Brett, I began working on the political angle of the immigration issue in the 1970s. By the time I met Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr, I had a few years of experience under my belt; however, I will always think of him as my mentor because he pushed me so hard to think and research. In 1986 Mohr did an article for Newswatch Magazine. According to the article, the government estimates were that we had 10 MILLION undocumented foreigners in America and another 2 MILLION entering annually. IF we allowed the Secure the border lobby to use fear mongering (and we did that in 1986) we'd have to have, at a minimum, 30 MILLION undocumented foreigners in America (I'm allowing for having ten million dying over the last thirty years.) We're just about at the same point we were thirty years ago! What we have are roughly the same numbers. It would appear that although those people are undocumented, it does not translate into you - or anyone else proving any differently: immigration is being regulated without government intervention. Unlike some countries that allow people to have shanty towns, most places in America do not allow such. Dude, where I live at, you can't even buy a plot of land and a mobile home. No sir. Mobile homes are not good enough for the people around here. Thinking about starting a shanty town? Our cops throw people in jail for "urban camping." The truth be known, if you'd kick some of these worthless, Socialist Card Carrying, National ID Card owning, welfare riding parasites out of their government housing and told them to get a freaking job, we might have a shanty town or two. Of course, those shanty towns would be predominantly white. The bulk of the people that come to the U.S. are here to work jobs and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. The few U.S. towns that are over-run by hordes of foreigners where the posterity of our founding fathers have been driven off would cease to exist if we got the federal government out of the business of taking our money and distributing it to the states. The Constitution only applies to general welfare, NOT where the federal government guarantees individual welfare. The biggest problem in America is the federal government's incessant assault on the founding principles that made us great and their assault against the traditional family. You know, a former slave once observed: “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” Frederick Douglass Those who refuse to acknowledge that Liberty is an unalienable Right are doomed to keep seeing legislation like the so called "Patriot Act" and National ID / REAL ID Act be used more times against the posterity of the founding fathers than any so - called "illegal aliens." You will continue to see Constitution Free Zones and assaults against the Fourth Amendment. Where foreigners work and live is of no concern to me. What we need is a system where the government rewards those employers that hire American workers and pay them a decent wage. IF employers discriminate against American workers, we have laws to deal with them (civil rights laws, for example.) Why aren't we out there seeing who did not get a job because an employer hires only blacks, Mexicans or some other race, culture, religious persuasion? The only people the government gives two hoots in Hades about is white employers that do not hire enough blacks, Mexicans, gays, women and / or atheists. Then, and only then, will the feds bring down the wrath of God (or maybe Satan in their case) to deal with unruly subjects. Put the Americans back to work, get the feds out of the welfare business and watch the foreigners self deport. There is no excuse to build up a corrupt federal government just so they can do a terrible job even worse.
You are dealing with the symptom and not the cause. The main reason illegals come here is for work, take that reason away and few would come here. To do tat you arrest, fine and put into prison if needed those that hire illegals, make a few examples and you would be surprised by how few illegals would be coming here. Ever wonder why no politicians do not push for this, it should concern you and all Americans.
While I agree to a certain extent, your solution was pre-planned by National Socialists. Every employer owns the job he or she creates. Private ownership is one of the fundamental hallmarks of our Republic. In a lawful (de jure) Republic, one need not be a citizen in order to accept a job willingly offered. OTOH, the Democrats were kind enough to leave you with the Civil Rights laws so that employers cannot "discriminate." So, you could fight back by challenging employers that hire predominantly non-American workers. That is not much of a solution. Calling people "illegals" shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about American civics. We are a nation of innocent until proven guilty / presumption of innocence. Until a person has been arrested, booked, jailed, brought to trial and found guilty, they are not an "illegal" anything. The biggest reason true Republicans don't rally to the cause of imprisoning employers is due to the simple fact that if you take out the job creators, you take out the government's ability to raise revenues (extract part of the employer's efforts aka taxes.) Killing the goose that lays the golden egg and waging a war on an employer's Right to give their jobs to whom they please is not a well thought out strategy. The foreigners come here because jobs are willingly offered. Foreigners will work for less. You could work for less also IF over half of your wages weren't going down the toilet in the form of taxes. Reduce the size power and scope of government; give strong economic incentives to employers that pay decent wages and give preference to American workers; force Americans off the welfare dole; get the federal government out of the welfare business. "Problem" solved.
