Illegals

Illegal Cops, or Invading Army?

New Mexico has just passed a law that allows non-citizen immigrants to be police officers. In 2024 alone, the Biden administration issued over two million new work permits to non-citizens — many of them illegal immigrants. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms, which law enforcement officer must carry.

Now we have to consider that the people who will be enforcing the laws against YOU are themselves criminals who are flouting the law.

A few times in the past, I have told you that more and more states and localities are hiring immigrants to be police officers, and in some cases they are hiring illegal immigrants. This is right out of the CIA insurgency manual, which has been followed by the left since at least 2019. The plan is to make people distrust the government so that they can replace it with their own, alternative, government. You know, the alternative that they have created.

Keep in mind that the Governor of New Mexico, Grisham, previously suspended Second Amendment rights in the state. In 2023, she issued an executive order banning citizens from carrying guns in Albuquerque. The executive order expired in 2024, but picture a person here in violation of the law, carrying a gun in violation of the law, telling you that you are under arrest for having a gun because some politician said so.

Each of us as Americans will have to decide at what point we have been overrun. At what point do we consider a group of uniformed, armed, illegal invaders to be an occupying army? When does the real resistance begin?

Trust me, my resistance won’t consist of sitting in the road blocking traffic or gluing my hand to a painting.

By Divemedic, ago

Due Process

There are a lot of Democrats running around and bleating about the Constitutional right to due process and illegal immigrants. Where does the right to due process appear in the Constitution? The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant who was deported to El Salvador and is being held there in prison. A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release, an order affirmed by the Supreme Court, and to provide evidence of the actions it has taken to get him back.

Here is the problem with that- the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority or the jurisdiction to order that. He is a foreign citizen who is in prison in his home country. The US government in general, and the US Supreme Court in particular, doesn’t have the authority to order the Salvadoran government to do a thing.

It doesn’t matter whether or not he is a gang member, an illegal, or a criminal in the US. The Supreme court cannot order the executive to invade another country, it just isn’t within the SCOTUS’ enumerated powers. The rest of the argument is moot.

Still, I will list the reasons why he wasn’t entitled to due process during deportation. Refer to the Fifth Amendment.

  • He isn’t being held by the US to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
  • He isn’t subject in jeopardy of life or limb twice for the same offense,
  • nor is he being compelled to be a witness against himself,
  • nor did the US government deprive him of life, liberty, or property, all they did was return him to his home country.

According to court filings, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was born in July 1995 in the neighborhood of Los Nogales in El Salvador, where he helped his family run a business making pupusas, a local cuisine.

He crossed the border illegally near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012 when he was 16 years old. From the border, Abrego Garcia made his way to Maryland to live with his brother. The Trump administration sent him back to his home country. No due process was required, because the Fifth Amendment doesn’t say he is entitled to it.

By Divemedic, ago

Pull the Other One

We are constantly told by the left that noncitizens can’t vote, and instances of them doing so are ‘vanishingly rare’. Claiming otherwise gets you a ‘fact check’ where your statement is ‘debunked’.

If that is the case, then why would anyone oppose an executive order that enforces current voting laws by ordering the government to crack down on illegal immigrants who vote? Yet, that is exactly what a lawsuit filed by the DNC is all about. Why file a lawsuit against a law that would prevent people from doing what you already claim they aren’t doing?

By Divemedic, ago

Get Out of Boston

At about 1730 on Saturday evening, a knife wielding man was chasing people while being armed with a knife. The people being chased ran into a Chick Fil A. It so happens than an off duty Boston cop was eating dinner inside at the time. He identified himself and told the assailant to drop the knife. Instead of doing so, he charged the cop and stabbed him. (Tueller drill?) The cop shot his attacker, who was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

All told, it appears to be a good and righteous shoot by one of the few people in Boston who can legally carry a firearm. That would normally be the end of the story, and may or may not earn a blog post here. Except the mayor and police commissioner got involved.

They offered condolences. To the dead attacker and his family.

This is the same mayor that  in late 2023 after hosting a ‘no whites’ Christmas party for ‘electeds of color’ and has vowed to resist Trump and ICE when they attempt to deport illegals. Note that no one is publicly identifying the attacker. I wonder why.

