Biden could give GREEN CARDS to illegal migrants who have been in the U.S. for 10 years and who have relatives that will 'suffer' if they are removed

President Joe Biden is now considering a program that could allow 4,000 undocumented immigrants every year to avoid deportation and obtain a green card to remain in the United States.

Those who have lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years and have a legal citizen relative that would 'suffer' as a result of their removal could qualify for access to this program, which the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) says allows non-legal permanent residents to apply for a judge to 'cancel your removal' and stay in the U.S.

It comes amid continued crackdowns by Republicans in Congress on the Biden administration's actions at the southern border.

The House voted last month to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for dereliction of duty and lying to the American people. And recent reports revealing that 320,000 migrants were flown by the Biden administration into U.S. cities in 2023 have only added to criticism of Biden's immigration policies.

What do you think?

The crime of treason is very narrowly defined and controlled by the Constitution. Strike #3, #6 and #7 as violating the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Enemies exist only in a state of war.

For #1, the fine of $500,000 per day would almost certainly be struck down as unreasonable.

#6 violates U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 6, Cl 1. "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Congress critters are immune from prosecution for their legislative acts.

#9 runs into a problem with execution. Nobody can be deported without the prior consent of the receiving nation, and that nation's provision of travel documents. There are presumably millions of visa overstays.

#10 violates U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, Sec. 1: "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."

#10 entails the non-existent power to remove citizenship.

#10 has deportation occurring before the hearing for deportation. This is pretty much the definition of a violation of due process. There is no trial for deportation. Deportation and removal hearings are admnistrative proceedings, not judicial proceedings. Immigration courts are not part of the Judicial Branch of government. They are part of the Executive Branch under the DOJ.

A[n] invasion IS a state of (not officially declared but existing) war and the Biden regime is openly giving aid and comfort to the invaders - that’s definitely Treason.

The Constitution uses the word enemy, not invader, and I do not recognize your assumed power to amend the Constitution to your liking. Enemies require a real war. War is not a state of conflict but a state of war; a collision of armed forces. An invasion is an armed force coming across the border, not a bunch of illegal aliens streaming across the border. It is definitely not treason to give aid and comfort to an illegal alien.

The term giving them aid and comfort was restrictive of the term adhering to their enemies. These are not two separate, stand-alone, items. Adhering to their enemies must be by giving them aid and comfort.

Illegal aliens streaming across the border do not evidence an intent to overthrow the government.

Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout, 8 US 75, 119, 128 (1807)

Any thing which amounts to setting on foot a military expedition with intent to levy war against the United States is treason.
[...]
Judge Chase, in the trial of Fries, was more explicit.
He stated the opinion of the court to be, "that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime: whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial. "The court are of opinion," continued Judge Chase, on that occasion, "that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war; but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war."

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/treason.htm

Time of war. Treason by aiding the enemy can't be committed during peacetime; there must be an actual enemy for the traitor to aid. The requisite enemy designation typically requires a formal declaration of war.

Cramer v United States, 325 US 1 (1945)

The discussion shows some confusion as to the effect of adding the words "giving them aid and comfort," some thinking their effect restrictive and others that they gave a more extensive meaning. However, >"Col. Mason moved to insert the words 'giving (them) aid comfort' as restrictive of 'adhering to their Enemies, &c'—the latter he thought would be otherwise too indefinite." The motion prevailed.
[...]
Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own king by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellectual or emotional sympathy with the foe, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was "giving them aid and comfort." "Aid and comfort" was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: ". . . an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort" and "an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort." Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an "act." It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which "aid and comfort" can be "given" to an enemy except by some kind of action.

1) The phrase is “enemies” and part of the declaration is that anyone entering our country illegally is considered an enemy of the United States.

Make believe "enemies" are only valid on the internet, and only in the court of keyboard commandoes. In real courts you may need a real enemy. Please cite any federal court opinion that has ever accepted the argument that "enemies" include anyone entering the country illegally.

The Framers defined and discussed treason in a very limited fashion, intending to combat the misuse of the term under the British empire. The courts have followed the Framers and have always severely limited their definition of what constitutes treason. That is why there have been so few treason convictions in American history, and many of those resulted in a Presidential pardon.

I am sure that just as soon as you imagine your source for "part of the declaration is that anyone entering our country illegally is considered an enemy of the United States," you will share that with the world.

5) The argument can be made that by the second clause, since the parents are both citizens of other countries and refused to follow our laws then the baby is not considered “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

That is blatantly unconstitutional on its face. 14a still 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." It says nothing about parents.

The baby is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless one of the parents is an accredited diplomat with diplomatic immunity.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that;
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Cramer v United States, 325 US 1 (1945)

"Aid and comfort" was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: ". . . an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort" and "an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort."

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/treason.htm

Time of war. Treason by aiding the enemy can't be committed during peacetime; there must be an actual enemy for the traitor to aid. The requisite enemy designation typically requires a formal declaration of war.

Aliens coming across the border do not constitute a state of war, nor an invasion by a foreign power, and there s not a formel declaration of war.

4) Yes, and they will be informed that a Visa overstay is returning [deportation?] and failure to allow that person to return results in trade sanctions and freezing of any assets we can acquire.

We could just break off diplomatic relations with the world and end all imports and exports, and all entry into the United States. /s

6) Hold them in detention centers to conclude their hearings. Most will self-deport if there are no jobs or benefits for them.

Hearing dates are as much as ten years delay. How many illegal aliens do you want to put in a cell? How many million cells do you think they have available? Why do you want to give them three hots and a cot at taxpayer expense?

I would prefer that any illegal alien found in the country would be eligible for nothing at all that comes from any government source, federal, state or local. In order to qualify for anything, they must be here lawfully.

As I have stated before, when speaking of tens of millions of illegal aliens, the only effective way to combat it is self-deportation, making their lives so miserable that they choose to go somewhere else. No jobs, no benefits of any sort whatever.

Then Biden is guilty of treason for refusing to perform his sworn duty to defend the United States from enemies, referring to the millions of military age men who've invaded un-vetted - and Lord only knows how many of them are terrorists, cartel soldiers, purposely-freed lunatics, etc.

Still no. Imaginary enemies in peacetime will not cut it for a treason charge. It would suffice for impeachment and removal for deliberate failure to enforce the laws. President Kamala is his insurance policy against that. There is near-zero possibility that Congress will even remove Mayorkas.

To prosecute for treason you need a real war, of the declared type, against a real enemy nation.

Just because they're not in uniforms bearing arms does not mean they aren't an invading hostile force no matter how many ways you "lawyer" it.

There is no need to lawyer it. There are over two centuries of judicial precedent that the treason clause will be interpreted narrowly, just as the Framers drafted it. A charge of treason cannot be brought in peacetime. No alien can be prosecuted for treason. Nobody can be prosecuted for treason unless they are an American citizen, we are at war with another recognized nation or a recognized belligerent power (such as the Confederacy wat), and the American citizen levies war against the United States or one of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

It is the only criminal offense which is defined by the Constitution, in which required elements of proof are established above and beyond any other crime, and in which prosecution is significantly and deliberately hobbled.

There have been about a dozen treason convictions in the nation's history. The last such conviction was pursuant to actions taken during World War Two.

The Espionage Act is the favored vehicle for prosecution when problems with a Treason prosecution cannot be overcome. 18 U.S.C. 792-799. The Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 is at 40 Stat. 217-231. That is what was used to prosecute the Rosenberg's for spying for the U.S.S.R.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.