Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos

[BoyNextDoor]

Here is the article on CNN.

"Garcia de Rayos, 35, emerged from her seemingly ordinary life after a yearly check-in Wednesday at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Phoenix.
It was her eighth visit since her 2008 arrest and conviction for using a fake Social Security number. After each meeting, she was released and returned to her family in Mesa. "

I am not so sure Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos has any constitutional protections nor was she deported in a way that violates the law. She has a criminal record for defrauding SS. Shouldn't she be deported?

Or why not? Because I don't understand why she should stay in the US or frankly why she was allowed to stay before now???

 

[irksomesauce]

It is estimated that three-fifths to two-thirds of all illegals currently in the US are EWIs = entry without inspection; the rest are those who entered with inspection - legally - but have stayed here illegally (overstayers).

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) states crystal clearly:

Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable.

de Rayos entered the US illegally; de Rayos continued to stay in the US illegally: each of those facts by itself made de Rayos deportable. Why she was not deported when immigration knew her to be here illegally is simply a crystal clear example of law enforcement refusing to enforce immigration law - that's called lawlessness.

de Rayos also committed a felony when she fraudulently obtained a fake Social Security card; immigration law also states that illegals who commit felonies can be denied legal entry into the US forever.

There exists no legal grounds for de Rayos to not be deported. Why law enforcement allowed her to stay all these years is simply called lawlessness.

And that great cancer in regards to illegal immigration has been spreading for decades. Now, finally and long overdue having been forced front and center into the national spotlight, if it isn't responsibly and fully addressed, lawlessness will simply metestasize exponentially more - throughout all areas of law in this land.

There are tens of millions of illegals currently in America. There are tens of millions more of their family members, friends, and acquaintances intentionally aiding and abetting their illegal status here; socialist civil servants - who swear to uphold the law - are also intentionally aiding and abetting their illegal status here.

President Trump should go on TV Sunday night to address the nation, and specifically every illegal here now: he should tell them that they should voluntarily and peacefully respect the law of the United States of America by deporting themselves and then getting into the immigration line with everyone else who's trying to come into this nation LEGALLY.

But, if they don't, they will be deported by the full force of American law, and that their refusal to voluntarily obey American law when given a second chance will fully count against them upon entering this country ever again.

The President should also specifically address all civil servants who intentionally choose not to fulfill their oaths they freely swore.

The President also should immediately suspend ALL immigration into this country until this country can gets its current illegal immigration lawlessness under control.

Congress needs to cease their own abdication: they need to pass federal law that makes illegally entering this country a felony, and a felony for any person to aid or abet in any way any person entering or staying in this country illegally.

Finally doing so would also clearly make the federal government of Mexico criminally liable for the uncivil illegal immigration war they've been intentionally waging against the US for so long now.

President Trump layed no larger campaign marker down than his illegal immigration one, and, obviously, the time has already come for him to make good on it...

If he doesn't do exactly what the great core of his electorate elected him to do regarding illegal immigration, the Tool will instantly become Toast.

 

[Ishmael]

Here is the article on CNN.

"Garcia de Rayos, 35, emerged from her seemingly ordinary life after a yearly check-in Wednesday at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Phoenix.
It was her eighth visit since her 2008 arrest and conviction for using a fake Social Security number. After each meeting, she was released and returned to her family in Mesa. "

I am not so sure Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos has any constitutional protections nor was she deported in a way that violates the law. She has a criminal record for defrauding SS. Shouldn't she be deported?

Or why not? Because I don't understand why she should stay in the US or frankly why she was allowed to stay before now???

Of course she should be deported, along with any little cockroaches she spawned along the way.

Ishmael

 

[Queertag45]

Of course she should be deported, along with any little cockroaches she spawned along the way.

Ishmael

"I'm not racist" - Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Of course she should be deported, along with any little cockroaches she spawned along the way.

Ishmael

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. 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.

 

[Wrong Element]

Of course she should be deported, along with any little cockroaches she spawned along the way.

Ishmael

Comparing human beings to roaches is straight out of Nazi propaganda.

 

[Rightguide]

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. 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.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Sean]

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

So you think her kids aren't US citizens?

 

[Ms_Ann]

So you think her kids aren't US citizens?

What would Solomon do? Send her home and see what matters to her most. She can take the kids or leave them.

 

[Sean]

Comparing human beings to roaches is straight out of Nazi propaganda.

Have you not read any Ishmael posts before?

 

[irksomesauce]

Comparing human beings to roaches is straight out of Nazi propaganda.

Tell us about it, babykiller.

 

[Rightguide]

So you think her kids aren't US citizens?

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, in 1866 spelled out the true intent of the Amendment's meaning:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

In other words, people not subject to the jurisdiction of or owe allegiance to a foreign country are citizens.

 

[Sean]

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, in 1866 spelled out the true intent of the Amendment's meaning:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

In other words, people not subject to the jurisdiction of or owe allegiance to a foreign country are citizens.

Do you dispute the fact that her kids are US citizens, yes or no?

 

[irksomesauce]

Congress also needs to pass legislation concerning the following:

- A natural-born citizen is thusly defined: a person who is born to two natural born American citizen parents, on American-legislated soil, or on any foreign soil as long as the two natural born American citizen parents are in good legal standing with American government.

- Any person born on American soil by a mother illegally in the United States is to be considered an alien, not a citizen of the United States.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you dispute the fact that her kids are US citizens, yes or no?

If everyone born here was an automatic citizen the Congress wouldn't have had to declare Indians citizens by passing the Citizens Act in 1924. So no, not really. Only under the present misconstruction of the 14th are they "citizens."

 

[Christobal]

Do you dispute the fact that her kids are US citizens, yes or no?