You demonstrate nothing more than an inability to grasp the DoI and the word liberty, you conflate it to mean more than what it actually means. We never extended the privileges of citizenship to guests? All a white immigrant had to do from the founding of the US was go to the local magistrate and declare that they want to become a citizen, it would then be logged and after so many years they would then become a citizen. It was the same from 1606 up to and beyond the founding of the US There were Treaties between countries, i.e. the Treaty of Tietsen and the Burlingame Treaty between the US and China that did not allow for their citizens to become citizens of said other country. You don't seem to have a grasp on the actual history of the US, its like your claim that the CBO states illegals are a benefit, when in fact the CBO states quite the opposite. Your intellectual dishonesty will be outed and displayed as a trophy by me.
One needs authorization to work before one can accept a job, unless that job is offered off the books or paid in cash. An illegal immigrant (EWI or Visa Overstay with Order of Deportation against them) has very few USC protections. They fall only under the 5th and 6th Due Process Clauses and the 14th Equal Protection Clause, nothing more. They have very few rights as well. A person who is caught entering the US without documentation is an illegal immigrant, your intellect denies reality. Large business hires via their Human Resources Department, employees are not handled by owners or employers. Big business has no desire to hire people illegally due to the costs involved if caught. Under Bush the HR persons were the ones fined and jailed due to there exploiting their own. Most foreigners come here because they can make in 1 day what it would take them a week or more to make back home.
And your point? The foreigner is here because they can make more money than at home. The employer hires them because they produce more for a cheaper price. The way you remedy the situation is to grant a Guest Worker status with NO automatic path to citizenship. Then you give employers their choice. If the employer hires an all American work force, they get substantial tax incentives. If not, the employer gets taxed at a higher rate to offset society's costs for hosting the employer's choices. Building a bigger and more intrusive government that cannot be resisted in the future is not an answer to the liberal proposition that America can be the dumping grounds for every race, creed, color, religion and political persuasion on the earth. OTOH, denying to anyone their God given Right to Liberty is not something that will elevate our position on this earth.
A "right" by its very nature is limiting. Employers are regulated, and members of our society have the "right" to that job more than a foreigner does. illegal infringements on foreigners? The illegal immigrant can be infringed all we want to infringe. Congress has authority over immigration, immigrants fall under administrative law unless they commit a capital or infamous crime, to which they then are tried under civil law. Once their punishment for the capital or infamous crime is complete, they then get transferred to administrative law and are either deported or held for immigration violations and then are supposed to be deported unless an IJ or the AG decides to allow them to remain here under PRUCOL status. Huh? Who should have challenged what? They produce more for a cheaper price? That's called an assumption. If they are legal employees what society costs would there be? All the business would then do is increase the cost of the product to cover the added tax. Liberty doesn't equate to free movement from one society to another. Again, you don't seem to comprehend the word Liberty and its usage in our founding documents.
