I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution—John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementSo who died and made John Morton King?
Under the presidency of Barry Hussein Soetoro the United States of America has officially become a lawless Nation. When John Morton assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can openly and without any fear of reprisal or retribution pick and chose laws that he doesn’t like and then chose to disregard a validly implemented law, that act is the essence of lawlessness. (see article)
So do we now live in a country where anyone in the United States can chose to disregard a law with which they disagree, like the 40 million illegal aliens who illegally inhibit the United States. Or is that right reserved just for the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration?
Charles Krauthammer calls the notion that the Soetoro administration can simply disregard a law which it disagrees with and then work directly against it lawlessness (see 1:35min video)
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today appeared on America Live with Megyn Kelly to express his view that if director of ICE John Morton cannot enforce the immigration law, then he should not have the job. (see 6:21min video)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform means Barry Hussein Soetoro intends Amnesty for 40 million illegal Mexican Citizens. It means that Barry Hussein Soetoro intends to change U.S. law in order to appease the illegal Mexican population in the United States and the Mexican Government.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform means that the illegals who voted in the 2008 election will do it again in 2012 but this time as sham citizens of an usurper president.
All to the detriment of U.S. citizens.
Alaphiah, the situation on the border is very complex. For one thing, not all illegal aliens are Mexicans. There's a mass migration from other Latin American countries into Mexico via their southern border, most of them with the eventual goal of reaching the United States. So there are Panamanians, Colombians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Guatemalans and Argentinians in the mix.
ReplyDelete(In other parts of the country, the problem can be illegal Russian, Polish and even Muslim immigrants. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally.)
When the illegals walk across the border they're carrying most of their worldly possessions with them. Then they have to hide out for awhile in the desert, using the fragile ecosystem as an enormous outdoor toilet, until the people who smuggle illegal immigrants (called "coyotes") come to pick them up.
The coyotes' transport is usually limited and they pack these people in like sardines, so they have to dump everything. Many coyotes also bring a change of clothing for those who are obviously not dressed like Americans. The result is the abandonment of thousands of water containers, articles of clothing and backpacks in wilderness areas. (The backpacks often contain IDs and other personal documents, showing that they're from Panama, etc.) Of course enormous amounts of human excrement, filthy toilet paper and soiled diapers are also left behind.
If it was happening on Cape Cod, it would be all over every news broadcast on every channel. But it's happening in a remote wilderness area that no liberal Democrat ever has to see.
Mr. Davis thank you for your comment, however I see this as a relatively simplistic problem that has been made complex for political purposes.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I don't disagree with any of your statements of fact.
My view is we have been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective. Illegal entry into this country is a continuing criminal enterprise supported by the Mexican government, the U.S. government and International Globalists who control both.
In my opinion it is evident that this is a blatant attempt to drive down U.S. wages and standard of living in order to bring U.S. workers inline with the rest of the world’s workers.
In my opinion this is a problem of Nationalism. Does America wish to continue to be exceptional, a place that is a nation of laws, freedoms, industrial growth and patriotic pride?
Or do we accept the president’s vision for America, a vision in which we can no longer eat what we want, drive the cars that we want or air condition our homes as we like.
Mr. Davis it doesn’t really matter which countries the illegal entry into this country derives from.
What does matter is that political elitists in this country have defined America as a nation not define by it's borders.
The bottom line is if American is not preserved as a constitutional republic then you and I no longer control our destinies to the extent that is humanly possible.
Therefore the situation at the border is not complex. Close it!
What is complex is the situation in Mexico. What is complex are the forces in America that use the border for covert political means. Let's talk about those issues sir.
My warmest regards,
Al
There are a lot more complexities that I didn't even discuss, Al. And closing the border is just the starting point of a very long process that's needed to fully resolve these complexities. For example, if a guy has been living here for 20 years, he's been paying his taxes, he's never been arrested and is not known in police intel reports as a drug dealer or gang member, he has $100,000 of equity in a house, and he has three children who are all US citizens, do we just kick him out?
ReplyDeleteThose are the type of people we need if we're going to continue growing as a nation. I realize they're definitely not all like that. There are a lot of criminals. And there are a lot of very law-abiding people who have only been here a few years, shacked up in nasty little apartments and mobile homes, and even though they aren't doing drugs or getting involed in gangs, they haven't made a huge investment of their lives here.
From a left-wing perspective, why would anyone in his right mind want to open the borders or grant a blanket amnesty to all illegals? That's crazy. They'd get millions of new voters, but is it really worth it from a left-wing perspective? It will play right into the hands of "capitalist pigs" who only want to keep the average wage low for working families.
If left-wingers truly believed in the working man and were generally concerned for the welfare of working families, that's what they'd be saying, Al. They'd be saying that amnesty on a large scale plays right into the hands of the capitalists and we want to part of it.
But you see, they really aren't concerned with the plight of the working man. They're only interested in winning elections. Nothing serves them better than keeping wages low, with larger numbers of people struggling more to make ends meet and pay the rent.
But back to that guy who's been here for 20 years and paid a lot of dues. I think amnesty for a guy like that isn't such a bad idea. The vast majority of illegals, though, should just be deported. Either they're drug dealers or gang members or child molesters or some other type of serious felon, or they just don't have the deep ties and 10+ years of hard-working investment in America that would justify amnesty.
It all starts, though, with sealing the border. And I mean airtight. Without that, everything else we do doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Kind regards -- Jim
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWe are not that far apart in our thinking on this matter. However my question to you is this are we a nation of laws or not? If not, your scenario can be played out in this fashion; twenty years ago a citizen robs a bank of half a million dollars. But since then he’s been on the straight and narrow goes to work every day pays his taxes and raises a family and opens a business and is a contributing member of our society.
When it is found out that he robbed a bank we then ask the question should he be taken away from his family and business after 20 years of a good productive life? No we don’t ask that question, we know he goes to jail!
You see Jim complexities are inevitable when one first sets out to purposely violate a law. But more importantly there are also consequences.
The consequences for breaking law is that one could possibility lose everything.
I my opinion the answer to your hypothetical is yes we kick him out. That is the consequence for hypothetical person’s actions in your scenario.
Just as the millions of U.S. citizens throughout the history of this country who have violated only one law but lost everything as a consequence of their actions.
To allow these violators of immigration law to go free is an affront to every American that made a mistake and had to pay dearly for it.
It is even an insult to those who willfully broke the law and had to pay for it. Take for instance Marie Walsh aka Susan Lefevre wife and mother eluded the law for 32 years for escaping a Detroit prison in 1976. She was sentenced in 1975 to 10 to 20 years in prison for conspiracy and violation of drug laws, she escaped.
Since then, she was married, raised three children and lived for years as a law abiding citizen. The family was even frequent donors to the Boys and Girls Club.
When Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit received an anonymous tip that Lefevre might be in California, living as Marie Walsh leading a normal life in a nice house in an affluent neighborhood Walsh/Lefevre was captured booked into jail and extradited to Michigan to serve the rest of her sentence.
As for the children of Illegal Aliens in my opinion they are fruit of ill gotten gain. In other words we wouldn’t think for a minute to let Charles Manson or John Gardner, a murderer rapist profit from their crimes so why would we confer citizenship on children of violators of federal law.
Everyone knows that the 14th amendment of the Constitution was not meant to confer citizenship on the children of Mexican Nationals like a get out of jail free card.
We are either a nation of laws or we are not. If we are not then stop pretending that things are so complex just do what you what to do. As a matter of fact let’s all just do what we want.
Your scenario presents a bit of anarchy and if anarchy is good for some then it should be good for all of us.
Regards--Al