Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Politics

Op-Ed: Supreme Court Says Foreign Nationals Have No Due Process Rights Here

Funny how that works!!

Published

on

With the whole controversy going around about illegal aliens and their rights the Supreme Court of the United States recently took a stand and said enough. After President Donald Trump suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their home country without any hearing or years of litigation the Supreme Court agreed and ruled that contrary to what the liberal mainstream media and open-borders advocates might say, foreign nationals aren’t owed the same constitutional protections and rights as regular Americans.

Here is what the United States Supreme Court had to say via Lifezette:

President Donald Trump recently suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their countries of origin without the hearings and the years of litigation that often follow.

He branded the current process, which permits illegal aliens to repeatedly contest orders of removal, as “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order.”

Trending: Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

The mainstream media wasted no time in characterizing his suggestion as a “push to end due process for illegal immigrants.” And multiple news outlets made all manner of wild claims about the so-called rights of illegal aliens. But once again, in an effort to portray the chief executive as a xenophobe, the open-borders lobby has gotten its facts backward.

Trump is actually right on the mark. Much of the current legal framework for removing illegal aliens from the United States consists of badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.

The open-borders lobby and its handmaidens in the mainstream media have consistently represented this hodgepodge as a clear articulation of “affirmative rights.”

But that representation is misleading.

Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.

And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:

It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. “As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” (Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co.; Hilton v. Merritt)

“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” (Ekiu v. United States)

The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v. United States)
“Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien.” (Knauff v. Shaughnessy)

Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)

What does this all mean? That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them.

Congress could act to streamline their removal and provide the type of no-hearing framework that the president has suggested. In fact, it has already done so for certain classes of aliens:

Using a process called administrative removal, the government may, without any hearing, remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Similarly, aliens found inadmissible to the United States upon arriving at the border may be repatriated without a hearing, employing a process called expedited removal.

Aliens who re-enter the U.S. after having been previously deported may also be removed without a hearing, utilizing a process called reinstatement of removal.

What about all of those asylum applications that illegal aliens supposedly have a right to file? As the Supreme Court made clear in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, asylum is a discretionary form of relief. The United States is not obligated to grant asylum to anyone, even those who clearly qualify for it.

Because of this, Congress could pass legislation prohibiting those unlawfully present in the U.S. from filing asylum applications.

Far from “pushing to abolish due process for illegal aliens,” Trump is posing a legitimate question. It’s time for Americans to start asking just how many of our precious tax dollars should be spent providing illegal aliens with expensive immigration hearings to which they are clearly not entitled.”

You might be asking what all this might mean, simple. Just like with any other nation on earth, foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States has the right to exclude any foreign nation they please from constitutional protection.

But what’s probably even more interesting about this is that it also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process under the constitution if Congress formally gives them the rights.

In fact, Congress can go as far as to streamline the removal of illegal aliens without any hearing whatsoever, just as the president has previously suggested. Even asylum seekers all of which we as a nation aren’t obligated to take in.

The Supreme Court is right on, it’s asinine to even believe for one second that foreign nationals who broke the law in order to come here to the United States would ever be protected by our nation’s laws. Only Liberals could come up with a talking point so foolish, and only the week minded left could buy into it.

Isn’t it funny how the President who the left calls an idiot and mentally handicapped on a regular basis seems to know more about U.S. Law than the “famed” constitutional law scholar that was Barack Hussein Obama?

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Politics

Michelle’s Closest Allies Just Turned On Her Hard After Trump Exposes Her Huge Lie

Michelle Obama will be furious over this.

Published

on

During Barack Obama’s eight years in office, I did not consider Michelle Obama to be any sort of gentle soul. She is very attuned to political maneuvering and very skilled at playing the game. No one can accuse Michelle Obama of ever being ‘soft’. She learned politics through the Chicago machine much like her husband did. As I have understood it, Michelle was looking forward to hitting the campaign trail to help her closest Democratic allies. Alas, it looks as though she will not get the chance if things pan out the way they appear among Democrats.

One of Michelle Obama’s favorite sayings is: “When they go low, we go high.” Typically, that phrase has come to mean that if someone plays dirty, you take the high road and stay above the muck. That’s not exactly how the Obamas, the Clintons or the Democrats, in general, have ever played at politics though. And now with President Trump’s approval ratings soaring ever higher, Democrats are turning to Michael Avenatti and his call for the party to get more aggressive in the Trump era and hit back harder than the GOP when responding to attacks. Avenatti is the infamous attorney for adult-film star Stormy Daniels. He’s considering a run for the presidency in 2020. That would be highly entertaining and totally doomed. Avenatti’s motto is: “When they go low, I say hit back harder.” It lacks the diplomacy of Michelle’s motto but covers the mood of the party.

