. @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Random info from the Internet. It hinges on what the meaning of "incredibly strong woman" is:


    [Police Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt] said the “incredibly strong woman” told police that she remembered getting on the train around 9:15 p.m. in Philadelphia. He said he couldn’t remember anything after that until cops pulled his attacker out of her, the Inquirer reported.

    The woman told police that she had a few beers after work, but she got on the wrong train. About a minute later, Ngoy also got on, according to the affidavit.
     

    He came, he saw ... he raped!

    Is Ngoy from the Republic of the Congo (Congo Republic, Congo Brazzaville, ex-French, Bantu), more or less calm, or the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Kinshasa, Zaire, ex-Belgian-King "Beast Rabban" Leopold II, Bantu) (war-riven hellhole)?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Bridgeport_IPA, @Gabe Ruth

    What is going on with the pronouns in that story? And “out of her”? Makes sense, just never saw it put like that before.

  103. the Board of Immigration Appeals found that his misdemeanor sex offense was not a “serious crime” that would have made him ineligible for such a stay.

    So if I read this decision correctly, immigration law is implementable only in conjunction if another “serious crime” has been committed.

  104. @duncsbaby
    @Erik Sieven


    I know people who tried to travel to the USA as tourists for a 3 week trip from Europe but had a (non-severe) conviction from decades ago. No chance. US immigration services seem to have two faces.
     
    Americans can't travel into Canada if they have a DUI conviction, no matter how old the offense. Of course that was pre-pandemic, now I don't know what hoops and garters you've got to jump through to get into the Great White North. Too many for just a casual visit, I'm sure.

    Replies: @EdwardM

    Given that Americans don’t need a visa to enter Canada (or even if they did), how would the Canadians know? Does the immigration agent at the border have a system that somehow links your passport to every state’s criminal database? I don’t recall ever being even provided a questionnaire, so even a voluntary disclosure doesn’t seem prevalent.

  105. @AndrewR
    @Cato

    What did Ethiopians do to you?

    Replies: @Cato

    That’s private and I won’t tell you. But I will advise you. Don’t enter into a serious romantic commitment with an Ethiopian. And if you hire one, set up a system where it is impossible for your employee to pilfer inventory or divert revenue.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?