Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

It’s the sovereignty

It’s the sovereignty

and that’s not stupid.

All the way back on July 13, 2015, when Donald Trump’s initial rise in the polls caused early onset apoplexia among Republicans, I wrote a column at National Review, Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:

One section in Trump’s Phoenix speech jumped out at me as capturing especially well what is happening on the ground:

When I started . . . I didn’t think the immigration thing would take on a life like it has. I made some very tough statements about people flowing through, because that’s one of the things, to make our country great again, we have to create borders, otherwise we don’t have a country [italics added].

Any Republican who doesn’t understand what Trump was getting at is hopelessly out of touch with the most motivated portion of the electorate, Republican and otherwise…. The sense that we are losing control of our own country, by the design of politicians, is creating a fury — and an opening for a politician willing to recognize that the problem poses an existential threat to our own freedoms….

That’s it. It’s the sovereignty. Out of the general illegal immigration theme, Trump is focusing increasingly on the sub-theme of sovereignty:

We Don’t Have A Country Without A Border” is how he frequently phrases it in his current speeches.

That is dismissed as “nativist” or so on, but it’s not. It’s about the sovereignty of the United States as a nation.

Ron Coleman (Legal Insurrection’s lawyer) lays out the argument on Twitter tonight:

https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/635971020172750852

And then he delivered the coup de grâce:

https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/635973641256222720

Indeed.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Humm, Professor, you know how to pick a good lawyer for LI. Well done, Sir!

Your children will not go barefoot into the day.

    GrumpyOne in reply to Doug Wright. | August 25, 2015 at 10:06 am

    Mr. Coleman is 100% correct which in turn reflect the feelings and will of the “silent majority” that is what Trump is tapping into.

    The plain and simple aspect of it all… There are a lot of angry people out there…

I think that if the only anger among the masses was illegal immigration it could be swept under the political rug. But there is the feeling that not only are our borders no longer under our control but the politicians have all agreed that there is nothing they can do about it. We are a nation of Can do people and to have a class of wimps in Congress that espouses give in and enjoy it causes extreme indigestion among the working people. Liberals like Zuckerberg who want open borders live in isolated castles where they never cross paths with the scum we see daily in our lives. We are tired of being told that we can’t do what we all know is the right thing to do and that is to KICK the illegals out and allow those from other countries who have waited and played by the rules for years to come here. Any Republican that does not understand this is doomed. And talk will not work this time. We have seen people like Perry claim to have secured the border but we know he didn’t. Most of these fools do not understand the depth of anger this illegal invasion of our country has created.

My GOP state rep called me “incredibly racist” when I discussed with him the number of illegal aliens and anchor babies in our schools. He wouldn’t even talk to me anymore.

So, yes, I’m angry. I’m supposed to pay ever increasing property taxes so uncounted foreigners can steal from me, with the county government being part of the illegal gang.

I lost a piece of property during the recession to property taxes. For this and a host of other reasons, I am furious about the illegal alien invasion.

For my part, I do not care ONE WHIT about how long it takes a foreigner to come here legally. I hope it takes them 60 years – that’s how long I’d like to see immigration halted, so there is some outside chance we can assimilate the foreigners here already.

America – the MELTING POT – NOT the Salad Bowl.

It’s something that Michael “Meatball Sandwich” Savage has been saying for years: Borders. Language. Culture.

If you don’t enforce borders, and have a common language and a common culture, you don’t have a country. If you lose any of the three, you have lost your country.

At this stage in the election cycle, it’s still true that Trump’s importance is not so much that he’s a Republican candidate as that he’s the man who is asking the key question at this juncture in American history. And that question is that, since no country or society can survive anything exceeding a very small immigration rate (including legal and illegal immigration) without turning into some other country or society, why does our government seem determined to make it happen?

And he’s the only Republican candidate who won’t be ignored by the press whenever the Dems find it convenient.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to tom swift. | August 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    The Democrat Party and GOP elites want to bring back Slavery.