Avenatti is obviously giving a nod to Michelle Obama with his new mantra. Democrats are basically referring to Michelle’s slogan as ineffectual and that it should be trashed and replaced with a more aggressive strategy. President Trump and his loyal band of ‘deplorables’ long ago exposed the falsehood of Michelle Obama’s favorite slogan. Now, the Democrats are taking a different tack in order to fight President Trump and try and beat him in the next presidential race. They have turned on Michelle Obama hard. Former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) claims Avenatti is: “tapping into a Democratic rage that Trump must be defeated and it doesn’t matter how. They think the low blow beat the high ground in 2016,” Israel said, adding that Trump has created “an electorate that is angrier, nastier and more desperate.”

If Trump’s followers are angry it is because of a long history of corruption in government that has harmed Americans and their country in general. The ones that I see getting more desperate and more violent come from the left in the form of Antifa and other radicals. All of that will be used along with rough and tumble politics in the 2020 primary season. The Democrats are publicly saying they are taking the gloves off and plan to get down and dirty in politics. “We have no other choice,” claimed one political strategist who has been having preliminary conversations with candidates about running for the presidency. “You can’t k**l him with kindness. That doesn’t work. So you have to go the other way.”

This is not a new concept to the Democrats and Avenatti isn’t the first to talk tough against President Trump. The Democrats have been looking for a bare-knuckle candidate for some time now that could take on Trump in a fight. “This notion that you go high or go low is a false choice, it’s become a misnomer,” Philippe Reines, a longtime adviser to Hillary Clinton stated last month. “Democrats are going to want to see someone with moxie, they’re going to want to see absolute contempt for Trump,” said Reines. This is a guy who actually played the part of President Trump in mock debates in 2016 to prepare Clinton. His track record and his advice leave something to be desired here.

Nevertheless, suddenly the Democrats seem smitten with Avenatti. Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, wrote a piece for CNN entitled: “Avenatti is right: Democrats need to fight fire with fire.” Sounds like a call to violence and revolution to me. Zelizer is bluntly saying that Democrats can go with a traditional or a nontraditional candidate, “but what they need is an incredibly tough partisan fighter. Given the state of the GOP and the nature of Trumpian politics, the candidate will need to really pack a big political punch,” he said. “It doesn’t mean getting into the gutter but it does mean hitting back hard and being able to do so on Twitter and the cable news universe that now sets the rules of engagement.”

Gee, didn’t Biden offer to take Trump out behind a school or something and fight him? What about Biden?

From ABC:

“A guy who ended up becoming our national leader said, ‘I can grab a woman anywhere and she likes it,'” Biden said. “They asked me if I’d like to debate this gentleman, and I said ‘no.’ I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.'”

“I’ve been in a lot of locker rooms my whole life,” Biden continued. “I’m a pretty damn good athlete. Any guy that talked that way was usually the fattest, ugliest S.O.B. in the room.”

I could give you a long list of Democrats who have threatened to fight Trump, but you get the point. If threats and name calling are the best they can do, as well as making baseless accusations, then the left doesn’t have any kind of punch that has staying power.

Not all Democrats agree with this approach, but enough do to make it a strong possibility this next time around. Patti Solis Doyle, who is a Democratic strategist that served as Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, said the party needs to stand up to Trump. “Does he need to be called out? Do we need to see his tax returns? Absolutely,” Solis Doyle blustered. “We need to be strong to deliver attacks on him. But I’m not sure that someone who is remarkably similar to Donald Trump is the answer,” she added, referring to Avenatti. To be honest, it is my personal opinion that the Democrats have candidates among them that make Trump look like a choir boy. As for fighting him, what I don’t see is one strong enough to ever take the president on and win.

As the Democrats lurch ever further to the left, even Michelle Obama isn’t favored anymore. They want someone who is radical and will just come out and say it. They want someone who will profess disdain and hatred of President Trump. They may think someone like Avenatti is a street brawler, but he’s really not. And he does not appeal to what is important to Americans these days: jobs, economics, military might, secure borders, lower taxes, supporting our police and love of country. Those things are what matter to American voters, not socialism with all its entitlements and governmental control. Until the left learns that hard lesson, they will never truly prevail. But then again, if they learn that lesson, they won’t be leftists anymore.

Democratic strategists are predicting that when it comes to the presidential contest and Trump, Avenatti’s strategy and rhetoric is likely to win out over Obama’s. “You can’t play nice with a bully,” one strategist said. “And that’s putting it nicely.” And the left will never learn that they are in fact the real bullies here and Americans see it. Antifa and socialists will not win elections. The ‘deplorables’ are not violent… they are patriotic which is a concept lost on the left.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Just Dropped Big Surprise On Maxine Waters On Her 80th Birthday

Published

on

We have all seen how the crazed Congresswoman from the looney state of California has acted since Donald Trump beat her good friend Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

From calling for President Trump’s impeachment for no valid reason to even going as far as calling for people to violently harass anyone who is involved with the Trump Administration. A few months ago she even told a group of her supporters in California that they need to start showing up wherever Trump Administration Officials show up. And if they see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, or at a gasoline station, to get out and create a crowd in order to push back on them.

