Category Illegal Alien Invasion

“Common Sense” Profiling

I am re-posting the following article I wrote in 2005.

On January 19th, 2005, I watched a program on CNN entitled, “Defending America”.  The program aired during the Anderson Cooper 360 show.  In it, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviewed Michael Touhey the American Airlines ticket agent who sold tickets to Mohammed Atta and his henchman.


The most compelling part of the show, to me, was that the first thing Mr. Touhey thought when Atta approached his counter was, “if these two don’t look like terrorists, I don’t know who does” (paraphrased).  Yet, despite his “gut feeling”, he issued tickets to both.  In fact, he said that his second thought was of shame for judging based on his “gut feeling” and their appearance.


Thus, he faced a “catch-22” situation that has been imposed by our country’s incessant quest for political correctness and tolerance.  If he questions their motives, he is likely to face a reprimand for “racially profiling.”  If he issues tickets, he runs the risk of letting two individuals who may be terrorists, on board the plane.  Unfortunately for hundreds of people that day, he erred on the side of political correctness.


Of course Mr. Touhey would take it all back were he given the chance today.  So this brings us to the question, if hindsight is 20-20 would he be correct in calling the authorities to check out the two men?  Of course, the rational among us emphatically scream, “YES!”  However, if this is the case, why do we still not allow our law enforcement officers to do the same?


The answer is because the “deafening minority” is louder than the “silent majority”.  Anytime there is the appearance of a law enforcement officer singling out a minority, this relatively small minority of people (or groups like the ACLU or MALDEF) cry foul.


Is it safe to assume then, that those opposed to allowing law enforcement officers to use their experience (aka “gut feelings”) and profiling techniques to question individuals would still want Mr. Touhey to issue the tickets?  Doing otherwise would be to “racially profile” according to some people.


Which way do we want it? We cannot have it both ways.  Do we continue to cower in the face of the “deafening minority,” or use “common sense” profiling to thwart crimes in our nation?


I liken the situation to the inland immigration enforcement operations (aka “sweeps”) that occurred in June of 2004 in southern California.  When, once again, the “deafening minority” cried foul to Asa Hutchinson and the sweeps were stopped, a human rights commission was convened in Riverside, CA to discuss the appropriate methods for our law enforcement officers to use when identifying potential illegal aliens (or other criminals for that matter).  At that meeting, I reasoned with the commission that the techniques used by immigration officials should be similar to those of vice officers when picking up prostitutes.


If the law enforcement officers see a group of scantily clad women (a subjective assessment) at night approaching cars that stop by the side of the road, in an area known for prostitution, their reasonable conclusion is that these women are prostitutes.  Likewise, if immigration officers see a bunch of men in work clothes (another subjective assessment) on the side of the road approaching pick-up trucks as they come by and leaving in those trucks, their reasonable conclusion is that these men are illegal aliens.


It is entirely possible for the women to be tourists asking for directions, just like it is possible for the men to be American citizens looking for work.  With the presumption that there can always be doubt about these conclusions, why can vice make these judgment calls and immigration and local law enforcement officials not be allowed to do so?

We need our public officials to reassure the law enforcement community that they will be defended by their federal, state and local governments, should a group like ACLU or MALDEF bring suit against them for using “common sense” profiling.  We need to begin standing up for each other when we see someone wrongly labeled as a “racist” with the not-so-hidden-agenda of silencing them.  We cannot continue to let the “deafening minority” dictate the security—or lack thereof–of our country and usurp our laws to suit their purpose.

Read More

Achor (babies) Away!

In a recent article in The Texas Observer, the subject was raised about whether or not to grant American citizenship to children of illegal aliens. These children are more commonly known as “Anchor Babies” because they are used as an anchor to secure their family to this country illegally.

The most common justification for allowing this practice of granting citizenship to anchor babies is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which reads


“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.” (Emphasis added)

That pesky phrase underlined above somehow has been ignored for decades when applied to anchor baby cases.

As you know, whenever possible, I will go back to original sources in order to draw out the intent and context of the period in which the law was written to apply the most accurate representation.  So here we go…

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868.  During the debates surrounding the amendment, the author of Section 1, Congressman Jacob Howard of Michigan, describes his intent for the section:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.  This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already , that 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.” (Emphasis added) — Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1866, pg. 2890

Clearly, as the author of this section states, even those born in the United States who are foreigners (as all aliens are–legal and illegal–until they are naturalized), are not intended to be granted citizenship by this amendment.

Furthermore, this language and intent is consistent with the Civil Rights act of 1866 which passed two years earlier on April 9th 1866 which, in part, reads:

Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added)

All illegal aliens are subject to the power of the foreign government to which they owe their allegiance–not to the United States.  This, in my opinion, cuts to the reason behind the phrase “and  subject to the jurisdiction therein.”  We should not make citizens, those foreign nationals who are loyal to another nation!  We are seeing the results of this folly today in spades with the balkanization of our own country.

It does not matter which judge gives an opinion, or which Congress enacts a law to the contrary, neither one trumps the Constitution!

The intent of the 14th Amendment has not changed over the years, only the political views of judges offering opinions on it or those defying their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”

So, God Bless Texas for taking a stand, although the article does claim that the Texas Department of State Health services would accept a foreign passport with valid visa, which would still place the mother and the child in a foreign status and consequently ineligible for citizenship according to the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

There is still much to do in this country…

Read More