Border Hawk News

Alan Wall

Feb. 15, 2024

Mexico is our next-door neighbor but it seems many Americans are not well-informed about it

 

Wrong and outdated impressions of Mexico affect our policymakers as well. This is particularly true regarding border and immigration policy.

After all, we share a border of 1,954 miles with Mexico. That’s the border over which millions of Mexicans and non-Mexicans have invaded the U.S. over the past few years, facilitated by the Biden administration.

Consider a few relevant Mexico topics:

Wealth and Poverty

Americans think of Mexico as a poor country. And it is, compared to the United States.

But Mexico is wealthier and has a higher standard of living than most countries in Latin America and Africa.

There are, of course, many poor Mexicans. But doesn’t Mexico itself, with all its wealth, have a responsibility to help its own poor people?

It’s easy to fall into the “just let all the poor people in” trap when it comes to Mexico or any other Third World country. If we do that, though, we are enabling the ruling classes of these countries to dump their poor people on to the United States without solving the problems in their own countries.

Mexican Meddling

We have heard about Russian meddling in recent years. I don’t doubt there is some of that.

But any meddling perpetrated by the Russians is dwarfed by the widespread interference carried on by the Mexican government and its agents in the United States.

Mexico operates 52 consulates on U.S. soil. It’s the biggest consular network in the world. Yet you hardly hear of it.

It’s as if Americans don’t see Mexico as a country with its own interests, which can be opposed to those of the United States.

Immigration Motives

Americans have a very romanticized view of immigration. When I resided in Mexico, I came to understand that Mexicans see immigration differently than Americans do.

Americans see immigration to our country as a great honor. Look at what a great country we are, everybody in the world wants to come here and become an American.

But not everybody in the world sees it that way.

Mexicans sometimes told me they wanted to emigrate to the United States. Not one of them, however, told me he wanted to go the U.S. for freedom or to become an American.

They come here for the money, for the benefits.

With the current prevalence of dual citizenship, promoted by our own State Department, it’s easy to be a citizen of both the U.S. and Mexico, which makes it easier to milk those benefits!

Mexican Racial Stratification

Many Americans are unaware of the racial stratification of Mexican society. There are exceptions, but the richer Mexicans are, the more likely they are to be white, and the poorer they are, the more likely they are to be Indian.

Most Mexicans are mestizos, with both European and Indian ancestors. Even the mestizo majority forms a spectrum, including mestizos who are mostly white with a little Indian at one end, and also those who are Indian with a little white at the other end.

You see Mexico’s racial stratification reflected among Mexican immigrants. Yet we’re not supposed to talk about it.

Happiness

According to the polls I’ve seen, Mexicans are happier on average than Americans. That’s what they tell pollsters. So why bring them all here?

Conclusion… please see the rest of Alan’s column here.

 

Note: Allan Wall resided in Mexico for a decade and a half, where he worked as an English teacher in various schools and at various levels.  Allan was able to meet and associate with Mexicans of various sectors and socioeconomic levels and to travel to different parts of the country.

While in Mexico, Allan married Lilia, a Mexican science teacher .  Allan and Lilia  now have two sons: David, (24) and Raphael (21).

While residing in Mexico, Allan was a member of the Texas Army National Guard,  traveling to Texas for monthly drills.   Allan spent most of 2005 on a tour of duty in Iraq, where he carried out various assignments.

Following the Iraq deployment, he returned to Mexico.

Several years later Allan and his family moved to the United States where they now reside.

 

FAIR Responds to the Wall Street Journal

FAIRus.org

Barely 24 hours after Senate negotiators released their “border security deal,” the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal published an editorial extolling its virtues. The piece, entitled “A Border Security Bill Worth Passing,” not only argues that the Senate should pass the legislation negotiated in secret by a handful of Senators, but that Republicans who vote against it will do so only because they want to preserve an effective election year issue. 

Three days later, most Republicans did vote against the Senate border security deal. While it is impossible to know what was in the minds of each Republican who voted against it, we do know from the whirlwind of media coverage that many did so because they thought it was bad policy.

FAIR agrees:  it is bad policy. Having spent 45 years focusing on nothing but immigration, we know President Biden could end the border crisis simply by enforcing existing immigration laws. But, because the President refuses to do so, we have urged Congress to act. Sadly, the package proposed by the Senate negotiators – and supported by the Wall Street Journal – is not only ineffective, it makes the situation worse.

