Steve Sailer, he of many quips on the issues of the day, has one that is timeless, the Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution means unlimited and unobjectionable immigration to the United States. Like a recurring disease, the Zeroth Amendment, by Emma Lazarus, is back again, this time being used by historian Ana Raquel Minian Andjel to decry the detention of criminals and illegal aliens who crossed the border in violation of Federal law.
Lazarus and Andjel, though one might think is of some Hispanic ancestry, in fact, is of the same ancestry as Lazarsus and has the same view of immigration, a nation busting exercise furthering the extinction of the White Historic American Nation. [Retconning the Founding, by Steve Sailer, The Unz Review, April 14, 2024]
White Immigration
However, it is even worse that Sailer observes, it is not just the Zeroth Amendment, it is the adoption by historians of strategy of lying to make their points. Maybe lots of White immigrants looked up America and the Statue of Liberty as an invitation of sorts, which one could argue is true. Many White immigrants entered the United States between the building of the Statue of Liberty and the beginning of immigration restrictions of the 1920s. It is almost laughable though that those wise men were concerned about too many of the wrong kind of immigrants, especially those of Lazarus’ and Andjel’s origins, but too many Slavs and Lebanese? If only that were the problem compared to today.
Andjel is the quintessential race hustler of limited intelligence and academic reach, her only issue appears to be the detention of illegal aliens, because she supports open borders. Perhaps Christopher Rufo should point his AI driven plagiarism detector at Miss Andjel. She’s an Associate Professor of History at Stanford University with only two books to her credit.
But one would think that a historian could get simple historical and legal facts correct. Instead we get someone lying like they were a paid up member of the Treason Bar. Are there not ethical rules that academics cannot lie in their work? Because Andjel repeats the same lie in her work on open borders, the lie that aliens may enter without inspection (EWI) by an immigration officer.
In May 2018, Fernando Arredondo and his 12-year-old daughter, Andrea, reached the U.S.-Mexico border. The two had fled Guatemala after gang members killed his son, Marco, and threatened the rest of the family.
Weeks earlier, the Trump administration had introduced the zero-tolerance policy: Adult migrants who were caught crossing the border without permission were to be prosecuted and imprisoned, and the children traveling with them taken away and detained separately.
Mr. Arredondo was not aware of the new policy, but it should not have mattered. He did not cross the border illegally. He and Andrea walked to a Border Patrol processing center in Laredo, Texas, and asked for asylum, a right guaranteed by U.S. law.
Immigrant Detention Should Have No Place in Our Society, by Ana Raquel Minian, NYT
April 14, 2024
My first question is why is Miss Andjel using different versions of her name? At Stanford University she is know as Ana Raquel Minian Andjel and sometimes she is know there as just Ana Minian. At the NYT she is Ana Raquel Minian. Why the game with her names? Is she trying to hide something?
And Miss Andjel says the lie about EWI not being a crime more than once.
Even though he had not broken the law, he now found himself at the Rio Grande Detention Center, a holding facility for men that was run by the GEO Group, a private prison corporation.
So, that is twice that Miss Andjel lies to the public in her opinion piece. Certainly that is not within academic standards of behavior? It is an opinion piece, and she can have the opinion that it should not be a violation of criminal law to enter the United States without inspection or that aliens should not be detained for any reason. But that is quite different from repeatedly lying that it is not a crime to enter the United States without inspection, whether one turns oneself in or not, whether one subsequently makes a defensive claim of asylum in removal proceedings before the Executive Office For Immigration Review (EOIR), the administrative immigration court system or not.
The law is quite clear that crossing the border at a place not designated by the Attorney General by an alien is a criminal offense.
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Title 8 United States Code Section 1325, Improper Entry By [An] Alien, unattributed, Legal Information Institute, undated
And these flagrant lies and unethical statements are not the only problem, besides the appeal to the Zeroth Amendment.
Arresting illegal aliens for the criminal offense of EWI, is not some new policy, though the enforcement of this statute on a more widespread basis was a change as generally it was only used against repeat offenders. Miss Andjel suggests that something strange or unusual happened when Fernando Arredondo was separated from his daughter upon his arrest for a criminal offense.
I am not so credulous to believe that Miss Andjel thinks that this is unusual. Does she believe that those arrested are not separated from family members? Does this alleged Associate Professor of History and expert on prisons, jails, and immigration detention, think that children are taken into custody when their parents are arrested in the United States? Every day thousands parents are separated from their children when arrested for criminal offenses. They are never allowed to take their children with them to either their initial court appearance or to the custodian facility when remanded.
Miss Andjel further lies when she claims that Senor Arredondo was not told what was happening. As a Federal law enforcement officer, I have arrested scores of people for criminal offenses and untold numbers for immigration offenses. I also have closely observed other officers making similar arrests for immigration and criminal offenses. In every occasion, the person arrested is informed in excruciating detail about what will be happening, especially if they brought a child with them or have children present at the time of arrest. For immigration arrests, they are informed that they will be separated from their minor children, as children are held separately from adults.
In the case of criminal arrests, they are informed about what will be happening as well: They are told that they are being arrested for a criminal offense, that they will be taken to appear before a judge, and may or may not be held in custody upon the decision of the judge. They are told that their children may not accompany them after arrest and that if they have no responsible adult to care for their minor children, the local authorities who care for minor children, the local Child Protective Services (CPS) agency, will be summoned and given custody of the minor children. Anyone who claims that Senor Arredondo was not told of what was happening to him and his child are either lying, repeating an obvious lie that was told to them, or just credulous.
Only one of those descriptions fits Miss Andjel. She is an activist and is lying to support her cause of open borders and the replacement of the Historic American Nation by non-White immigration by reliving the “children in cages” charge.
Miss Andjel then gives us not so much a lie, as a deliberate deception with a veneer of truth. She claims that asylum is a right.
” … and asked for asylum, a right guaranteed by U.S. law.’
Not quite a right. One does not just enter the United States and request asylum. One first makes a claim to an immigration officer that he or she fears persecution if returned to their country of origin and if that claim is credible, the alien is referred to an Asylum Officer for determination if the claim merits referral to the EOIR for removal proceedings. Of course, the substantial claim by Senor Arredondo was on its face legally insufficient, as being the victim of a crime is not persecution by the government of the alien’s citizenship or last place of habitual residence. But there is no right to asylum. A claim to asylum must be adjudicated by the EOIR in that case. And the claim to asylum is a defense against deportation, not a right.
Miss Andjel also lies about the Chinese Exclusion Act, claiming that Chinese were excluded from the United States by their race.
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese labor immigrants from entering the country … Their race, rather than their actions, determined whether they spent time behind bars.
That is a lie. The Chinese were not excluded because of their race, but because of their nationality. The Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to other Asians. Filipinos, Thais, Samoans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, etc, were not included in the Chinese Exclusion Act. Why else did President Theodore Roosevelt have to negotiate the Gentleman’s Agreement with the Government of Japan to restrict Japanese immigration?
Such academic dishonesty is shocking. What academic standards does Stanford University have? Any standards at all?
Then Miss Andjel claims that the results of what happened to Senor Arredondo proves that he and his minor child were illegally detained.
Mr. Arredondo and Andrea now live in Los Angeles with the rest of their family. They were lucky; not only was the family reunited, but they have also been granted asylum. But he and his family deserved better. So do all those who are currently entrapped in our vast detention system. Immigrant detention should have no place in our society.
What shocks me is that any Immigration Judge would approve such a legally invalid claim to asylum. Being the victim of a crime is not the basis for asylum. This certainly brings into question the quality of Immigration Judges, but does not justify the fallacious and dishonest claim that crossing the border illegally is not a crime.
Nor is it any evidence that detaining aliens is somehow immoral. Nothing happened to Senor Arredondo. He received more than his due process of law. In fact, he successfully entered the United States illegally, received no punishment, and defrauded the United States with a fraudulent asylum claim. Furthermore he was not summarily deported under Expedited Removal given that his claim of being the victim of a crime did not reach the level of credible fear necessitating a referral to the EOIR. Instead of receiving asylum, Senor Arredondo and minor child should have been immediately deported.
The real question is, why are academics allowed to lie to the public with no repercussions? Does not Stanford University care anything for their reputation?
Federale 