They refuse to say Child Protective Services or NICWA.
Do you know how many children were raped in foster care in the U.S. last year? Neither does US DHHS. They don't keep records.
A freak worked as a federally tax paid pediatrician despite complaints of what he was doing, who probably not even a doctor, is showcased as all the wonderful things CPS has done, under the FBI for the last 30 years for native children.
They are speaking on whistleblower protections because there is lots of stealin'.
They said reporting sexual abuse of children started in 1992.
What happened before that and where are the numbers?
How come this task force is not talking about abject poverty, missing women, suicides and the rampant drug operations, under CIA structure because they were the idiots who came up with blood quantum and the entire concept of foster care, which is nothing but a christian assimilation operation for the native savages.
How come there is no mention of child trafficking?
Go look at that damn reservation system.
CIA created that crap.
Anyone remember Trail of Tears or stories from your elders?
They do not teach this in school.
I am waiting for these people to talk about the egregious child sex trafficking in foster care and adoption, let alone the reservations.
This is just another application of Parental Rights, where Emergency Manager Emperor Pence & HIS Procurement Consortia Task Force are trying to squash in the public square, just because they are trying to slide, behind the curtain, and tweek the laws of the land, to enshrine their modern day trafficking of tiny humans, to prop up the residuals of the peculiar institution.
For example, using China as our nation of citizenship:
If a Chinese citizen is impregnated by a Mexican citizen, where the Chinese citizen gives birth in the U.S., where Michigan Child Protective Services snatches the baby by cutting the umbilical cord, places the baby in the legal custody and guardianship of an Isreali private Foster Care corporation, where the Parental Rights of the Chinese citizen are terminated and the child is adopted by a citizen of Canada, what is the citizenship of the baby?
I just thought I would celebrate the blarney of St. Patrick's Day and give everyone a mental exercise in Parental Rights during the dawning of the Quantum Renaissance.
So, the moral of the story is, stop throwing arcane stereotyped labels because you look stupid and piss people off at the detriment of national security.
I believe these actions, if found through due process of judicial determination could defrock her of her law license and be grounds to revoke her U.S. citizenship.
EXCLUSIVE: Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee were hit with ethics complaints Wednesday, connected to a slew of alleged violations related to campaign fundraising.
Nonprofit watchdog group Americans for Public Trust filed complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) against Reps. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Lucy McBath, D-Ga., calling for investigations of possible violations of House rules and federal law. The organization, founded by former National Republican Congressional Committee research director Caitlin Sutherland, also filed complaints against Dean and McBath with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
“All three of these members have engaged in disturbing activities that appear to us to be violations of federal law and House rules. This is especially alarming given all three sit on the prestigious House Judiciary Committee, which has direct oversight responsibilities over the U.S. Department of Justice and, by extension, the nation’s law enforcement,” said Adam Laxalt, former Nevada attorney general and outside counsel to Americans for Public Trust. "We’re calling on the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Congressional Ethics to immediately investigate these suspicious activities.”
Fox News reached out to the offices of all three congresswomen for comment, but they did not immediately respond.
The complaints against Dean claim that after she suspended her campaign for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, she used campaign funds from that race to go toward the congressional campaign she launched soon afterward. The complaints allege that this violated federal law — and by extension, House rules because campaigns for federal office must only use funds that were subject to the FEC. The complaints state that these expenditures continued after Dean was elected to Congress, and totaled more than $17,000.
The OCE complaint against Jayapal describes allegations that the Washington Democrat violated a House rule that prohibits members of Congress from soliciting campaign or political contributions that are "linked with an official action taken or to be taken by a House member." The complaint also notes that federal law prohibits House members from requesting money or other things of value connected with performing an official duty.
The complaint points to tweets from Jayapal related to the "Medicare-for-all" bill that she sponsored, in which she referenced or linked to a C-SPAN broadcast of a House hearing related to the bill while soliciting campaign contributions to keep “momentum going” for the bill. The complaint also alleges that by doing this, Jayapal violated a House rule against using broadcast coverage of official House business for political purposes.
The complaints against McBath are connected to money her campaign received from the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. McBath had been employed by Everytown prior to launching her congressional campaign in March 2018, and the complaint states that she remained employed there for roughly two more months. During that time, she appeared on television as both a candidate and a spokesperson for Everytown.