To illustrate our point, we took the time to review and rebut the Wall Street Journal’s editorial. For those who appreciate a robust public dialogue, here is our response, presented as annotations to the original text.

WSJ:  Do Republicans want to better secure the U.S. border, or do they want to keep what has become an open sore festering for another year as an election issue? That’s the choice presented to Congress this week with the rollout of the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill, and we’ll soon learn what the GOP really wants.

By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. Previous immigration talks have involved trading security measures for legalizing more immigration. There is little of the latter in this bill—nothing for nearly all of the Dreamers who were brought here illegally as children, no general pathway to citizenship or green cards for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S.

FAIR:  The toughest legislation in decades is H.R. 2, which the House passed in May. That did not have any legalization provisions either. Senator Schumer refuses to take up that legislation, but Senate Republicans have already voted in favor of that bill as an amendment to the debt ceiling agreement. Senate Democrats, of course, voted it down.

• The argument that we should pass a bill because it does not have amnesty in it, regardless of whether the provisions on the bill are good for the future of our country, is short-sighted. The ultimate factor in whether Congress passes immigration legislation should be whether it serves the national interest. If it does not, Congress should reject it. That is not to say no compromises can ever be made. But once something is codified into law, it is harder to repeal it than it was to actually pass it. The time to ensure legislation is sound is before it becomes law.
• The Senate bill should be rejected because it will not fix the border crisis. Not only does it fail to stop asylum abuse, it encourages it. It does not end catch-and-release, but instead condones it and does nothing to stop the abuse of humanitarian parole.
• Just to note, there is one amnesty provision in here. The Senate deal does include a pathway to citizenship for tens of thousands of Afghan nationals who were illegally paroled into the United States. We strongly oppose this: (1) because they were illegally paroled into the U.S. and that action should not be ratified by subsequent legalization; (2) multiple government reports detail how these parolees were not adequately vetted; (3) the legislation allows the Secretary to waive crimes committed by these parolees when applying for legalization.

WSJ:  This is almost entirely a border security bill, and its provisions include long-time GOP priorities that the party’s restrictionists could never have passed only a few months ago. Republicans demanded border measures last year as the price for passing military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Pacific allies. Democrats resisted at first but later agreed to negotiate and have made concessions that are infuriating the open-borders left. Will Republicans now abandon what they claimed to want?

FAIR:  Republicans (and FAIR) demanded meaningful policy changes, not money. The Senate bill offers billions in appropriations, but it already did that when it was first introduced last year. Throwing money at the problem will not solve it, and this has been our argument all along.

• This bill does NOT contain meaningful policy changes, and in fact, does more damage. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are still given to CBP and ICE to process and release illegal aliens. For example, over $1.4 billion goes to FEMA’s Shelter and Services programs which funnels that money through nonprofits to provide illegal aliens social services.

WSJ:  The bill’s details are worth describing because they’re crucial to reducing the current incentives for migrants to come to the U.S. border. Most important, the bill rewrites the standard and process for granting asylum in the U.S.

FAIR:  The Senate bill doesn’t re-write the asylum process, it just creates a new one. It dramatically increases the incentive for asylum fraud, encouraging aliens to claim fear in order to be released and obtain a work permit faster. Further, more are likely to claim asylum if they know they may obtain it within days by an asylum officer rather than going before an immigration judge.

WSJ:  Under current law and practice, migrants cross the border, turn themselves in to border patrol agents, and claim asylum. If they pass the deliberately low bar for claiming “credible fear” of persecution, they are given a date for a future asylum hearing and released into the U.S. The wait can take years, and many never show up. This is the policy that has become known as “catch and release.”

FAIR:  The Senate bill actually codifies this practice—except that under the new process, the aliens must be released before they are ever interviewed by an officer.