No sir, YOU don't have a freaking clue as to what Liberty meant to the founding fathers. People came from all across the globe to the new world, but only whites were afforded the privilege of citizenship. The very AUTHOR of the Declaration of Independence fathered children by a black woman. Obviously, he felt that Liberty was a gift from God (or Creator as the DOI calls it.) Liberty is not a gift granted by government because you choose to become some obedient slave. You need a history lesson if you're going to pretend you are qualified to debate adults. For everyone else reading this: Liquid Reigns is obsessed with immigrants. He is probably young and dumb so I have humored him thus far. Making baseless accusations and trying to flame me is not impressing me, so look at this way: The Secure the border lobby has not had a single, solitary legal or political victory during the time the modern effort has been underway. The current crop of Secure the border lobbyists ripped off their ideas from David Duke's "Border Watch" program initiated back in 1977. By that time Duke was a KKK leader; however, both he and Tom Metzger (who was working with Duke at that time) had previously belonged to the Nazi Party. In 2003, when Jim Gilchrist tried to resurrect the Duke program, he appealed to that same element of society. Virtually all of his top lieutenants would end up dead or in prison. Chris Simcox and J.T. Ready have been videotaped at nazi rallies on numerous occasions. Simcox is a former felon while J.T. Ready killed his family and then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. Shawna Forde was one of Gilchrist's most ardent disciples. She was convicted of killing a nine year old and then the father of that child. Thomas Paine warned us about the kinds of people Liquid Reigns supports and looks to for "solutions:" "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." The difference between people like Liquid Reigns and myself is that I have to live by that advice while Reigns has chosen to trash it. As a result the Secure the border activists have given you the so - called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act, warrantless searches; endless efforts to steal your Right to Privacy via background checks and an all out assault on the Fourth Amendment. They've lost virtually every court battle they've engaged in and every piece of legislation they have supported has been used more times than not against law abiding citizens. When the truth don't work, they have their minions like Liquid Reigns to start B.S. with those who challenge the status quo. Instead of asking questions and trying to engage in productive discourse, Reigns is satisfied to call me a "know it all" while he pretends he holds a monopoly on truth and understanding. The very fact that he did not know that trial court cases are not reported and must be accessed by going to the original court to read the specifics of a case is proof enough to me that he don't know squat about the law. I'm not going to bother with this individual any longer. He's obsessed with immigration to the point that he and his ilk will destroy this country rather than have any productive conversation. Behind them lies bad legislation, TRILLIONS in new debts for this country, and losses of Liberties that are too numerous for a single thread on this forum. There is only two ways to limit so - called "illegal" immigration: increase the numbers that have not been tweaked in a half a century OR begin the process to regulate Guest Workers while not offering wholesale citizenship. I'll cover more issues, but I won't argue with Reigns because a wise man once told me to "Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Am I suppose to care that you claim my responses are cowardly and idiotic? I simply responded to each of your paragraphs as each one poorly attempts to make a point. Unalienable rights are not unlimited rights. The following sentence is from the very next portion of the DoI that contains the word Liberty I never claimed to be one, unlike you claiming to have a law degree and having worked in the immigration field for 6 years. One only need know the SCOTUS opinions that decree what I have stated, if you truly had a law degree you would know what case I am referencing when I stated Congress has sole authority over immigration. What? Do you not know how to follow along the discussion? Who should have filed suit for the HR persons to be held accountable? or are you trying to claim the illegals had a case because they were working illegally using false documents? Sure you have. It is an assumption. They do work cheaper, there's no doubt, but to claim they produce more is My side? Illegals do take jobs as has been demonstrated by many economists, they take them form our poorest and they get hurt the most. (Borjas) There are no increased taxes if the illegal employee is being paid less then what a legal employee would make. Illegals get to claim Tax Credits on their 1040's, they can also collect their SS in retirement through Totalization Agreements, which I already know you haven't a clue about. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/irs-offers-extra-tax-refunds-to-illegal-immigrants/ http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Totalization-Agreements What does Liberty and a founding father have to do with fathering children by black women making liberty a gift from god? Those children were still considered to be black. I need a history lesson? You seem to lack the required ability to actually answer my comments. You've spammed this crap all across the web already. So MacArthur and Operation Wetback weren't the origins. What about Cesar Chavez on the border in the late 60's? Don't try to link this to the KKK, etc, your racist flamebaiting is You anti-federalists are hysterical. Trial court cases do not portend to determine the citizenship of a child born to illegals either. So you haven't the ability to actually answer my posed questions. Nothing you have stated or claimed so far is actuality nor fact. Please don't try to babble in BS, you'll step in it every time. Now, go clean your shoes and try again.
Here's an obtuse idea which I have published before; The US and Mexico in partnership to undertake one of the largest civil engineering projects in history to build a Panama Canal-type waterway along the entire Mexico-US border. What does this achieve?; A super-barrier between the two countries. A project that creates tens of thousands of middle-class paying jobs for decades including thousands of jobs on the Mexico side. Opportunity to develop and populate on both sides of the canal. Huge savings of time and cash for cargo ships and other transits between the west and east coasts. Income stream from boat transits. Obtuse...will slow sea level rise...think about it.
Why would Mexico agree to build a barrier between themselves and millions of their "American" relatives?