The complaints also allege that McBath received money from Everytown for her campaign during that time, even though Everytown reported in an FEC filing that they first began contributing to McBath's campaign on April 25, 2018.
"However, Everytown began spending in the election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District while Representative McBath was still serving as the group’s national spokesperson," the OCE complaint says. "It is not publicly known what level of involvement Representative McBath had in Everytown’s expenditures against her eventual general election opponent while she was still employed by Everytown."
The House Judiciary Committee played a central role in the recently concluded impeachment inquiry — and eventual trial — of President Trump regarding his pressure campaign against Ukraine. The three Democrats flagged in the ethics complaints voted for the articles of impeachment as they were prepared for the floor.
The president was acquitted last week on accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, in a largely party-line Senate vote.
The U.S. House Oversight Committee on the 2020 Census to get an accurate account, but everyone has failed on two fronts, the first being labeling of the variable of race.
Now, I am going to have to have someone provide me with the operationalization of the tools for measurement of race.
I was always told race was determined by the enumerator, perOMB Directive 15 but I ended up finding the legal tool for it.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
DIRECTIVE NO. 15
Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics
and Administrative Reporting
(as adopted on May 12, 1977)
This Directive provides standard classifications for record keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.
1. Definitions
The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows:
American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
2. Utilization for Record keeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are used, the minimum designations are:
Race:
-- American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black
--White
Ethnicity:
--Hispanic origin
--Not of Hispanic origin
When race and ethnicity are collected separately, the number of White and Black persons who are Hispanic must be identifiable, and capable of being reported in that category.
If a combined format is used to collect racial and ethnic data, the minimum acceptable categories are:
--American Indian or Alaskan Native
--Asian or Pacific Islander
--Black, not of Hispanic origin
--Hispanic
--White, not of Hispanic origin.
The category which most closely reflects the individual's recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins.
In no case should the provisions of this Directive be construed to limit the collection of data to the categories described above. However, any reporting required which uses more detail shall be organized in such a way that the additional categories can be aggregated into these basic racial/ethnic categories.
This was about the same time the term "African-Americans" came to be fashionable.
The African-Americans, a term Jesse Jackson coined, needs to told as his tale.
If Africa is a continent, and the United States is a nation, does that mean African Americans have dual citizenship or are these votes disqualified under Voter ID laws? Not everyone from the continent of Africa is of the darker persuasion.
Not everyone of the darker persuasion is from Africa.
If Colored Person A procreates with Colored Person B, producing Colored Offspring X; and, Colored Person C procreates with Colored Person D, producing Colored Offspring Y; where, Colored Offspring X and Colored Offspring Y procreate to produce Colored Offspring XY, does the zygote qualify for reparations?
Here is an example of law that allows the U.S. to label one, based upon the status of the mother, Partus Sequitur Ventrum, more readily understood as the one-drop rule of property ownership under the law of chattels.
Every local registrar may, as soon as practicable, have such registration certificate made by or for each person in his district who so desires, born before June fourteen, nineteen hundred and twelve, for whom he has not on file a registration certificate, or a birth certificate.
2. It shall be a felony for any person wilfully or knowingly to make a registration certificate false as to color or race. The wilful making of a false registration or birth certificate shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
3. For each registration certificate properly made and returned to the State Registrar, the local registrar returning the same shall be entitled to a fee of twenty-five cents, to be paid by the registrant. Application for registration and for transcript may be made direct to the State Registrar, who may retain the fee for expenses of his office.
4. No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct.
If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are "white persons" as provided for in this act.
The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.
5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.
6. For carrying out the purposes of this act and to provide the necessary clerical assistance, postage and other expenses of the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, twenty per cent of the fees received by local registrars under this act shall be paid to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, which may be expended by the said bureau for the purposes of this act.
7. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed.
If one is "not colored", does that make them invisible, and if they are invisible, how can you count them?
FUN FACT! ABSENTEE BALLOTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CORPORATE PARENTAL RIGHT LAWS
I have a better suggestion to get a better count of our U.S. population.
How about answering this question:
Now, what is the citizenship of the foster kid?
