Caravans, free stuff, the fascist left

At a White House press conference the day after the mid-term elections, Jim Acosta, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, instructed President Trump that the caravans of Central Americans, grinding uninvited through Mexico and intent on violating America’s southern border, do not constitute an invasion.

Well, I’m glad he cleared that up.

You’d need an IQ below room temperature to believe the cover story that these caravans are composed of the politically persecuted who need asylum in the U.S. You’d also have to ignore the migrants themselves, as they take a break from defiantly waving their own country’s flag to say through an interpreter they are coming to the USA to get “their” piece of the American Dream. But the conflict with common sense doesn’t end there.

On the right, President Trump, prone to wield words as wildly blunt instruments with little forethought to collateral damage, has characterized the caravan people generally as gang members and hardened criminals, that Americans and especially women don’t want them here, while in the next breath declaring we do want them here but they must apply through the legal process. His contradictions deliver yet another rhetorical gift to Democrats.

The left is reluctant to admit they want our borders open to the world’s billions of disaffected, that they want ICE abolished, unimpeded immigration, and no limits on services provided courtesy of the American taxpayer.

So Democrats operate under the table as usual, deceptive Pied Pipers to weak-minded hordes. CBS News political correspondent Ed O’Keefe on the Nov. 4 TV program, Face the Nation, dismissed caravan concerns on the right with his claim the caravans are mostly women and children.

Imagine the surprise of my lying eyes, having seen on every televised clip of the caravans mostly angry, aggressive young men, disrespectful of any laws or sovereignty or barriers to entry erected by Mexico or the U.S., prepared to recite the magic words they have been taught to trigger asylum treatment, fully expecting the stupid catch-and-release procedure that would enable them to set up life in the U.S. and start wiggling their way into the system of generous American government largess.

I think both sides miss an important point.

Whether the caravans are chock full of criminals and terrorists, or instead if every single one is as virtuous as Mother Teresa and a persecuted refugee deserving asylum, and even if they are all committed to assimilate, learn the language and become devoted to the USA, none of that matters.

Regardless of their virtues, they have NO RIGHT to penetrate the U.S. border by evasion or force. They have NO RIGHT to U.S. government benefits at taxpayer expense. They have NO RIGHT to be briefly processed then released into the U.S. population to disappear and evade deportation. These illegals have NO RIGHT to the “undocumented” protective label bestowed by Democrats, intended to leave the impression among the weak-minded they are only guilty of having their papers delayed.

This mess is an American self-inflicted wound.

The left is squawking that President Trump is suspending catch-and-release, sending military units to assist protecting the border, setting up tent cities to hold illegals until their asylum/deportation hearing and threatening to end birthright citizenship by executive order.

Frankly, I generally admire and love Mexican and Central American people, because I have employed many of them and have enjoyed their hard-working attitude, good humor and dedication to church and family. Too bad we can’t make a trade for about 50 million Americans with a warped entitlement mindset.

Bleeding hearts prone to call me anti-immigrant might want to thank whatever they pray to that border protection decisions are not up to me. I believe we should defend our border by any means necessary, including aerial surveillance, razor wire, minefields and lethal force – yes, that means guns with bullets that kill, just like other countries protecting their borders.

For survivors of an illegal crossing, I would incarcerate them as cheaply as possible pending hearings and deportation, putting them to work on chain gangs to maintain border structures as much as possible while they wait, thereby making them pay with their labor for at least part of their own keep and the care of their children. To add disincentive, I would add a year of penalty incarceration/work time, then double it for each subsequent capture of the same person.

To turn off the attraction, I would prohibit any government-paid benefits whatever, unless and until they are granted permanent resident status, and I would take steps to eliminate chain migration by passing legislation that interprets the 14th Amendment to exclude EXCLUDE birthright citizenship to NOT include for those parents who do not have permanent resident status. You are in luck, however, because I am not the decision-maker.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ended slavery, but Democrats in charge in Southern states created a patchwork of laws known as Black Codes, designed to keep blacks marginalized, like the law requiring them to be fined heavily if they did not have an annually signed employment agreement meeting restrictive criteria.

The 14th Amendment was intended to clarify that former slaves were citizens of the U.S. and their state, covered by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and have the right to vote. The first sentence says, “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.”

The phrase “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” was intended at the time to exclude Native Americans and the children of foreign diplomats. Gaming the system to hustle illegal pregnant women over the border to give birth on American soil, then use that “anchor baby” citizen to justify chain migration for the rest of the family, is an unintended consequence of imprecise wording.

There have been numerous bills introduced in Congress attempting to clarify the interpretation of “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” but none yet has passed. Trump says he might use an executive order to make the necessary interpretation that ends birthright citizenship for illegals.

The media gave Obama heavy cover when he exceeded his presidential authority using executive orders to set aside immigration legislation he didn’t like. My guess is if Trump uses such an executive order to end birthright citizenship, the media will become hysterical in a heartbeat.

Obama was wrong but got away with it, Trump might be wrong and the birthright citizenship interpretation would certainly be better coming from Congress. Fat chance with the Democrats controlling the House.

The caravans roll on northward, slowly dissipating as word spreads about Trump’s new and unwelcoming measures.

Doing their best to keep a straight face, Democrats continue universally condemning Trump and Republicans as the purveyors of hate and division, while it is Democrats themselves setting Americans at each other’s throats by dividing us into groups by race, ethnicity, politics and gender and accuse us on the right of being racist and anti-immigrant while our country continues to process record numbers of LEGAL immigrants. Now that is chutzpah!

Meanwhile, on the evening of Nov. 7 the Democrat darling Antifa, ostensibly opposed to the very fascism in their actions, mobbed the Washington, D.C., home of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, loudly chanting to terrify his wife, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night.”

Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx would be proud.

[Terry Garlock of Peachtree City occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. He can be reached at tlg.opinion@gmail.com.]