Well...here are some reasons I already stated; A project that creates tens of thousands of middle-class paying jobs for decades including thousands of jobs on the Mexico side. Opportunity to develop and populate on both sides of the canal. Huge savings of time and cash for cargo ships and other transits between the west and east coasts. Income stream from boat transits. Obtuse...will slow sea level rise...think about it. There would be entry and exit points along the canal...anyone with the correct paperwork can cross whenever they wish...
IF what you are trying to accomplish is true, then all you really need is immigration reform. The primary reason you have undocumented people in the U.S. today is that our system has not been updated in half a century. Demographics have changed; the workforce has changed. The visa system presumes that people come here to be citizens. We don't need the foreigners from across the border to become citizens. The "Secure the border" lobby has this persistent obsession with forcing people to become citizens. They don't understand an America with non-citizens and a nation that would only dole out the privileges of citizenship to citizens. You're wasting time and money focusing on the wrong end of the equation. We cannot criminalize Liberty. It's that simple. What we CAN do is to encourage and incentivize employers to hire an American only workforce. We can take the benefits of citizenship (privileges like welfare, unemployment, Socialist Security, etc.) and confine them to citizens only. If the foreigner cannot find a job and they cannot live off welfare, why would they come here?
The overwhelming majority of visas into the US are non-immigrant work visas and there family visas. This makes up 54% of all the visas issued. The other 46% are family oriented visas for LPR. It is up to the immigrant to apply to adjust status to citizen, it is not automatic. An LPR or non-immigrant visa holder is prohibited from receiving welfare, an LPR is prohibited for 5 years, unless they have a child while here which then the child is the beneficiary for the welfare with the parents being the custodial. Non-immigrants are also prohibited, unless they too have a child while here. Some states allow for other criteria as to status in order to obtain welfare, it's a work around Federal Law from the 1986 IIRCA. At no point does the "Secure the border" lobby decry that those that come here should be forced to become citizens. Liberty is not being criminalized, liberty is limited and limiting. You continuously decry liberty to be more than what it is, yet here, http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429185&page=8&p=1065487180#post1065487180 , you define liberty and show it to be limiting, gofigure.
MOD EDIT - Rule 4 The "Secure the border" lobby has no legitimate complaint. Just because a law or a rule exists, that is no indication it must be obeyed. Even the United States Supreme Court once opined: "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) With respect to Liberty, the AUTHOR of the Declaration of Independence stated: “The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” --Thomas Jefferson And what did the Declaration of Independence have to state about Liberty (which is classified as an unalienable Right)? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And, what did the United States Supreme Court have to say relative to this? "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v.Gothard (1901) There are many statutory laws in conflict with the concept of Liberty. We can regulate foreigners; MOD EDIT - Rule 4
IMO the merits of such a civil engineering project, which benefit both the USA and Mexico, not only help solve the 'border issue' but create so much more for decades to come. You truly don't get it...Americans WILL NOT do most of the work that these immigrants are doing! You cannot do anything to force Americans to take jobs they simply refuse to do. It is required that American business have access to immigrant labor. As long as Americans refuse to do this work, this creates a labor void, and this void is filled by whomever is willing to work. If it is an electronics company and labor is an issue we can just relocate the facility offshore...but we cannot do this with farming, fishing, and millions other service jobs...
I DO get it. I post jobs on a regular basis. I'll advertise in the "gig" section of Craigslist. IF a white guy applies for the gig, he turns out to be a wannabe contractor that hires whomever and pays them $15 an hour while charging me $50 an hour. For whatever reason, your typical WASP don't apply. So, at the end of the day, the Hispanics will work for $20 an hour and I'm not feeding Bubba the wannabe contractor for day or two gig. What the "Secure the border" lobby does not understand is that for the purposes that most undocumented workers find themselves filling, there are no credible visas or programs. They demand that people do something a "legal" way and then complain when the left suggest comprehensive immigration reform (sic.) The alternative to both the left and the right is to create a program wherein it goes beyond agricultural workers and does not end in citizenship.
Which any statute that is deemed unconstitutional is null and void, (this is all in reference to the 2nd amendment; nothing else), however it is to be obeyed until determined to be such. You quote half of the equation and then try to decry new context. Its not classified as an unalienable right, it was changed from inalienable as originally written by Jefferson. http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/JeffersonRights.htm The original from Jefferson states: Look at that the case declares that those rights have lmits, which you keep decrying "unalienable rights" have no limits. Liberty is limiting, yes we can regulate foreigners.