By Divemedic, ago

Anchor Babies

Donald Trump is claiming that he will end the practice where a pregnant woman illegally enters the US then presents herself to an Emergency Room while in labor, the hospital delivers the baby as required by EMTALA, and the baby is subsequently declared to be a US citizen. The left then claims that it is unfair to separate a child from the rest of the family, thereby making the child an ‘anchor baby’ shoehorning in half a dozen illegals. This practice is called birthright citizenship.

The left claims that Trump can’t stop this because of the 14th Amendment, which reads (in pertinent part):

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. 

It isn’t quite as easy as the left would have you believe. The Supreme Court decided this in 1873, and I would think that the court in 1873, a mere 5 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment would have a bit of firsthand knowledge of what the Amendment was for. This is what they had to say in the case of Elk v. Wilkins (1873):

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

Meaning, of course, that it isn’t as simple as “where were you born” but indicating that there are more limits to be explored here. Furthermore, SCOTUS ruled in 1872 that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was:

The first clause of the fourteenth article was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.

The question isn’t as cut and dried as the left would have us believe. This one is going to SCOTUS, I think. This shows that Trump is not the ignorant buffoon that the left wants us to think that he is.

By Divemedic, ago

Executive Orders

Executive orders are orders written by the chief executive, instructing executive branch employees in how they are to carry out their duties. In the case of the Federal government, the chief executive is the President, of course.

I have long been highly critical of how Executive orders have been used. They cannot be used to create laws out of whole cloth, as that is the job of the legislature. What EOs can be used for, however, is to instruct federal employees in how they will carry out the duties that have been assigned to them by law, in my opinion.

So that brings us to our current problem- there are state and local governments that are refusing to abide by or even comply with the enforcement of Federal law. Namely, there are cities who are refusing to comply with ICE in removing illegal immigrants from our country. I would wholeheartedly approve of an EO instructing Federal employees to refuse to issue or approve ANY grants or Federal funding to any local government who declares itself to be a sanctuary city. That would also include providing access to Federal programs like the NCIC or any other crime related database to any police department who refuses to comply with Federal law.

The entire Federal grant system is based upon Presidential Executive Order No. 12372, which was issued by President Reagan in July of 1982. That EO allows states to establish a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to review proposed federal financial assistance. So Trump could simply modify that EO to make this happen.

The Feds have been tying funding to their edicts for decades. It’s how 21 became the national drinking age nationwide– it’s time that the Trump team begin playing the game.

By Divemedic, ago

Invading New York

Everyone has seen the video of the murdered woman on the New York subway who was killed when she was set on fire, so I won’t post a link to it here. It turns out that the asshole who is accused of committing the murder was deported in 2018, but immediately snuck back in just in time to commit at least one murder.

ICE issued an order to have him detained to Federal custody, but NY has refused the request, citing “sanctuary city” laws. If the state and city of New York can claim that Federal law doesn’t apply in their city, then DJT needs to issue a couple of executive orders on his first day.

  • All access to Federal law enforcement databases like NCIC will be suspended for the entire state of New York until such time as they participate with Federal Law Enforcement efforts
  • Any New York official who refuses to comply with Federal Law Enforcement gets arrested for obstruction. That includes the Governor, the mayo of NYC, state judges, and anyone else who says no to ICE detainers. If you or I refused to comply with a NY court order, we would go to jail, and we all know that “no one is above the law.”
  • All Federal funding or grants to NY are hereby suspended until NY pays by US law.

We all know that people in New York will then reply by claiming that they are not going to forward income tax payments, or some other nonsense. At that point, the President would then be permitted to declare that New York’s actions are making it impossible to enforce the law. The law here is 10 USC 252:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

You’re reading this correctly- the President could then order Federal troops (or the NY National Guard, under Federal orders) to suppress the rebellion and enforce Federal immigration laws.

Just after this is complete, Trump should then tell any other “sanctuary cities” that they are next, unless they comply with the law.

As much as I feel that the Federal government is outside of its constitutional authority, enforcing immigration laws and defending the border is well within Federal purview.

By Divemedic, ago