    It’s that simple. That’s why they don’t want to do anything.

We are not proles.

What the Repiblican Establishment does not understand is that Americans are still losing jobs and the GOP sits on its hands to help us. They either make deals with the democrats or they just talk and talk and say nothing. What is even more maddening is that we see foreign workers coming in on Visa’s and we are to train them while we lose our jobs. The GOP gives lip service to us and the Democrats left Americans let to dry rot some 50 years ago. I am not a Trump fan but neither party is giving me and millions of Americans a reason to vote or even trust our two corrupt political parties who only care for themselves.

Midwest Rhino | August 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm

Trump was on O’Reilly tonight … Bill tried to pin him down on dragging illegals out of their houses for deportation. Trump basically goes with “deportation has to be done”, but it would be done humanely, we’d make a quick way to bring back the good ones. He emphasizes getting the illegal gang members out immediately.

I’m not sure what he means by making good ones legal … hopefully it means ID them and give those we need a work visa, but not citizenship. Really I think he (or Cruz or Walker) have to go more the Romney route, where most “self deport” as we slowly ratchet up the restrictions and e-verify. Many would stay as workers with a visa, but all nannies/gardeners/pickers would be fully covered by employers, contributing members of their communities.

Indeed sovereignty needs to be recognized as a great word, for our great country. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is a powerful theme, but I hope Cruz takes up the meme.

This is the best article yet on the 14th amendment. Anchor babies don’t seem like an issue at the moment because 30 million illegals are living here freely anyway, but that will change in time. Especially as the tourism jackpot babies start showing up from 30 years ago, demanding stuff.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment

    DINORightMarie in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 24, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    No need to repeal the 14th Amendment. Read this at National Review:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment

    And listen to this:

    http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-congress-can-end-birthright-citizenship-without-amending-the-constitution/

    THAT’S the best read (and audio) on the 14th Amendment, anchor babies, and birthright citizenship.

      Milhouse in reply to DINORightMarie. | August 25, 2015 at 2:37 am

      Eastman exposes his deep dishonesty in this paragraph:

      As Senator Howard explained, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

      That “[or]” is Eastman’s own invention, which he needs because the quote explicitly contradicts his claim. Not only did Howard not say anything to suggest an “or” there, but the sentence makes no sense with it in. “Foreigners” and “aliens” are exact synonyms, and ambassadors and foreign ministers and their families are foreigners and aliens, so if all aliens are already excluded (twice!), what does the third clause add to the exclusion?

      In addition, what makes the American-born child of a Mexican, whether here legally or not, a foreigner or an alien? Is it merely because Mexican law grants him citizenship?! In that case what of countries that grant citizenship to grandchildren and great-grandchildren of emigrants? If Ireland were to decide that anyone with traceable Irish ancestry is Irish, would that magically and retroactively extinguish the citizenship of half the USA?! And to the contrary, what if Mexican law were changed to deny this child citizenship? Would that restore the birthright US citizenship that Eastman et al would have taken away?! US law, and especially the US constitution, cannot depend on the vagaries of foreign laws, and on the whims of foreign legislators. That would be a surrender of sovereignty far more shocking than a mere failure to render the border impervious, something that hardly any country has ever considered a criterion for sovereignty.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 24, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    When I clicked the link, it took me to another article……sorry about that. (Where is the edit/delete button when you need it?!?!) 🙁

    But the Mark Levin audio is excellent!! 🙂

    MarlaHughes in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 25, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Why not try what Rick Perry was SUCCESSFUL in? I’m reading down the list and so far not one has even mentioned the one person who has successfully stopped border crossing until Obama forced him to stop AND uses E-Verify AND stopped the use of the Matricula IDs because they’re so full of fraud and abuse. Rick Perry has been ON this for over a decade. He and the Texas legislature are on top of illegal immigration, job creation, lowering taxes and limiting government.
    I’ll be glad when silly season is over and hopefully the ones who’ve been there and done that instead of just talking a good game will stick around long enough.