If she had kids on US soil then they are legal citizens. Mama however is an illegal alien with a criminal conviction of fraud besides. Her kids can go with her or not. When you choose to do an illegal act you have to live with the repercussions.

 

[Ishmael]

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

And all it would take is a Presidential Finding to turn all that he 'thinks' it means on its ears.

Something along the lines of, "The government does not own children. They are under the care and control of their parents until such time as they reach majority and can act as full and autonomous citizens. Until such time, as go the parents, so go the children. (cite Elian Gonzales in the footnotes)"

Simplistic? Yes. But with the 'originalist' court that's in the making something along those lines should suffice.

Ishmael

 

[Rightguide]

And all it would take is a Presidential Finding to turn all that he 'thinks' it means on its ears.

Something along the lines of, "The government does not own children. They are under the care and control of their parents until such time as they reach majority and can act as full and autonomous citizens. Until such time, as go the parents, so go the children. (cite Elian Gonzales in the footnotes)"

Simplistic? Yes. But with the 'originalist' court that's in the making something along those lines should suffice.

Ishmael

Absolutely. The 14th was written to codify the citizenship and rights of freed Negro Slaves. It didn't contemplate citizenship for illegal aliens.

 

[irksomesauce]

Interesting, isn't it, that the limey socialist piece of shit disingenuously chooses to remain silent about the legality of the actual thread topic, instead once more wielding so expertly the professional propagandist tool of intentional deflection.

 

[Christobal]

And all it would take is a Presidential Finding to turn all that he 'thinks' it means on its ears.

Something along the lines of, "The government does not own children. They are under the care and control of their parents until such time as they reach majority and can act as full and autonomous citizens. Until such time, as go the parents, so go the children. (cite Elian Gonzales in the footnotes)"

Simplistic? Yes. But with the 'originalist' court that's in the making something along those lines should suffice.

Ishmael

Ok I am going to have to disagree with you. Nothing in current US law agrees with you. Yes maybe if things were actively changed but that is not the way the laws work now.

As for parents being the sole proprietors of their children well child protective services can take them away from you on not much of an accusation. The government practically owns your kids. What vaccines they must get to go to the school they must attend.

Hey I don't I agree with most this crap on general principles but it is the established law of the land.

 

[Sean]

And all it would take is a Presidential Finding to turn all that he 'thinks' it means on its ears.

Something along the lines of, "The government does not own children. They are under the care and control of their parents until such time as they reach majority and can act as full and autonomous citizens. Until such time, as go the parents, so go the children. (cite Elian Gonzales in the footnotes)"

Simplistic? Yes. But with the 'originalist' court that's in the making something along those lines should suffice.

Ishmael

I'm pretty sure that even if Scalia was still there the court wouldn't overturn the 14th amendment.

 

[Ishmael]

Ok I am going to have to disagree with you. Nothing in current US law agrees with you. Yes maybe if things were actively changed but that is not the way the laws work now.

As for parents being the sole proprietors of their children well child protective services can take them away from you on not much of an accusation. The government practically owns your kids. What vaccines they must get to go to the school they must attend.

Hey I don't I agree with most this crap on general principles but it is the established law of the land.

I would expect no less from you, but the precedent already exists.....doesn't it?

Yes, the courts can strip the parents of their parental rights. But I suspect the use of that tool in the case of illegal aliens might meet with some serious push-back.

Of course those children, being citizens, would be free to live anywhere they choose upon reaching majority or being emancipated by the courts.

The entire concept of 'anchor babies' has to be eliminated.

Ishmael

 

[oggbashan]

If this situation occured in the UK?

Now? She would stay because of European Human Rights legislation.

Post Brexit? She MIGHT be able to stay because her 'crime' was minor.

But if she was a convicted murderer?

Now? She would stay because of European Human Rights legislation.

Post Brexit? She would be deported because her 'crime' wasn't minor.

If she was a citizen of another EU country?

Now? She could come and go as often as she liked. She could get a social security card legally and work in the UK.

Post Brexit? We don't know yet.

But if she was a convicted murderer and a citizen of another EU country?

Now? She could come and go as often as she liked, with no checks at all.

Post Brexit? She should be denied entry to the UK and deported.

 

[Ishmael]

If this situation occured in the UK?

Now? She would stay because of European Human Rights legislation.

Post Brexit? She MIGHT be able to stay because her 'crime' was minor.

But if she was a convicted murderer?

Now? She would stay because of European Human Rights legislation.

Post Brexit? She would be deported because her 'crime' wasn't minor.

If she was a citizen of another EU country?

Now? She could come and go as often as she liked. She could get a social security card legally and work in the UK.

Post Brexit? We don't know yet.

But if she was a convicted murderer and a citizen of another EU country?

Now? She could come and go as often as she liked, with no checks at all.

Post Brexit? She should be denied entry to the UK and deported.

I'm glad you guys got out of that nest of vipers.

I watched the growth towards what is now the EU with interest. I actually hoped for the best. Everyone knew there was going to be obstacles along the way, but most thought they could be worked out.

And then I read that proposed EU Constitution penned by d'Estaing and his gang. And I thought to myself, "Oh my God. There is NO way that a group of people that think like that can get this to work." Wisely that abortion was defeated at the polls.

But that didn't stop the Bureaucrats of Brussels from declaring, "We don't need no steenking Constitution. We can rule by fiat." And so they are while handsomely rewarding themselves. It's like back to the feudal system with cell phones.

Ishmael

 

[hashtag46]

But that didn't stop the Bureaucrats of Brussels from declaring, "We don't need no steenking Constitution. We can rule by fiat." And so they are while handsomely rewarding themselves.

It's like back to the feudal system with cell phones.

Exactly.