So, if a child is a citizen of Guatemala crosses the Mexican-U.S. Border, to be taken into U.S. custody and placed under a privatized, state contracted child placing agency like Bethany Christian, a Michigan licensed business entity, which is under the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a foreign corporation, where that child is processed through the policy, not law, like DACA & DAPA, of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children under the legal aegis of the contracting state Child Placing Agency, qualifying the child for Targeted Case Management billing reimbursement of Medicaid for the purposes of concurrent case planning to fast track Termination of Parental Rights for adoption, which includes a new identity and an issued Social Security Number, what is the citizenship of that child and what happens with the original identity?
So, instead of listening to the dribbled of ignorance of this hearing, I would like to inform "The Elected Ones" that we did not count the babies until the early 20th Century, but do not tell them that because the lord was the keeper of the record.
The church record of the birth, not the certificate.
Then, no one is talking about the live and dead births certificates.
No one is talking about Foster Care and Adoption.
No one is talking about those fake identities after termination of parental rights over the children, hailing from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).
Here is a synoptic overview on how they child welfare industry can multiple a child's identity to maximize revenues".
So, if the U.S. conjures up their own laws on how to count "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth), will it be challenged by the Holy See because it does not have any legal congruency, outside the U.S.?
That would be fun!
Again, to keep with my ad nauseum theme of coming up with new and improved ways of trying to get people to understand that the residuals of the peculiar institution are alive and thriving for the simple fact that slavery was never, ever abolished, I shall close out this round of castigation with one of my favorite taglines.
#Time2AuditGod
Who owns the child because corporations are people, too.
The children are coming to Michigan because we have the contracts.
How can one use DNA to establish paternity, when the child is adopted?
Just thought I would throw that out there when trying to figure out the citizenship of children under the aegis of a private, foreign Foster Care Agency.
Houston – The U.S. government on Monday launched a pilot program to collect DNA from people in immigration custody and submit it to the FBI, with plans to expand nationwide.
In Detroit, people as young as 14 will be subject to DNA collection.
The information would go into a massive criminal database run by the FBI, where it would be held indefinitely. A memo outlining the program published Monday by the Department of Homeland Security said U.S. citizens and permanent residents holding a “green card” who are detained could be subject to DNA testing, as well as asylum seekers and people entering the country without authorization. Refusing to submit DNA could lead to a misdemeanor criminal charge, the document said.
Immigrant advocates and privacy experts have raised alarms and questioned whether data collected to stop criminal activity could instead be used for surveillance.
The DHS memo acknowledged that the DNA its agents collect may not be immediately useful. Agents plan to take saliva swabs of detained people, then mail them to the FBI. By the time the results are processed, the memo said, the people in question may have already been released, deported or transferred to another federal agency.
Stephen Kang, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, questioned whether the U.S. was creating “a DNA bank of immigrants that have come through custody for no clear reason.”
Starting Monday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will collect swabs from people apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol at the Canadian border in or near Detroit, as well as people detained at the official port of entry at Eagle Pass, Texas, across from Piedras Negras, Mexico. CBP said its pilot program will last 90 days.
The memo said agents will not take DNA from people entering the country legally or being held for further screening without being placed into detention.
CBP has wrongly accused American citizens in the past of entering the country illegally. An 18-year-old born in Texas was held for more than three weeks last year.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will designate one of its jails for pilot testing.
So, if a child is a citizen of Guatemala crosses the Mexican-U.S. Border, to be taken into U.S. custody and placed under a privatized, state contracted child placing agency like Bethany Christian, a Michigan licensed business entity, which is under the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a foreign corporation, where that child is processed through the policy, not law, like DACA & DAPA, of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children under the legal aegis of the contracting state Child Placing Agency, qualifying the child for Targeted Case Management billing reimbursement of Medicaid for the purposes of concurrent case planning to fast track Termination of Parental Rights for adoption, which includes a new identity and an issued Social Security Number, what is the citizenship of that child and what happens with the original identity?
Who owns the foster kid?
Who has parental rights?
How were parental rights terminated?
Did the parents have due process and if not, why?
How many times was the foster kid adopted and were the newly issued birth certificates counted as new identitites?
Boy, oh, boy, I cannot wait to see how they are going to answer.
Better yet, I cannot wait to see them try to explain the process of parental rights, but that would be due process, which could only happen upon the citizenship establishment of the foster kid.
The Department of Homeland Security has agreed to share certain government records from its databases to help the Census Bureau produce data about the U.S. citizenship status of every person living in the country.