“Any Republican who doesn’t understand what Trump was getting at is hopelessly out of touch with the most motivated portion of the electorate, Republican and otherwise…”

How about that’s 80% of the elected republicans?

The party is done. The Tea Party will rise again.

    Trump, Cruse and Carson are the embedded Tea Party Candidates.

    That’s why the stunt at the debate happened so viciously …for the effect on the audience & YouTube viewers.

    They lost it in crushing and humiliating ways.

    It wasn’t a fluke, it inevitability knocking on the GOP door.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to TheFineReport.com. | August 25, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    You….mean…..there’s a bunch of GOP elite……
    just as bad as Hillary???????

IMHO: Trump’s plan, as it now exists, is the right way to go about handling immigration and especially those who are here illegally. Still, there are many details and concepts yet to be fully vetted and laid out. We have the problem of illegal immigration, thanks to Obama’s attitude and his goals regarding radically transforming this country; his true goal, who knows except for himself and his close inner circle. 12-million here illegally, one set of solutions; 20-million here illegally, a different set; 30-plus million here illegally, who knows what options we would have that wouldn’t cause us to cringe in the future, really.

So, we don’t really know how many immigrants are here illegally and that number will determine in great part what can be done about those illegals. Secondly, we don’t really know how many of these illegals have children born in this country and that number will make a tremendous difference itself. Also, the issue of how to deal with future babies that would otherwise be termed anchor babies should be defined; I seriously doubt that we’re going to remove those anchor babies born before a certain date, whatever that date will be; my guess is that those anchor babies will be treated as American Citizens; not so for those future babies what would have been otherwise termed anchor babies. Our options right now are many, solutions, perhaps considerably less, and the size of our problem will help in choosing which options to follow.

So, until we truly know how bad, big, the problem is, our solutions are mostly pipe dreams or would likes. Our MSM anchors can scream, pout, cry, or have blood run out of their eyes and ears, or whatever, and all they’re doing is screaming into the wind. Whoever the GOP nominee is will not have detailed solutions laid out, goals, yes, ideas yes, concepts, yes, but detailed project and implementation plans, heck no! Live with it.

Lastly, the Dems don’t have a problem with illegal immigrants, for them, the more the merrier, soon to be more voters choosing bread and circus over substance and progress and liberty as the USA once defined it; but, not for too much longer, until there’s no more there there and tough on those living off of government cheese.

    Valerie in reply to Doug Wright. | August 25, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Democratic voters don’t think this way. They will see this election as a choice between sovereignty and choice. Those PP videos and the movement to defund are given them a real boost.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Doug Wright. | August 25, 2015 at 10:03 am

    I assume the number is 35 million or 40 million illegal aliens and anchor babies. I don’t care HOW MANY there are, they must all be deported. All of them.

    The more there are, the more money we save. It costs about $12k in my county for each child in school. So a family with 4 anchor babies costs my county and ME $48k per year. That times 12 years of school (not counting a SINGLE OTHER WELFARE BENEFIT), costs us $600,000.00. Do you see that number????

    I can’t tell you how many illegal alien mothers I see with FIVE kids in tow. FIVE, and we have paid to birth these foreigners.

    THEY MUST LEAVE. The cost of their own escort and the cost of a private plane to fly them out, is less than what they cost PER YEAR in school costs.

    Here, we are CONSTANTLY building new SCHOOLS for the invasion.

Sovereignty and civil rights of citizens, including “We the People” and “Posterity”, under The Constitution.

Midwest Rhino | August 25, 2015 at 12:39 am

“I seriously doubt that we’re going to remove those anchor babies born before a certain date, whatever that date will be; my guess is that those anchor babies will be treated as American Citizens;”

That’s probably right, but they seem under the jurisdiction of their parents till they are of age, so perhaps they don’t really have a right to US citizenship before that either. If their parents are both Mexican, and they are then Mexican, why would they be both? There’s really no “retroactive” about it, from that certain perspective.

Like the kid that ambushed Walker with “why do you want to break up our family”, the kid obviously recognized he still belonged to his family. If they were deported, it would be as a family. But the main issue for now is to get elected, so losing votes with promises to drag out all the dreamers and anchors may not be wise, idk.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 25, 2015 at 10:04 am

    You got it right until the last sentence.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to CloseTheFed. | August 25, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      lol … ok, well O’Reilly pointed out the optics of 11 million Elian Gonzalez type children, and leftists have talked of the trillion it would cost to bus people out, and the hole left in the economy as the workers are dragged out. Carly says they can never be awarded with citizenship, so some guest worker status and penalties for some, Trump says bring back the good ones quickly.

      I appreciate Trump starting with the strong position, I just don’t think it is feasible to deport all, and voters know this. But it can be policy to deport, then the slow ratchet in the reverse direction will be the implementation side.

      Trump already has maneuvered on that … he says “management, get the best people, it would be done in a humane way”. And we see Bush (no doubt with his million dollar strategists) trying to look adult, attacking Trump on his unrealistic “deport them all” bravado.

      But he has staked out a strong policy position, so he has room to maneuver. Bush says he has no need for conservatives, and would have La Raza in the White House, so his rhetoric is empty. Cruz could take up the mantle and be the trusted “close the border” adult, instead of Jeb.

Ron Coleman is right to protest being called a racist, but he is completely wrong about sovereignty. It is simply not the case that sovereignty requires a country to render its borders impervious, or that failure to do so means the borders somehow don’t exist. Yes, sovereignty requires the existence of borders; but it does not require them to be patrolled or “enforced”. The function of borders is not to control immigration and emigration, but to determine the extent of a country’s jurisdiction.

For most of history, most international borders were relatively open; anyone could cross them freely, though they often had to pay duties on what they brought in. And for most of USA history, the same was true of our land borders; anyone could lawfully cross the Canadian and Mexican borders, and this did not somehow negate US sovereignty. The law was clear: the moment you set foot on US soil you were subject to US jurisdiction, and had to obey US laws. If you committed a crime on the US side of the border you were tried in US courts under US law. That is what sovereignty means, not a border patrol or a fence. Sovereignty is what gives a country the right to such things, but it does not require them.

It would be an issue of sovereignty if it was Americans versus immigrants seeking to change America. But that’s not the case. It’s Republican Conservatives versus immigrants AND Democrats seeking to change America. Barack Hussein promised “fundamental change” and, thanks to Democrat voters, is delivering as promised. Immigrants are Democrats’ natural allies.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to FrankNatoli. | August 25, 2015 at 10:25 am

    The oath of office demands the executive execute our laws, and do it in defense of America. The “question of sovereignty” is about how citizens want policy determined and what our constitution demands, regardless of what motivates Democrats/socialists/communists.

    Globalism and diversity were more properly understood under the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy, than under the Obama Doctrine of “God Damn America”. It is rather vital that the lamp of liberty be not extinguished, and to me that means recognizing American exceptionalism, as opposed to the blame America first crowd.

    If Democrats want open borders and globalism, it just means they don’t believe in, or understand the importance of, sovereignty. It is still a central issue. If Democrats make alliances with foreigners as a way to “fundamentally transform America”, that moves toward sedition and treason perhaps, but is still about maintaining sovereignty.

    Sanctuary cities are acts of open rebellion, praised by the left. How is that NOT about sovereignty?

      FrankNatoli in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 25, 2015 at 11:35 am

      Agree with all your points, but that’s just you and me and obviously not the one down vote on my post. My point remains that Republican Conservatives and Democrats have very different definitions of “sovereignty”. Language is everything, and clearly Americans do not all speak the same language, and I don’t mean Inglese versus Espanol. And please note, the Democrat definition of “sovereignty” has been the rule since the 2008 election.

        Midwest Rhino in reply to FrankNatoli. | August 25, 2015 at 1:03 pm

        Their definition is wrong. Don’t people know this? If Hollywood/MSM co-opted/perverted the term, it is ground that needs to be taken back?

        I didn’t down thumb you, appreciate when people explain their thinking, generally.

In fact, every major GOP candidate was talking about immigration before Trump got in the race, with the exception of Walker and Pataki. There are differences in approach, from the amnesty-first Graham to most of the rest who demanded border security and other enforcement measures first. This is nothing invented by Trump, except for his rhetoric. He knows he can’t round ’em up and send ’em home, like the rest do, but he also knows he can get lots of support pretending he can or would.

This is the guy who less than three years ago said Romney’s “self-deportation” approach was “too mean” and proposed amnesty for up to “30 million or whatever” illegals. What changed his mind, other than seeing suckers ready to buy it?

– –

If you are NOT angry and frustrated at the course of the last few years, on immigration and most other areas, you’re not paying attention. But being sucked in by a phony isn’t an answer.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Estragon. | August 25, 2015 at 10:08 am

    In Trump’s 2011 Book “Time to Get Tough” he says the same things he is saying now about illegal aliens, STARTING with ridding us of anchor babies.

    Don’t know why he didn’t like “self-deportation;” personally, I want to see them rounded up, put on buses and taken to a ship to be delivered in southern Mexico, so they have a LONG WALK BACK.

    Just like Eisenhower did.

      Ragspierre in reply to CloseTheFed. | August 25, 2015 at 12:18 pm

      The great thing about being Mr. Establishment is that you get away with taking positions all over the map, many of them being totally contradictory, on any issue.

      Well, except for being totally consistent as an establishment playa. He’s always been THAT.

Just two short years ago, the GOP barely nominated a man with a strong position on illegal immigration. He was called everything from a squish to a liberal and . By many of the same people who are supporting a REAL squishy liberal, Donald Trump. Because of illegal immigration. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Yes, I’m angry, but I’m not angry at “The Establishment” I’m angry at the ones who refused to support a strong stance on illegal immigration just a few years ago and now make it the be all and end all of conservatism.
I will not support Donald Trump, the liberal, even if he offers to pay for a wall out of his #Yuge bank account. (Which in of itself is suspect.)

    Just two years ago, immigration drove a lot of the support that Romney did get. Otherwise even more people would have stayed home.

    And this was before Obama signed an illegal executive order allowing for mass immigration. And this was before John Roberts reveled himself to be a total hack who assuredly will overturn the injunction stopping that order.

    And let’s face it: Romney took too much money from open borders groups to ever be truly effective doing the job that needs to be done.

Conservative0317 | August 25, 2015 at 12:28 pm

I agree with pretty much everything above. The question I would put to anyone that is not for enforcing the law and removing the illegal aliens would be “So, how many of these undocumented immigrants are you currently hosting in your home?”, “Oh, how many are you planning on hosting?” Since we already know the answer, you can call them on the hipocracy of advocating open borders but not willing (or even afraid) to handle the people personally. They want you and me to pay for it.

The best solution is to erect an legal fence to keep illegals from staying in our country.

We need to make being an illegal a felony with the punishment being 3 years in prison. For first offenses we can let these criminals plead guilty, accept deportation and receive a suspended sentence to be served if they every reenter the USA. Children of illegals won’t be separated from their parents, they will leave the country with them.

In addition, we need to make helping an illegal alien a felony also. This includes all those providing employment, government benefits (including licenses) and sanctuaries to illegals. The sentence will be 1 year for each time they commit this crime with the sentences to be served consecutively. Thus the politicians who establish and maintain sanctuary policies could serve thousands of years in prison.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend