Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now we have a huge population well established and self sustaining. There is no way that we can successfully deport those people.
Yes, we can.
In addition to all of our police agencies, we have a million-man military.
We arrest and jail hundreds of thousands of people a year just with our police.
Add the military, and we can arrest millions.
The ones we can't deport right away we can put in camps where illegals are required to support themselves by digging their own wells, building their own shelter, growing their own crops, etc.
We can also militarize the border and all the ports of entry.
We can make employer use of E-Verify mandatory so that jobs for illegals dry up, and institute a biometric national identity card to prevent identity theft, voter fraud and welfare fraud by illegals.
We can eliminate all legal defenses to deportation of illegals.
We can mandate cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration law enforcement.
We can stop pretending that the 14th amendment, which enfranchised former slaves, gives automatic citizenship to anchor babies.
We can stop pretending that the founding fathers intended to have a nation with no effective borders and no true sovereignty.
We can reform legal immigration so that the only people allowed to immigrate here have the resources to benefit Americans instead of being a burden to Americans. That would sharply reduce legal immigration, which we should do anyway in order to offset the overpopulation caused by illegal immigration.
There is a lot we can do that we aren't doing, because Democrats want lots of new voters and big business (Chamber of Commerce Republicans) wants cheap labor.
Only on paper. And they sent a large number of native born Americans to Mexico because they spoke Spanish.
There is however little doubt that Reagan and those who followed him could easily have put a stop to the problem. But the problem had always been sponsored by various US business interests who successfully prevented any real action to stop crossing the border. Texans particularly liked it the way it was.
Now we have a huge population well established and self sustaining. There is no way that we can successfully deport those people.
And the thought that what is now a well established group will self deport is simply the fairy tale of the antis. In practice what we are doing is establishing and strengthening the off the books economy. And that is really dumb. And I expect it is fixable only by such draconian things as banning cash.
"There is no way that we can successfully deport those people."
I find this type of thinking mind boggling.
We beat the best army in the world and won our independence from Briton.
We defeated Germany in WW I
We defeated Germany again in WW II
We defeated Japan in WW II AFTER the Japanese destroyed our Navy ships.
We can send a man to the moon, the FIRST country in history to do so.
We can overcome the worst natural disaster in or history, Katrina.
We can overcome the devastation after the twin towers were attacked.
We created the greatest county in history through guts and perseverance. like the Pioneers showed,
And MORE.
The gov't has TOLD us there are 12 million illegals here. They know the number so they must know how to count them and some say, "There is no way that we can successfully deport those people."
Why NOT?
The defeatest attitude shown today would turn ancesters turn over in their graves.
Here is ONE of the problems. "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" They are NOT "IMMIGRANTS" and they are NOT "CITIZENS".
They are ILLEGAL ALIENS. To call then anything other then what they ARE shows a defeatist attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
First off there is no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant" and no, illegal aliens are not citizens. Are you for real?
This is the slippery slope that Obama's change of terminology produces, according to his plan: Change the terminology, change the mindset, gain the agenda. That is evident in whatever he does, as in refusing to call Islamic terrorists what they are. I can clearly recall the pronouncement that illegals were no longer to be called illegal ('because they are not that') but "undocumented immigrants."
He's very goal-oriented regardless of what the people want and regardless of what the law says.
We can stop pretending that the 14th amendment, which enfranchised former slaves, gives automatic citizenship to anchor babies.
Exactly correct. The 14th Amendment was only intended to bestow citizenship on U.S.-born individuals who did not owe allegiance to any other sovereign/country:
1) The 14th Amendment and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
WKA decision:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the courtupon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
For political reasons, the 14th Amendment has been bastardized since then, but such bastardization was never an actual Constitutional Amendment.
In addition to all of our police agencies, we have a million-man military.
We arrest and jail hundreds of thousands of people a year just with our police.
Add the military, and we can arrest millions.
The ones we can't deport right away we can put in camps where illegals are required to support themselves by digging their own wells, building their own shelter, growing their own crops, etc.
We can also militarize the border and all the ports of entry.
We can make employer use of E-Verify mandatory so that jobs for illegals dry up, and institute a biometric national identity card to prevent identity theft, voter fraud and welfare fraud by illegals.
We can eliminate all legal defenses to deportation of illegals.
We can mandate cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration law enforcement.
We can stop pretending that the 14th amendment, which enfranchised former slaves, gives automatic citizenship to anchor babies.
We can stop pretending that the founding fathers intended to have a nation with no effective borders and no true sovereignty.
We can reform legal immigration so that the only people allowed to immigrate here have the resources to benefit Americans instead of being a burden to Americans. That would sharply reduce legal immigration, which we should do anyway in order to offset the overpopulation caused by illegal immigration.
There is a lot we can do that we aren't doing, because Democrats want lots of new voters and big business (Chamber of Commerce Republicans) wants cheap labor.
No one cares what the American people want.
I do not think we can use the military for law enforcement. The reason you see USCG units on Navy ships for drug interdiction.
The spectre of mass roundups ala you know who in the 1930s and the resulting poor press worldwide is what I think both parties are trying to avoid.
I do not think we can use the military for law enforcement. The reason you see USCG units on Navy ships for drug interdiction.
The spectre of mass roundups ala you know who in the 1930s and the resulting poor press worldwide is what I think both parties are trying to avoid.
Yeah, better to see our country destroyed. There is no comparison to rounding up illegal invaders and deporting them vs. what Hitler did. I think most intelligent people in the world would be able to decipher the difference in these modern days and times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no comparison to rounding up illegal invaders and deporting them vs. what Hitler did. I think most intelligent people in the world would be able to decipher the difference in these modern days and times.