• Section 3141 of the Senate bill creates a new asylum process called “Provisional Noncustodial Removal Proceedings.” This asylum procedure can apply to virtually anyone who crosses the southern border and claims asylum. The only real limitation is that aliens must be encountered within 14 days of crossing the border and within 100 miles of the border. These are the same requirements for applying expedited removal and generally covers most illegal border crossers.
• Aside from this time and distance requirement, the Secretary of Homeland Security has complete discretion to divert any alien – and every alien – who claims asylum into this new asylum process.
• Once placed into this process, the aliens “shall be released from custody.” DHS has no discretion. Thus, the new asylum process codifies a new catch-and-release process, or what I would call a “claim-and-release” policy.
• Regarding the years-long wait to conduct proceedings, the Senate bill does say that under this new process DHS must conduct initial protection screenings within 90 days after the alien is determined inadmissible. However, that language has a huge caveat: “to the maximum extent practicable.”
  • In government-speak, that means there is no deadline. Given the volume of illegal aliens, the lack of facilities to undergo a screening (as required in the bill), the insufficient number of asylum officers, and the time and money it will take to hire and train enough asylum officers, this deadline will never be met. [It generally takes a full year for USCIS to hire and train an asylum officer and the fail rate is roughly 25%. USCIS will need hundreds of new asylum officers to pull this off.]
  • The authors of the bill know this full-well, which is why they also provide that if DHS does not conduct the initial asylum screening within 90 days, the alien “shall be granted” work authorization. Mandatory release plus work permits equals a massive incentive for asylum abuse.
  • So in reality, this provision codifies mandatory release, but the backlogs continue. It just moves the backlog from the immigration judges, who currently conduct asylum hearings for border crossers, to asylum officers. It turns asylum officers into judges, but the government attorneys are not allowed in to make their case.

WSJ:  The new bill raises the bar for that initial border screening for credible fear to a “reasonable possibility” of persecution. Toughening the asylum standard was a priority of the Trump Administration, but a statutory change is needed to make it permanent. Migrants will have to show they couldn’t have moved elsewhere in their own country to avoid persecution before seeking refuge in the U.S.

FAIR:  The Senate deal does increase the evidentiary standard for credible fear. However, the change in this bill is one grade up and still constitutes less than 50 percent likelihood of success of establishing a valid case on the merits. In contrast, H.R. 2 would have implemented a higher, “more likely than not” standard, which is equal to “preponderance of the evidence.” (See chart below published by USCIS). The change is an improvement, but it’s still a low bar… there is more from FAIR here.

 

 

Representative Mandi Ballinger, Vice Chair

mandi.ballinger@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 656-7153

Representative Rick Jasperse, Secretary

rick.jasperse@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 656-7153

Representative Shaw Blackmon

shaw.blackmon@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 656-5103

Representative James Burchett

james.burchett@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 656-5024

Representative John Carson

john.carson@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 656-7855

Representative James Beverly

james.beverly@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5058

Representative Sharon Cooper

sharon.cooper@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5069

Representative Katie Dempsey

katie.dempsey@house.ga.gov

Office: (404) 463-2248

Representative Karla Drenner
karla.drenner@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-0202

Representative Chuck Efstration
chuck.efstration@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5052

Representative Gerald Greene
gerald.greene@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-9210

Representative Stan Gunter
stan.gunter@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5125

Representative Matt Hatchett
matt.hatchett@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 463-2247

Representative Lee Hawkins
lee.hawkins@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-7855

Representative Bill Hitchens
bill.hitchens@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5126

Representative Scott Holcomb
scott.holcomb@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-6372

Representative Carolyn Hugley
carolyn.hugley@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-0109

Representative Mack Jackson

mack.jackson@house.ga.gov
Office (404) 656-0314

Representative Jan Jones
jan.jones@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5072

Representative David Knight
david.knight@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 463-2248

Representative Eddie Lumsden
eddie.lumsden@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-7850

Representative Chuck Martin
chuck.martin@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5146

Representative Mark Newton
mark.newton@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-7855

Representative Sam Park
sam.park@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5059

Representative Butch Parrish

butch.parrish@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 463-2246

Representative Alan Powell
alan.powell@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 463-3793

Representative Lynn Smith
lynn.smith@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-7149

Representative Ron Stephens
lynn.smith@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5115

Representative Darlene Taylor
darlene.taylor@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 463-2246

Representative Al Williams
al.williams@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-6372

Representative Bruce Williamson
bruce.williamson@house.ga.gov
Office: (404) 656-5025

 

 

Video here (see Feb. 13 – meeting starts at 16:25).

HB 1117 – Law enforcement officers; expand eligibility to serve as a peace officer to United States nationals

House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee

• Hearing transcript by Rev.com My cost: $32.00 and about 1.5 hours of my time. dak

  Rep. Bill Hitchens:

  I bring to you today house bill 1117 LC394010. What this has to do with is post certification of police officers. And, uh, as you look through the bill, uh, you can see, uh, we’ve been offered amendment here, but, uh. You can see on line 14, item two, “The assist international of the United States.” And what, uh, what I’ve got is back in, uh, back in December I got a phone call from the chief of police in Paula, Georgia. He has an individual who’s an American Samoan. And he served four years in the United States Army, deployed to the Middle-East, he’s been a police officer in his jurisdiction for four years now. And, uh, post counsel did a survey and found out there were four American Samoans service as police officers of the state, and they pulled his certification pending action here or they attain U.S. citizenship.

  Now all the other, uh, territories of the United States allow, uh, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, they’re also, uh, uh, territories of the United States. They can be police officers. And I don’t know what the exclusion is here, I’m done a lot of checking around the last couple days. American Samoans are the most patriotic people in the United States of America. They have a higher percentage of people that serve in the U.S. military, uh, and they have, uh, in 2021 there were 20,000 American Samoans in the United States Army. I served in Vietnam in the Marine Corps. I had a Samoan in my unit. They’re very patriotic people and this guy apparently has done a great job in his four years. The chief wants to retain him. He’s put him in an administrative position until something can be done.

  Now, I’ve gone through this in the State Patrol with a boy that, or young man, who was born in Cuba. And, uh, in order to be a State Trooper, you had to be an- a native born American citizen. And since he was born in Cuba, he didn’t qualify. He went to federal court and won, and it’s been a while now, but he’s already retired. So it’s, uh, the guy right now who is the Inspector General for the State of Georgia, he used to work with me in our internal affairs unit. He was a federal policeman in Aus- Australia and immigrated to the United States. He wanted to be a state trooper, but he couldn’t get post certified, so we put him in investigation, which is what he did in Australia. He was there for 11, 12 years since he sought American citizenship, and in fact, he got so high in pay that he didn’t want to take a reduction when he got his citizenship. So now he’s moved on in two or three investigative organizations and state government, and now serves as our, uh, Inspector General.

  So, I think it’s only fair, this guy has served our country. We sent him over to the Middle-East where he could have gotten shot. We can’t hire police officers not in jurisdiction. He wants to do it, uh, this is a very professional organization in Paula. And, uh, he’s apparently done a great job and I just think if there’s any fairness that, uh, he’ll get consideration, along with the other three in the state. I don’t know anything about them, but, I think as a- as a territory, the American Samoans have- have stood up for our country for- for a long time, and they’re very patriotic. And I don’t know why we exclude them.

  Committee Chairman:

  Understood. Uh, you- you have a, uh, before we get too far down the road discussing-

  Rep Hitchens:

  Sure.

  Committee Chairman:

  … your bill. Uh, you have an, uh, an amendment that you want to offer, uh, there, and make… yeah, if you wanna-

  Rep Hitchens:

  And- and what- what we wanna do is scratch through, “or national”, uh, that’s great line 14, “Be a citizen”, and scratch through “or national” and put, “or national of the United States from American Samoa or Swain Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  And- and befo- and- is everyone clear on that?

  Rep Hitchens:

  Sure. Scratch through, “or national”, and insert, “or national of the United States from American Samoa or Swain Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  I want to differ to, uh, lead counsel on that. And that will tight up and make sure that there’s no expansion of- of what the term national means, is that correct?

  Legislative Counsel:

  Yeah, so national [inaudible 00:04:29].

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. My office had been bombarded with phone calls…

  Colonel Hitchens:

  Mine, too.

  Committee Chairman:

  … given- given the state of politics, if you will here, uh, and- and seeing the crisis at the border. I’ve- I’ve had tremendous amount of- of calls, people concerned that we’re just gonna let anyone who is not a national born U.S. citizen, uh, become post certified and enforce the laws of this state.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Right.

  Committee Chairman:

  And nothing can be further from the truth.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Correct.

  Committee Chairman:

  Uh, we wanna make sure and keep this tight and keep it to where, uh, it’s gonna benefit those who are, uh, uh, in need of this legislation. And- and quite frankly, to reward those people who are, uh, just as American as- as- as you and I, Colonel. Is that correct?

  Rep Hitchens:

  That’s correct.

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Uh-

  Rep Hitchens:

  And they are national, uh, national citizens. They are not American citizens, but they are U.S. nationals.

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Um, Representative Evans? Or Representative Fraser, I’m sorry. [inaudible 00:05:29].

  Representative Frasier:

  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Hitchens, so we are doing legislation for a certain group of immigrants?

  Rep Hitchens:

  They are not immigrants.

  Representative Frasier:

  Nationals?

  Rep Hitchens:

  Nationals.

  Representative Frasier:

  U.S. nationals?

  Rep Hitchens:

  That’s correct.