DHS quietly announced the data-sharing agreement in a regulatory document posted on its website on Dec. 27. It marks the latest development in the Trump administration's ongoing effort to carry out the executive order President Trump issued in July after courts blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year to keep the citizenship question off, President Trump said in the executive order that releasing citizenship data based on existing records would allow states to redraw voting districts using the number of eligible voters rather than all residents in an area — a method of redistricting that a prominent GOP strategist concluded would politically benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic white people.
According to the DHS document, which was first reported by Federal Computer Week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is sharing personal information about naturalized U.S. citizens and green card holders from records going back to as early as 1973.
More recent records dating to 2013 from Customs and Border Protection, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, will provide the Census Bureau with data such as noncitizens' full names, birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers and alien registration numbers. CBP is also sharing the travel histories of visitors to the U.S., including those who have overstayed their visas.
Federal law restricts the release of immigration records about survivors of human trafficking and of certain other crimes who have applied for special visas, as well as survivors of domestic abuse who have applied for immigration benefits under the Violence Against Women Act. Still, USCIS has asked for permission to release to the Census Bureau data about refugees and asylum-seekers, whose records generally cannot be shared without their consent or a waiver signed by the Homeland Security secretary.
Trump Wants Citizenship Data Released But States Haven't Asked Census For That
The bureau plans to use the data it does receive to try to match the DHS records with those from other agencies about the same person. Each individual's records would then be used in a statistical model designed to produce anonymized estimates of U.S. citizens and noncitizens living in the country.
It is unclear, however, whether this process will be able to accurately determine the citizenship status of individuals. "No one source of citizenship information is complete and up-to-date," the DHS document — known as a privacy impact assessment — warns, while noting that misidentified individuals would receive "no adverse impact" because the efforts are only for "statistical purposes."
Still, Latinx community groups represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC are currently suing the administration, arguing that its data efforts are part of a conspiracy to stop Latinx communities, noncitizens and other immigrants from receiving fair political representation.
Meanwhile, the administration has spent months trying to amass citizenship records from other federal agencies, including the State Department and the Social Security Administration, plus states. In November, Nebraska became the first state to agree to share its driver's license records with the Census Bureau.
The data DHS provides "will not be used to make programmatic or administrative enforcement decisions," according to the document the department released last week.
Nebraska Is 1st State To Share Driver's License Records With Census Bureau
Instead, the document says DHS is providing the records as required by Trump's executive order to help determine numbers of three specific groups: "citizens, lawfully present non-citizens, and unauthorized immigrants in the United States during the decennial census."
While Trump's order does reference a need for a "more reliable" count of unauthorized immigrants to better inform public policy about immigration and eligibility for public benefits, the Census Bureau has not publicly acknowledged any plans to create such an estimate.
During public meetings in September, the Census Bureau's chief scientist, John Abowd, confirmed that the executive order — along with a filing to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which reviews all federal government efforts to collect information — "commit" the bureau to releasing citizenship data by the end of March 2021, in time for the next round of redistricting.
The bureau's public information office has not responded to NPR's questions about whether it's planning to produce a count of unauthorized immigrants in response to the executive order.
The bureau is currently fighting off a lawsuit by the state of Alabama and Rep. Mo Brooks, a Republican from that state, which is arguing in court to get unauthorized immigrants excluded from census numbers used to determine the distribution of congressional seats among the states.
Both the bureau and the Department of Homeland Security's office of public affairs have also not responded to NPR's questions about when the new data-sharing agreement was signed and if any data have been transferred yet.
Plans for DHS to share data with the bureau through this agreement have been in negotiations since early 2018, when the bureau officials began scrambling to respond to the Trump administration's last-minute request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Latinx Advocacy Groups Sue To Block Citizenship Data Release By Trump Officials
Census Bureau officials have long advocated for the administration to rely on existing government records as a way to produce citizenship information that the bureau's researchers say is more accurate and less expensive than collecting self-reported responses to a census question. In 2018, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, approved both adding the question to census forms and directed the bureau to request records from other agencies and state governments.
Still, the DHS document lays out a number of risks involved with sharing data with the bureau, including a concern that doing so is "not compatible with the original purpose" of DHS agencies collecting the information. It also flags the risk that the people whose information DHS is sharing with the Census Bureau may not want that to occur.
