You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
They Are Vital To our Economy...Not
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Quote from jet:
But, once we're all in the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" mood, what do you suggest that we do to resolve the problem of this ongoing exploitation?
Don't be afraid to pass it around.
Inhumane exploitation is just one small facet to the entire immigration nightmare.
The American middle-class won't survive unless a manned wall is put up, pronto. Middle class Americans should be seething.
Honestly. Look at us. We've degenerated into these simpering little cowards who actually think they're 'free thinkers', that we now willingly silence our vehement opposition so we can get head strokes from leadership. We are domesticated little fools.
What do we do?
1) Get serious about the border.
Shut it down; erect a massive, continent spanning wall that includes a parallel moat, ground thumpers (ground penetrating radar) and prepositioned infrared cameras.
We're living in the 21st century with surveillance technology that can read a dimes inscription from outer space and radar that can see through walls, but we've got border agents armed with nothing more than binoculars and a truck.
Wanna know why??
Staff that wall with adequate agents.
2) Enact legislation that holds employers responsible for hiring illegals -- and enforce it!
Fine their asses, big time. $30,000 for every illegal employed.
Watch the market for illegal labor dry up in a month.
3) Issue ongoing marching orders to law enforcement to round up and deport every illegal they find once the wall is erected.
4) Hold a national referendum for guest workers with annual quotas.
Let Americans decide the fate of their country. Not the congressional whores and their plutocratic masters.
If Americans want X numbers of guest workers per year, so be it.
If Americans don't want X number of guest workers per year, so be it.
The cost?
Insignificant. We can afford to piss away trillions in Iraq but can't afford a measly 50 or 60 billion to secure our own backyard in a time of war? BS.
Quote from sulong:
You could be put in prison for a long time as a traitor for doing this.
Treason is the act of:
1. levying war against the United States, or;
2. adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, by one who owes it allegiance.
None of the elements of either #1 or #2 are present in Achilles post. Therefore, he cannot be charged with treason.
But do I really need to live in Southern California to know what is going on? The people in Washington need to live there for a while, but I donât. There are plenty of Hispanic residents who are appalled as I am about kids encouraged to walk out of American public schools to wave Mexican flags and chant Leftist slogans. I know they donât represent many Mexican immigrants in America, but their numbers are alarming, and it will take more than a federal government building border walls, or pressuring the Mexican government, or whatever.Quote from kjkent1:
You want to place the blame for our failed immigration policy on the liberals and you call my analysis pure nonsense. Well, I just heard Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, an extremely conservative republican, state unequivocally on the Senate floor today, that every President and Congress, including the conservative icon Ronald Reagan, is responsible for the present failed immigration policy.
The blunt fact is that while Congress has made laws and allocated money for immigration enforcement, even in 1986 when Reagan's amnesty bill was passed, NONE of the Presidential administrations since, ever actually appropriated money to enforce the laws, and none of those administrations enforced the laws themselves.
Sessions went on to state that this new proposed bill is a joke and that it is nothing more than a new amnesty law with no teeth and no likelihood whatsoever of actually changing anything.
So, if you're asking me whose version of reality has more credibility, Senator Sessions or yours, then I pick Jeff Sessions.
You really need to spend some serious time in Mexico and San Diego or some other border towns, to get a feel for what's really going on here, because you are not seeing the reality of the situation. And, before you ask, I lived in Southern California for 42 years, and I had already visited Tijuana, Mexico City and Acapulco by my 14th birthday, so I have considerable personal experience with the way that this whole operation works.
The Mexican authorities use the U.S. as a relief valve for their malcontents, and the U.S. has permitted it, due to a combination of (1) bleeding heart liberals who want to keep America as the melting pot of the world, and who think that we can somehow help the Mexican refugees by providing them with a safe harbor, and (2) businessperson conservatives who look at cheap labor as a means to their own maintenance of power and profit. That is the whole cha cha. Everything else is a smokescreen.
Don't be suckered into believing that this is all about some liberal conspiracy, because it ain't.
I agree with what you said about Mexico. Iâm only saying Mexico wonât change. And I will accept that both governments are scratching each otherâs backs. And everyone knows the Feds have been slacking on the borders for the longest time.
But when you have a federal judge striking down a landmark state-level voter initiative designed to discourage stampedes of illegal squatters, and when you have an educational culture that encourages bilingualism, whatever immigration policy Congress comes up with doesnât matter.
You can have the feds build a wall 30 feet high and down to bedrock from the Pacific to the Gulf Coast âor put the screws on Fox --It just doesnât matter because the problem is the âcultureâ of our legal and educational institutions that influence the power of states rights and how children of immigrants think, respectively.
Quote from Sam123:
It just doesn't�t matter because the problem is the �culture� of our legal and educational institutions that influence the power of states rights and how children of immigrants think, respectively.
A sympathetic legal culture is rendered meaningless when Congress unequivocally criminalizes illegal immigration.