  Representative Frasier:

  But they do not have visas? Or you think-

  Rep Hitchens:

  I don’t think so. ()

  Representative Frasier:

  Okay, so, so now, in this case, we are doing it for four Samoans?

  Rep Hitchens:

  And I think there’d probably be more in the future. It’s only four, it’s a- it’s a small venture, but, uh, you know, I just think that those that have served, uh, aught to have some, uh, aught- aught to be recognized and, uh, allowed to go forwards on what they wanna do with their- with their- with their life. I mean…

  Representative Frasier:

  So, um, I’m just trying to understand this, because this might open up for other nationalities.

  Rep Hitchens:

  No, it- it’s very specific. It says, uh, American Samoan.

  Representative Frasier:

  Yeah, that’s what this one will say.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Right.

  Representative Frasier:

  And- you- it might- you might come back and find out that we also have other nationalities that served in the military that- that we- that you think, or we think, they should also be considered.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Well, the truth is, if they’re in the military right now, they can get expedited U.S. citizenship. Uh, it’s a shame this fella didn’t ask for it while he was in the military, ’cause he could’ve got it.

  Representative Frasier:

  So, my question is, if he’s already a police officer, how did he get that status?

  Rep Hitchens:

  Apparently nobody checked his record when he applied. Uh, I’m sure there are very few people, uh, our, uh, representative down here was the head of post counsel for years, and I’ve talked to him about this. And, uh, I don’t think they would’ve- anybody recognized that there was any different status for them because they are a residence of the territories of the United States.

  Representative Frasier:

  So, actually we might have many, many more since they weren’t recognized.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Not Samoans. Well, we could have a few more Samoans, but if- if they’re at another- if they’re from another country, and they served in our U.S. military, they can get expedited U.S. citizenship. For service.

  Representative Frasier:

  And would they fall under this?

  Rep Hitchens:

  No.

  Representative Frasier:

  Okay. So it’s just for these four people that you know?

  Rep Hitchens:

  And anybody that, uh, comes along afterwards that’s happens to be… he’s- he was stationed in the 3rd Infantry Division down at Fort Steward. I don’t know whether he got married, but when he got out he decided to reside there and stay.

  Representative Frasier:

  Uh, one final question, uh, Mr. Chairman.

  Committee Chairman:

  Go ahead. Go ahead.

  Representative Frasier:

  So, Colonel Hitchens, since these four men were, um, pretty much overlooked, um, so what- what do we have in place now to make sure that the ones that’s following him are being screened properly.

  Rep Hitchens:

  I’m sure they’re being screened now. this is, uh, this- once they discover this I’m sure that anybody that applies for post certification now will be identified.

  Representative Frasier:

  Okay, you said you’re sure?

  Rep Hitchens:

  I’m positive.

  Representative Frasier:

  But there’s- okay. Thank you.

  Colonel Hitchens:

  I never knew this existed. I’ve been state law enforcement for 43 years.

  Committee Chairman:

  Well, I’ll just tell you, to a new- renew a professional license in this state, uh, you have to do every but give DNA.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Right.

  Committee Chairman:

  Uh, I can attest to that. Let’s see, what will I go to? Representative Neil.

  Representative Neil:

  Yes, thank you to the Chair. Thank you for the bill, uh, of which I’m a signer. And I just had a thought and if anyone’s open to it, I think this could help the cause and the bills, um, it- but it- but to address, um, Representative Fraser’s point. I wonder if changing the terminology to match and cover all the U.S. territories that we can have people come from that include Puerto Rico, what-have-you. So, if they would- if we were to adjust anything to say U.S. territories that would the five, uh, territories, um, of the United States that you came from. Uh, territory covers Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

  Rep Hitchens:

  The- as- as I already said, they’re all eligible already. I don’t know what the difficulty is about American Samoa. Uh, we have a lot of Puerto Rican and, uh…

  Representative Neil:

  Right.

  Rep Hitchens:

  … I don’t know so many from Virgin Islands, but, they’re already- they’re already eligible to become post certified.

  Committee Chairman:

  Right, right.

  Representative Neil:

  So people from Guam- from Guam…

  Rep Hitchens:

  Guam.

  Representative Neil:

  Marianna Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We just left out American Samoa for somewhere.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Right. For reasons unbeknown to me, or apparently anybody else that I’ve talked to.

  Representative Neil:

  Okay.

  Committee Chairman:

  All right. Uh, number 18, Representative Evans.

  Representative Evans:

  Thank you. I guess that was- that was really a part of my question is that was there any need to- to be more specific about these other U.S. territories. Is there any harm in mentioning the other U.S. territories?

  Rep Hitchens:

  I don’t think so. Uh, when we- when we, uh, constructed the bill, we just thought it would be easier just to say, uh, [inaudible 00:10:36] in one word. And, uh, but I- I had no, uh, idea that this would devolve into controversy. I think it would be a simple bill that, uh, [inaudible 00:10:45].

  Committee Chairman:

  It’s- it’s the board from Chair that there is no sense in adding those, because they’re already eligible, they’re already eligible.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Right.

  Representative Evans:

  Okay.

  Committee Chairman:

  So we won’t invest this specific issue [inaudible 00:10:56], keep the docket clean. Any other, uh, discussion at this time?

  Terry Norris, you’re hear the Sheriff’s Association, do you have anything you wanna weigh in on this bill?

  Terry Norris (offf mic):

  Uh, it might not make much sense to us [inaudible 00:11:09]. Years ago, we had a conversation with the Sheriff, not about American Samoans, about- but about others in the country legally, excuse me, illegal, uh, from out of the country, but working here legally, uh, [inaudible 00:11:35].

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Representative Neil?

  Representative Neil:

  Uh, at the appropriate time.

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Uh, there’s been motion to, uh, do pass. Uh, HP11, uh, 11- 111 second, excuse me. LC394010. There’s been a, uh, motion to second. All those in favor, please say aye.

  Representative Neil:

  Aye.

  Committee Chairman:

  All those opposed, like sign. Oh, excuse me. I’m sorry. Let’s back up just a second there. I kind of get ahead of myself. So, motion do pass in a second. We also have [inaudible 00:12:15]. Anyone want to? Representative Lyle.

  Representative Lyle:

  Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like to, uh, do the amendment, uh, per the author of the bill LC394010, [inaudible 00:12:32] 1117, on line 14. Scratch through “or national”, and insert… I should, you know, actually back up one moment on that. On line 14, I think it would be to just add “a” after the word “or”, and just make it “or a national”. It would read, “Of the United States”, following the word “states” put “from American Samoa or Swains Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. I’ll differ to Legislative Counsel. Is that going to be-

  Legislative Counsel:

  [inaudible 00:13:19] I thought we were putting, “or national “or national of the United States from American Samoa or Swain Island.” And after United States [inaudible 00:13:29].

  Committee Chairman:

  Do you wanna repeat that, Representative Lyle for Leg. Counsel?

  Representative Lyle:

  Okay. So, we can do that either way for leg. Counsel’s purpose. Do you have a preference?

  Legislative Counsel:

  [inaudible 00:13:44].

  Representative Lyle:

  Add “or”… okay.

  Legislative Counsel:

  [inaudible 00:13:57].

  Representative Lyle:

  All right. Yes, ma’am. We’ll do it- let’s do it that way. Line 14, scratch through “or national” and then, following the words “United States” add, “or a national from American Samoa or Swains Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Is there a second to that motion?

  Speaker 10:

  Yes, Mr Chairman. I’m sorry. I have written down, “or a national of the United States from American Samoa or Swains Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  I’ll just differ that to Leg. Counsel, ’cause we’re starting to split hair.

  Legislative Counsel:

  Yeah, that’s it. We can see it.

  Speaker 10:

  But she- but- yeah, it’s last time PSA, it’s-

  Legislative Counsel:

  Yes, yes, yes. No, and you’re right, I did not say it because, originally I wasn’t sure why we were repeating all of that. My fault. ()

  Committee Chairman:

  You wanna restate- you wanna restate your-

  Legislative Counsel:

  Let’s restate this. Um, “be a citizen” and then we will scratch through the “or a national”. It will read, “be a citizen of the United States”. Then following the word “States”, we will add, “or a national of the United States from American Samoa or Swains Island.”

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Is that clear?

  Speaker 10:

  Yes.

  Committee Chairman:

  Okay. Is there a second to that? Okay, all those in favor on adding that, uh, amendment to the bill, please signify by saying aye.

  Legislative Counsel:

  Aye.

  Representative Neil:

  Aye.

  Committee Chairman:

  All those opposed, like sign. Okay. Then amendment is on.

  Okay, now. All those in favor of, uh, the passage of the bill, uh, as amended please say aye.

  Representative Neil:

  Aye.

  Committee Chairman:

  All those oplo- opposed, please say no. Okay. The amended bill passes.

  Rep Hitchens:

  Thank you.

  Committee Chairman:

  Thank you.