The document says, however, these risks "cannot be mitigated" and that Trump's executive order requires DHS to comply with the bureau's data requests.
Do Trump Officials Plan To Break Centuries Of Precedent In Divvying Up Congress?
Some privacy advocates have raised their own concerns about the potential misuse of data, especially at a time of increased immigration enforcement. Using the information to try to identify noncitizens "implicates fundamental due process rights and will impact both citizens and non-citizens," wrote Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in a July letter to leaders of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
On top of those concerns, it's not clear exactly how accurate the data produced using the existing records will be. The DHS document acknowledges it is "notoriously difficult" to use data to determine a person's current immigration status because "individuals can have multiple immigration statuses through their lifetime."
"Because DHS is providing information at a point in time," the document says, "it is reasonable to believe that eventually data accuracy issues may arise."
The case provides a base for international discussion on citizenship and how a birth is certified, not just registered.
The reason why this is of such importance is to establish which jurisdiction of the law of the land.
Now, apply the question of citizenship of a child who has been placed in state custody through a federal transfer to a foreign contracted, private corporation, to be adopted out.
Supreme Court of Canada Building
Decision
Date: December 19, 2019
Neutral Citation: 2019 SCC 65
Breakdown of the decision:
Majority: Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe, and Martin dismissed the appeal
Concurring: Justices Rosalie Silberman Abella and Andromache Karakatsanis agreed that the Registrar’s decision was unreasonable and was rightly quashed
On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal
Case information (37748)
Webcast of hearing
Lower court rulings:
Decision (Registrar of Citizenship, not available online)
Judicial review (Federal Court of Canada)
Appeal (Federal Court of Appeal)
Explore the Court
Judges of the Court
Role of the Court
Visit the Court
A person born in Canada to parents who were undercover Russian spies is a Canadian citizen, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr. Vavilov was born in Toronto in 1994. In 2010, his parents were arrested for spying in the United States, where they were living. Mr. Vavilov learned then that his parents had been undercover Russian spies his whole life. The United States sent the parents back to Russia as part of a spy exchange.
Mr. Vavilov tried to renew his Canadian passport. He was rejected twice. Officials said he needed proof he was Canadian, and his birth certificate wasn’t enough. He needed a certificate of Canadian citizenship. He got this and applied again. But he still didn’t get a passport. Instead, he got a letter from the Registrar of Citizenship. The Registrar makes the final decision on who is a Canadian citizen. The letter said giving Mr. Vavilov the certificate of citizenship was a mistake and that he was not a Canadian citizen.
The Registrar’s decision was based on her view of the Citizenship Act. The general rule is that anyone born in Canada is a Canadian citizen. But there is an exception. This exception applies to a child of “a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government.” If neither parent is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, the child won’t be a citizen. The Registrar said the exception applied in Mr. Vavilov’s case.
The Registrar relied on a report for her decision. The report was written by a junior analyst. The analyst noted there was no definition of “other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government” in the Act. But she said it could include undercover spies. The analyst recommended the Registrar cancel Mr. Vavilov’s certificate of citizenship.
Mr. Vavilov asked the Federal Court to review the Registrar’s decision. The Federal Court ruled for the Registrar. It said the decision was “correct.” The Federal Court of Appeal ruled for Mr. Vavilov. It said the decision was “unreasonable” and quashed (canceled) it. (To better understand what “correct” and “unreasonable” mean here, read the “Case Law in Brief” on the Standard of Review.)
All the judges at the Supreme Court said the Registrar’s decision was “unreasonable” and that the Federal Court of Appeal was right to quash it. They said Mr. Vavilov was a Canadian citizen.
The judges said the Registrar didn’t justify her view of the law. They said she didn’t properly consider lawmakers’ debates, court cases, the text of the Citizenship Act, and international law. These sources showed that the exception was only meant to apply to people who had diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”
Citizens have to follow all their country’s rules. For example, Canadian citizens have to pay Canadian taxes and obey Canadian laws. But people working for foreign governments, like at embassies or consulates, don’t always have to. They may have “privileges and immunities.” These are like exceptions to the rules that citizens have to follow. They are meant to make sure one country can’t meddle in another country’s foreign policy through its officials. The officials need the privileges and immunities to do their jobs properly. That’s why diplomats and other foreign representatives to Canada can’t become Canadian citizens.