“And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” she continued

But yesterday, for Maxine Waters 80th birthday The Daily Caller reported that in typical President Donald Trump fashion, he struck back in the best way he knows how.

President Trump frequently refers to Maxine Waters as the “leader of the Democrat party.” Especially after she told people to start harassing and violently confronting those in his administration.

But here is the most interesting fact about good ole “Auntie Maxine” as the foolish voters in her district call her. In the midst of a national financial catastrophe back in 2008 Waters actually used her position as a senior member of Congress and member of the House Financial Services Committee to force Treasury officials to meet with OneUnited Bank. All the rime never disclosing that her husband held stock in the bank. Yet because she is a Democrat, and from California, she is still free to run for office and spew her hatred.

Here is more on Maxine Water’s corruption via The Daily Beast:

“When CREW named Waters one of its “most corrupt” politicians in 2011, the group focused on her role in a federal bailout for OneUnited Bank, on whose board her husband served and in which he owned a sizable stake, during the 2008 banking crisis. Waters arranged a meeting with the Treasury Department at which OneUnited representatives sought federal bailout money. The bank eventually received more than $12 million from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

That led to an ethics investigation into Waters’ involvement in setting up the meeting. Investigators eventually concluded that she had disclosed her financial ties to the bank, recused herself from decisions involving it, and believed the Treasury meeting would involve representatives from minority-owned banks generally, not just OneUnited (PDF). The Ethics Committee found that she had not violated any rules barring the use of one’s position for financial gain.

But that was not the case for Waters’ then-chief of staff Mikael Moore, who also happens to be her grandson. Investigators found that Moore had taken actions “unambiguously intended to assist OneUnited specifically.” He received an official reprimand.

Moore’s employment in Waters’ office raised issues of its own.

Waters told The Daily Beast that Moore had not violated any rules, and that is true. House ethics rules designed to combat nepotism in the legislature prohibit members of Congress from hiring most family members. But grandchildren were not on the list of prohibited hires when Waters gave Moore the top post in her Washington office. In early 2008, before the ethics committee began probing Waters’ role in the OneUnited bailout, CREW asked House administrators to address that apparent oversight.

“Given the extensive nature of the list, it seems clear that Congress intended for federal employees to avoid hiring relatives, even those with whom they might not have a close relationship such as first cousins,” wrote Melanie Sloan, then CREW’s executive director, in a letter to the House Administration Committee at the time (PDF). She specifically cited Waters’ hiring of Moore.

In an interview earlier this month, Waters rejected any suggestion that her past run-ins with congressional ethics authorities and watchdog groups had any bearing on her Trump remarks, and suggested that criticism of her ethics record—and reporting on that criticism—was an attempt to insulate the president from scrutiny.

“This story that you’re trying to put together, to somehow make it look as if I am as bad as a Trump, and I do bad things, and that somehow I don’t deserve to criticize him, is not credible,” she told The Daily Beast.

“I’d like you to think about what you’re doing and why you’re doing it and I’d like you think about whether or not you’re trying to maybe protect the president somewhat, cleanse him a little bit, make him look a bit better, to make it look as if other people don’t have the right to point these things out about him and other people who you make it look as if they have the same kinds of problems,” Waters added. “I want you to think about that and think about whether or not this is a story you really want to do.”

She denied any equivalence between her own past ethical controversies and those dogging the president.

“If you’re trying to compare me with Trump, it’s totally different,” Waters said.

Pay to Play?

Moore is not the only Waters family member to benefit from the congresswoman’s position. Waters’ daughter Karen has pulled in nearly $650,000 for running a “slate mailer” operation for Waters’ campaign that ethics groups have described as an end-run around campaign finance limits.

For a fee of between $250 and $45,000, candidates and political groups can get Waters’ official backing. The fee earns them a spot on the slate mailers, campaign mailers that promote Waters allies who pay her campaign committee for those mailers. Karen Waters runs the slate mailer operation, and her consulting company is paid to manage it.

“All of that money [from endorsee fees] goes into the production of [the slate mailers] and she is paid for doing that—a very nominal fee when you compare it with the campaign consultants in Los Angeles,” Waters told The Daily Beast of the practice.

She stressed that the slate mailers are entirely above board legally—Waters sought and received official approval for the slate mailers from the Federal Election Commission in 2004—but as with her employment of a family member, ethics groups say the issue isn’t strict legality so much as the spirit of applicable campaign rules.”

President Trump is right, if you combine her rhetoric, along with her unethical behavior, she embodies everything the Democrat Party of today stands for.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend