Our Federal Wallet Stretched To Limit By Illegal Aliens Getting Welfare' "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally." - Senator Dirty Harry Reid, Democratic/Communist Party USA. He also said that the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens. August 5, 1993, Dirty Harry's office issued the following:

"In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress. Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.....

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits often without paying any taxes."

"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

His statements were to announce a bill he introduced back then titled the Immigration Stabilization Act [S.1351] . I'm betting it was not written by Dirty Harry, but by lawyers who know what they're doing and the sure to come legal challenges. It covers the whole gambit of turning off the trillions spent over the past 28 years since Reagan sold us out. One section I want to highlight: TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP

SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

"In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

Dirty Harry was speaking about the legal fiction called 'anchor babies' something I have been very vocal about: States Must Fight Legal Fiction Called Anchor Babies . Judge Jeanine ' Illegally Entering U.S. Is Not a Right to Citizenship ' - She is on point and says it like it is: "I draw but one conclusion: Barack Obama is intentionally using the immigration crisis as an excuse to change the demographics and ultimately the electorate of this nation." Illegals tell filmmakers: we were told to vote democrat, or be deported : "Livingston wrote that, prior to the 2012 presidential election, "the illegals were handed voter registrations and told they would be sent to states with NO ID check for voting."

Of course, that puffed up peacock has changed his tune: Harry Reid: The Border is Secure, Now We Need Illegal Alien Amnesty - July 15, 2014: "Ladies and gentlemen, an idiot."

A friend recently contacted me about the issue of the massive invasion on our border here in Texas. I reinforced to him this all started when "conservative", former Democrat, Ronald Reagan, signed the "immigration reform bill to stop illegals once and for all " into law in 1986. With approximately 2.1 million liars, cheats and thieves, illegals, in our country at that time, it didn't take long for the invasion to go into high gear once illegals found out they could steal from you to fund their life styles . Reagan opened the flood gates and here we are today with 25-30 million leeches sucking us dry.

By 1994, eight years after Ronnie Reagan invited in tens of millions of liars, cheats thieves, Californians had had enough. Prop. 187 (Known as SOS or Save Our State) was put on the ballot. "The People of California find and declare as follows:

"That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state.
"That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state.
"That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.
"Therefore, the People of California declare their intention to provide for cooperation between their agencies of state and local government with the federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California."

The voters passed it by a wide margin. At that time there were approximately 1.3 million illegals in the state; over 300,000 minors. Lawsuits were filed and two federal judges declared the law unconstitutional in 1999. I told my friend that what we need is a federal version of Prop. 187, so I wrote one and sent it to him. He has a U.S. House member interested in the big magnet - welfare - which keeps illegals in this country . Illegals stay here because they know they can steal jobs and resources.

I told my friend here is what members of Congress are going to go up against, besides America hating groups like the ACLU, La Raza and others because I did more research. I simply could not understand how those who enter this country by sneaking across the border would be entitled to free welfare, education, medical and all the other programs since they are NOT U.S. citizens. Well, I soon found out the ugly truth.

Initially, I thought the decision to over turn Prop 187 was the genesis, but having done more research, here is the damning case once again bastardizing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment:

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) - 457 U.S. 202 - Argued December 1, 1981; Decided June 15, 1982. Held:

"A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

"(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216......

"The court held that "the absolute deprivation of education should trigger strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit." Id., at 582. The court determined that the State's concern for fiscal integrity was not a compelling state interest, id., at 582-583; that exclusion of these children had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State, id., at 583; and that the educational needs of the children statutorily excluded were not different from the needs of children not excluded, ibid."

In other words, too bad for the states of the Union and the taxpayers. Illegal aliens cannot be deprived of an education paid for by stealing from the taxpayers! Illegal alien students who have no legal right to be on U.S. soil . Here in Texas there are more than 400,000 ILLEGAL aliens minors in grades K-12 costing we Texans nearly $4 BILLION dollars a year. Those illegal "students" have been bleeding our schools dry.

The court goes on to say that illegal alien students didn't have any control over their parents smuggling them into this country, so they are entitled to special consideration under the 14th Amendment. What rot. In 1982, 4 justices on that court were appointed by Nixon, one by Eisenhower, one by LBJ, one by JFK and two by Reagan.

When that decision was made, Congress had already passed immigration laws. Anyone who enters this country without going through the proper channels is here illegally. They are not "persons" invited in the US, they smuggle themselves across the border .

Since the "supreme" court vomited up such a convoluted decision based on the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, shall we look at the historical facts regarding the Fourteenth Amendment? The largest number of illegals come from Mexico - or at least until this last surge of the on-going invasion; 80% are Hondurans. Mexicans who illegally enter the US are Mexican citizens under their constitution and so are their kids , born or unborn regardless of whether they leave the country or not:

Mexican Constitution - Chapter II - Article 30. "Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization. A. Mexicans by birth are: I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents: II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Illegal aliens "reside" illegally on U.S. soil. And: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since illegal Mexicans are Mexican citizens, their allegiance is to Mexico, not any state of the Union where they illegally "reside". Honduras also has a constitution which says their citizens are Honduran citizens: ARTICLE 28. - "No honduran by birth may be deprived of their nationality . This right we retain the hondurans by birth even when acquire another nationality." Illegal minors are not US citizens. They are persons who by birth owe their allegiance to Honduras, not the United States.

El Salvador also has a constitution, but this one is probably for the lawyers because it's seriously only one sentence about citizenship, but later under the political part it reads something a little different : Article 71 - All Salvadorans more than eighteen years old are citizens. But, on page 29 is reads: "To be elected Deputy, one must be over twenty five years old, Salvadoran by birth, child of a Salvadoran father or mother....."

The quoted research below is from Leo Donofrio. For those not familiar with his name, Leo is the attorney out in NJ who filed the first challenge to get Juan McCain and Barry Barack Soetoro Obama off the ballot in 2008. This goes to the heart of that outrageous Supreme decision in Plyler v Doe.

"Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

"The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, "When we talk about 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else." Senator Jacob Howard said that it's "a full and complete jurisdiction."

"This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can't claim they were unaware. But we don't have to take Dr. Fonte's word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison's research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

"It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee... and the one who inserted the phrase: "[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

"Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

"Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

"Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:. "Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

And: "No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

"In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

"Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue: "Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

"It's important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed." End of excerpt.

In Plyler v Doe , those "supreme" court justices said:

"(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216"

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

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 offense 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."

Now, here's where the argument starts: The Politics of Immigration : "1791 (ratified): First 10 amendments to the Constitution ("Bill of Rights"). Guarantee basic rights of freedom of religion and of speech, the right to protest, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches, and the right to due process, including the right to remain silent. Nothing in the text limits these rights to citizens; several rights are specifically guaranteed to "the people" or a "person."

But - did that mean those who enter the country illegally? Congress has the absolute right to set immigration laws. Our immigration law says if you enter this country without being invited, without the proper documentation you're an illegal alien. So, how does that give that "person" a U.S. Constitutional right under the Bill of Rights?

Right now the American people are beyond enraged about what's going on with the illegals invasion. Polls are showing the people want those illegal minors shipped out of here instead of dumped in their schools. There's no question the criminal impostor in the White House is going to attempt to use an Executive Order to grant amnesty to tens of millions of liars, cheats and thieves without any regard to background checks, health checks or anything else. Do you know EOs have been overturned by the courts? Yes, they have when a lawsuit is filed and properly argued.

The BIG magnet all these years has been what they can steal from you, your children and grand children. Trillions of dollars spent on illegals since Reagan is paid for by borrowed money with the interest slapped on our backs. Want to drive millions and millions of illegals out of this country? STOP ALL WELFARE IN ANY FORM AND KICK ILLEGAL MINORS OUT OF AMERICA'S SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

GAME PLAN: Dirty Harry's bill is just about tailor made. It may need a little fine tuning to get the statutes up to speed. At the time, it had a grand total of 3 cosponsors; two Republicans and one Democrat. But, as I said, Sec. 503 needs to be removed. The simple bill I wrote using California's Prop 187 is more explicit. See Appendix at the end. Section 503 of Reid's bill must be replaced with Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the bill I wrote.

Congress goes back into session in a couple of weeks. Please call or fax your U.S. House member if he/she is a strong opponent of amnesty. The same for these specific senators: Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby who was one of the three cosponsors to Reid's bill in 1993. Tell them about Reid's bill, give the bill number: S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. Tell them you want it introduced in the House and Senate - with the exception about Sec. 503 that puts real teeth into cutting off benefits. If you can, fax the short bill I wrote and ask that Sec. 503 of Reid's bill be deleted and Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the bill I wrote be inserted.

This can be done by the time the Outlaw Congress reopens the candy store, September 8th. Get it introduced and put on the heat to get Boehner to put it to a vote. The same in the senate and let's see what Dirty Harry Reid has to say - after all, it would be 99% of his own bill!

Democrats are in serious trouble over any amnesty and this latest surge of illegals regardless of age. We know the malignant narcissist would immediately veto the bill (even though he's an impostor president), BUT Congress has the power to over ride his veto . In a straight party vote in the House, it should pass. In the senate, we would need a half dozen Democrats and it would pass there. Democrats know Barry Soetoro aka Obama has become toxic. They value reelection more than a lame duck "president". Those would be Mary Kay Hagen (NC), Mark Pryor (AR) Mary Landrieu (LA.), and Mark Begich (AK). The following Democrats are too scared to comment on Obama threatening to use an EO to grant amnesty: Al Franken (Minn.), Mark Warner (Va.), Merkley (Ore.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.).

Should it not get passed in this session ending December 31st, it can get reintroduced in January 2015. If the Republicans take the senate, then there will be NO excuses - pass the bill intact and over ride Barry's veto. Would it not be delicious irony for Dirty Harry's bill (with the mentioned additions from mine) to get passed into law?

As for the U.S. Supreme Court: "[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance , but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift . For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192

Congress can make it very clear: The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v Doe was a bad decision because it made new "law" allowing ILLEGALS to receive benefits they have no right to since they are on U.S. soil illegally. God almighty. Tell your U.S. House member and Senator to stop being such gutless cowards. If "supreme' court justices make bad decision, impeach them or shut the hell up. We are fighting here for our very survival. We don't need sissies, wimps or political whores. We need warriors who aren't worried about their next election.

This is going to take massive heat and we the people had better step up to the plate because illegals and their supporters are going to storm Congress next month demanding amnesty . They've announced their intentions. We the people must crush any amnesty and take away the big magnet of welfare in all forms. Have you had enough being raped to pay for illegals to get free medical when you are having trouble paying your own health premiums? Your child is about to be exposed to TB and other diseases because more than 60,000 illegal minors are going to be put in schools across this country next month who are not only diseased, most of them speak no English. What a nightmare for school districts. Are you fed up with paying for all the crimes committed by illegals and the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating them?

Then tell your US. rep and senator: No, but hell no - NO amnesty regardless of country of origin or how long an illegal has been here . Deport not reward.

Hundreds More Criminal Illegal Aliens With Brutal Records Released Onto American Streets . "Earlier this year a report from the Center for Immigration Studies showed the Obama administration released 68,000 criminal illegal aliens onto the streets of the United States. Many of those released have criminal records of armed robbery, assault, rape and homicide. -In 2013, ICE targeted only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE's attention after incarceration for a local arrest. ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable."

Demand they vote to pass Dirty Harry's bill eliminating his Sec. 503 with Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill I wrote denying illegals access to our schools and medical. See Appendix for my bill .

Links:

1 - Obama's Deputies Release 169 Foreign Killers Into US Neighborhoods
2 - Obama Preparing Executive Order To Flood Job Market With Millions Of Illegal Aliens
(High tech & low skill which will hurt Americans of all races
3 - Huge protest against illegal immigration in Massachusetts
4 - While Democrats Push for Amnesty, 77% of Americans Want Illegals Sent Home
While the numbers are bit outdated - we know they've grown exponentially-
5 - Go look at how much we the people have been raped to give a free ride to liars, cheats and thieves .
6 - Understanding Executive Orders and abuses