The majority said it didn’t matter that Mr. Vavilov’s parents were working for a foreign state. What mattered was whether they had privileges and immunities. They didn’t. That meant the exception didn’t apply to Mr. Vavilov.
Normally, if a court finds an administrative decision unreasonable, it will send it back to the decision-maker to try again. In this case, the majority said it wouldn’t be useful to do that. Mr. Vavilov had already brought up all these issues and nothing changed the Registrar’s mind. The judges said that Mr. Vavilov was a Canadian citizen.
This case was one of three cases known as the “administrative law trilogy.” (The other two cases, decided in Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), were about Super Bowl ads.) Vavilov and the Super Bowl ad cases were about very different issues. But they all dealt with an area of administrative law called “standard of review.” To learn more about this (and to better understand the Court’s reasons in this case), read the “Case Law in Brief” on the Standard of Review.
Cyberchatter has it that there are unreported births, and a complete underground industry of what I like to call christian adoption.
Cyberchatter also has it there is an underground industry in infant mortality, but, hey, what do I know?
SANTA ANA, California – A Chinese national pleaded guilty today to federal criminal charges for running an Orange County-based “birth tourism” business that catered to wealthy pregnant clients and Chinese government officials, charging them tens of thousands of dollars to help them give birth in the United States so their children would get U.S. citizenship.
Dongyuan Li (李冬媛), 41, of Irvine, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud and one count of visa fraud. Li was one of 19 defendants named in a series of indictments unsealed earlier this year. She is the first of the charged operators of birth tourism businesses to plead guilty. The remaining defendants either are pending trial or are fugitives.
Li admitted in her plea agreement that, from 2013 until March 2015, she operated a birth tourism company in Irvine and in China called You Win USA Vacation Services Corp. You Win would assist pregnant foreign nationals – typically from China – to travel to and remain in the United States to give birth so their children would receive birthright U.S. citizenship, according to the plea agreement.
According to a January 2019 federal grand jury indictment against Li, You Win advertised that it had served more than 500 Chinese birth tourism customers seeking U.S. birthright citizenship for their children. The indictment details that Li used 20 apartments in Irvine, charged each customer between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in international wire transfers from China in two years.
Some You Win customers coached by the company made false statements on their visa applications and to U.S. immigration officials, Li’s plea agreement states. Li also admitted that the customers were advised on how to pass the U.S. Consulate interview in China, including by falsely stating that they were going to stay in the United States for only two weeks, when in reality, they planned to stay for up to three months to give birth.
Li further admitted that her customers bypassed U.S. immigration controls by booking two flights – the first from China to Hawaii and the second from Hawaii to Los Angeles International Airport – because they thought it would be easier to clear U.S. Customs through Hawaii. Li’s customers also were coached how to trick U.S. Customs at ports of entry by concealing their pregnancies, according to the plea agreement.
In October 2013, Li made a $30,965 rent payment for Irvine apartments used in her birth tourism operation, and in November 2013, she made a $30,321 rent payment for those apartments, the plea agreement states.
As part of her plea agreement, Li agreed to forfeit more than $850,000, a Murrieta residence worth more than $500,000, as well as several Mercedes-Benz vehicles.
United States District Judge James V. Selna scheduled a December 16 sentencing hearing, at which time Li will face a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in federal prison.
This case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations and IRS Criminal Investigation. The Irvine Police Department provided substantial assistance.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Charles E. Pell of the Santa Ana Branch Office.
Not one mention of christian NGOs setting up shop south of the border, to save the savages for the purposes of sending then to the States, particularly Michigan because Bethany Christian got the contracts, but Customs and Border Patrol did.
Not one single mention of parental rights and citizenship process was made.
Instead, blame was placed upon ICE, which was poorly created in the first place, as a human transfer agency for foreign, private contractors who like to maximize revenues by and through trafficking tiny humans in foster care and adoption.
My heart goes out to the officers and staff of ICE, as they are only following the rule of law because the Congress refuses to talk about modern day human trafficking.
Why does Judiciary fail to acknowledge that indentured servitude, a fancy name for foster care, and slavery, another component in the law of chattels?
Because it is campaign season and that is how they fund their campaigns.