At that point, softball judges will become the criminals if they fail to enforce duly enacted law passed by Congress.
This is not a grey area problem. And if it is, Congress has - and always will have - the power to make it black and white.
Lets not muddy the waters here.
And all the 'positive vibes' from an illegal-friendly academia and judiciary aren't going to spring Padro past a 30ft wall staffed with guards and infrared equipment.
Its a physical certainty.
Quote from achilles28:
A sympathetic legal culture is rendered meaningless when Congress unequivocally criminalizes illegal immigration.
At that point, softball judges will become the criminals if they fail to enforce duly enacted law passed by Congress.
This is not a grey area problem. And if it is, Congress has - and always will have - the power to make it black and white.
Lets not muddy the waters here.
And all the 'positive vibes' from an illegal-friendly academia and judiciary aren't going to spring Padro past a 30ft wall staffed with guards and infrared equipment.
Its a physical certainty.
Something that both you and Sam should know about the law. The federal government doesn't need to criminalize illegal immigration, and no voter initiative is needed to remove the various carrots from the hands (or mouths) of the illegals.
Under well-established existing legal precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, a person crossing a U.S. Border is not entitled to the 4th Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy required for a search or seizure. That is, border officials can stop/seize and search anyone (citizen or visitor) for any reason, without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, because, as the USSC puts it, the power of the federal government to protect the nation "is at its zenith at the border."
Persons crossing the border have no "right" to pass, unless and until the federal government is satisfied that they do not pose a danger to the sovereignty of the United States.
The above right to search and seize does not apply to State law enforcement officers nor does it apply once a person is reasonably considered to have reached the interior of the U.S. By interior, I mean that the person no longer reasonably appears to be crossing the border, so a person found wandering across the southern Arizona desert even though he/she may be 50 miles over the border, is still reasonably attempting to cross the border -- as is a person who has just crossed the border and is 60 miles up I-5 in California at Camp Pendelton, where he/she is stopped by the INS on the freeway and questioned about his/her identity and purpose for being in the U.S.
The point of my raising all this is to show that this really is all about what the Chief Executive wants to do in so far as enforcing immigration laws are concerned, and it has little if anything to do with friendly judges, academics, legislators, or anyone else.
All the power to close the borders to illegal immigration is already available to the President, based on existing Constitutional precedent (and has been available forever), without any input from Congress or anyone else, and the only reason that our borders remain porous is because the President simply refuses to enforce the physical boundaries of our nation.
I'm not picking sides, either. The last time that a President took any substantial steps to enforce our southern boundary and limit passage in any meaningful way was 11th President, James K. Polk (Democrat), under whose presidency, "the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war and gave the U.S undisputed control of Texas as well as California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received $18,250,000, the equivalent of $627,500,000 in mid-2000s dollars." -- Wikipedia, "Mexican-American War."
Since that time, Mexicans have been crossing the border mostly at their leisure in the same manner as they were doing before the Treaty was signed, and their migratory habits have now created a situation where the sovereignty of the U.S. is threatened, because there are enough Mexican nationals in the Southwestern U.S. to seriously raise the specter of another Mexican-American war.
In the final analysis, land belongs to the person who can adversely possess it by hostile, open, actual and continuous use. The current protests by Mexican immigrants, complete with Mexican flags suggest that there is a growing and substantial minority of persons who view California as belonging to Mexico again, because those people are in adverse possession of California land and resources.
Meanwhile, our President Bush plays patty cake with Vincente Fox of Mexico and acts like a guest worker program will solve the problem.
We don't need any more legislation. We just need a President who will enforce the borders. Once the border is completely shut to illegal immigration, we can try to figure out how we will deal with those who are already in the U.S. illegally, but who have established a substantial presence (job, home, family, etc.), such that it would not be fair or just that they be forced to leave.
Don't point the finger at anyone other than the person in the White House, because that is the person who is responsible for protecting the Sovereignty of the United States. Congress can declare war and allocate funds, but only the President can order the military to act.
And, our Presidents all simply refuse to do it.
Quote from kjkent1:
...because, as the USSC puts it, the power of the federal government to protect the nation "is at its zenith at the border."...
It's interesting, at least to me, to consider how this kind of thinking really steers our policy in such an ignorant manner. There's no ecological understanding in it. It's "thing" thinking, like America is a fixed entity. America is a whirlpool of matter and ideas, and has no real boundary. The real zenith of power, that is, where we should place our "lever", is highly likely to be somewhere else than that expanse of sand and cacti.
Quote from Ricter:
It's interesting, at least to me, to consider how this kind of thinking really steers our policy in such an ignorant manner. There's no ecological understanding in it. It's "thing" thinking, like America is a fixed entity. America is a whirlpool of matter and ideas, and has no real boundary. The real zenith of power, that is, where we should place our "lever", is highly likely to be somewhere else than that expanse of sand and cacti.
What exactly do you propose as a solution to the current situation?