by Allan Wall, Border Hawk, ©2023
(Nov. 8, 2023) — The 2024 presidential election is a year away, scheduled for November 5, 2024.
Who will win?
Could former President Donald Trump win? Could he pull a Grover Cleveland and return to the presidency after being out of office?
A lot could happen between now and Election Day.
CBS recently reported that candidate Trump has proposed a “radical shift” in U.S. immigration policy.
The article, written by CBS immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez, is entitled, “Trump eyes radical immigration shift if elected in 2024, promising mass deportations and ideological screenings.”
Here’s how the article begins:
“Former President Donald Trump has outlined a radical shift in U.S. immigration policy if he’s elected president again in 2024, vowing to implement a slew of unprecedented measures targeting both legal and unauthorized immigrants, including a massive deportation blitz.”
Sounds great.
Here are some details:
- BORDER SECURITY: “[Trump] has pledged to build miles of more border wall and impose dramatic limits on asylum, including by reviving a program his administration used to require migrants to await their asylum hearings in Mexico.”
After four years of the Biden Border Rush, this is the bare minimum that must be done.
- ENDING THE ANCHOR BABY LOOPHOLE: “[Trump] has vowed to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants living in the country unlawfully…”
A hypothetical Trump administration would need to begin this project as soon as possible. Expect a massive fight over this issue which may go all the way to the Supreme Court. But our policy granting automatic birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens is simply insane and must be ended.
- MASS DEPORTATIONS: “Trump has promised to carry out the ‘largest deportation operation’ in U.S. history, modeled after the Eisenhower administration’s infamous ‘Operation Wetback’ in 1954…”
“To facilitate the mass deportations, Trump has said he will give the National Guard and state officials the authority to arrest and deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, a move that would challenge long-standing legal limits on the military engaging in domestic law enforcement.”
I would suggest that woke military officers who can’t stomach participating could be transferred to military attache duty in Outer Mongolia, or somewhere else far from our borders.
- IDEOLOGICAL VETTING OF IMMIGRANTS: “[Trump] has vowed to…deny entry to legal immigrants based on their ideological beliefs.”
This could be difficult, but as a nation we have every right to decide who is and who is not eligible to immigrate to our country.
I remember when I joined the U.S. military some decades ago, the application form asked several such pointed questions.
It asked if the applicant was or was not a homosexual (how quaint that now seems) and it asked about the applicant’s potential membership in radical groups (such as Nazis or Communists) and organizations aspiring to overthrow the government.
Of course, applicants can lie on applications. But at least you have it on record and can deal with it.
An even better proposal would be to just shut down legal immigration for several decades, at least.
But if we’re going to take in immigrants, we have every right to be selective about them.
The article quotes Angela Kelley, who calls the Trump proposals “extreme.” She says they’d “terrorize” immigrants.
Who’s Angela Kelley? She’s a “chief adviser at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.”
Well, what would you expect someone from that organization to say?
To its credit, the article quotes a dissenting voice: “But Chad Wolf, who led the Department of Homeland Security during Trump’s final year in office, said officials who ignore the record levels of unlawful crossings along the southern border over the past two years are the ones with the ‘extreme’ position.”
Well said, Mr. Wolf!
In discussing these Trump proposals, the article says, “While they would mark a stark departure from current policy (LOL, that’s an understatement), many of Trump’s immigration pledges would face formidable legal and operational challenges, testing the limits of presidential authority and government resources.”
Well, yeah, it would be a challenge, wouldn’t it?
But isn’t saving America worth it?
You can find more of Allan Wall’s work at his website.
Please donate to support our work.
Visit BorderHawk.news
After reading this article, I hope that the 14th Amendment will be overturned, rewritten, or a U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) case will heard that asks to define the following first sentence found in the 14th Amendment: “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.” with focus on the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” to weed out ineligible foreign persons and their offspring from obtaining automatic birthright U.S. citizenship.
This is my interpretation of the above 14th Amendment phrase cited above: All foreign persons legally entering the U.S.A. and wishing to be U.S. citizens must be required to wait five (5) years before attaining U.S. citizenship. Additionally, all newborns of those legal immigrants awaiting U.S. citizenship who are born in one of the 50 states during this waiting period shall not be eligible for automatic birthright U.S. citizenship until at least one of their parents is granted or has attained U.S. citizenship.
That basically is the common recipe for all newborns to obtain automatic birthright U.S. citizenship; i.e., at least one of the two newborn’s parents must be a U.S. citizen for their offspring to attain automatic birthright U.S. citizenship.
The cherry on top of this USSC decision sundae would be if the USSC defines “natural born Citizen” as a person born in the country to two (2) parents who already are citizens of that country, including the mention that a natural born Citizen is born according to the law of nature and that is why Congressional law is not authorized to grant nor deem anyone a natural born Citizen (try to locate “natural born Citizen”phrase in any current existing law), but Congress can declare or deem anyone a STATUTORY (according to positive law) U.S. citizen.
Excellent comment:
The existence and lure to illegals of “anchor babies” is a huge attraction for illegals to enter America…and never leave……..