So instead of paying an actual contractor you choose to pay a person, for which you assume the role of employer and are liable if he gets hurt on your property, I'm sure your insurance company would love to hear about what you are doing as your rates will increase, and if you aren't with holding payroll taxes and also paying the employer side of those taxes, you can be held accountable, I'm sure the IRS would love to hear about that. Illegals don't come here to fill the purpose of providing you manual labor to cheat the govt. You seem to be more "It's fine for me, but not for thee" mentality, all the while screwing your fellow American. There are visas for just about any and all types of labor, provided it can be shown that that labor is not to be found here.
The "Secure the border" lobby has an inherent problem. Liberty is an unalienable Right. An unalienable Right is a Right that is bestowed upon man by his Creator (his God, whomever he deems that to be.) In order to illustrate the application of unalienable Rights, one must only look to early U.S. court decisions to see what is meant by an unalienable Right. "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) Liberty, like the Right to keep and bear Arms, is an unalienable Right. For that reason, many of the anti - immigrant statutes cannot be enforced because they infringe upon an unalienable Right. The Secure the border lobby is oblivious to the fact that immigration / citizenship has little to no bearing upon people engaging in business within the boundaries of the United States. Unfortunately, since they cannot understand the realities of our times, the Secure the border people are jockeying for forced citizenship. WHEN that happens (and it will) you can revisit this thread and tell me how right I was. It's a choice - freedom of association / a free market OR the socialist solutions of the Secure the border guys and National ID, womb to the tomb 24 / 7 / 365 surveillance, armed drones over your head, Constitution Free Zones, warrantless searches, etc.
And all unalienable or inalienable means is: incapable of being transferred to another or others Meaning you can't transfer your liberty (limited to yourself) to me or anybody else. As to the second amendment being unalienable......wrong word. The second amendment is an auxiliary right that is necessary to secure our inalienable right. The second is a right of the people Therefor natural rights or unalienable/inalienable rights can be limited and are limiting by their very nature. The rest is nothing more than hysterical hyperbole.
I'm a farmer and we hire day labor all the time paying $17/hour to $25/hour depending on skills...never once has a so-called American white boy wanted to do this kind of work! It's not about the money...it's about the very hard work required that Americans simply won't do. Even if they were paid $50/hour they would last until lunch time then disappear. Americans IMO simply need to admit and accept the idea that much of the work done by legal and illegal immigrants is the type of work Americans refuse to do today. I don't understand why so many cannot accept this reality?? Yeah...like work visas for hotel hospitality workers...
I mentioned hotel hospitality visas and here is the status; H2B Visa Temporary non-immigrant classifications that allow non-citizens to come to the United States to perform temporary or seasonal work that is non-agricultural (such as hospitality or resort work) if persons capable of performing such a service or labor cannot be found in this country. Up to 66,000 new visas are available each year in this category. The number has been reached increasingly earlier every year. In Fiscal Year 2007, the first half of the cap was reached 3 days before the year began and the second half was met 4 months before the period began. US business is hiring 66,000 non-citizens each year because 'supposedly' there are not enough Americans to do this work? We have uneducated and unskilled Americans in every square inch of the USA yet we still need to hire 66,000 non-citizens! This tells me we have at least 66,000 so-called Americans who refuse to do this type of work yet politics and the media make it sound as if these non-citizens are 'stealing' jobs from Americans...which is total BS. As I continue to state, as long as Americans refuse to take certain jobs, which creates a labor void for business, this void will be filled by 'others'...
I think that no matter how many facts you can gather on this point, there will be those on the "Secure the border" side that won't get it. But, let's take a look at the realities: If Americans wanted the jobs, they would apply for them. Instead of suggesting ways to get Americans to apply, the "Secure the border" guys will try to wow you with an incomplete version of the truth in order to try and sell you a lie. The reality is 47 percent of the American populace is dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread... and most are quite content with the status quo. You cannot fix what is wrong by criminalizing Liberty nor trying to get people to believe that Liberty is not an unalienable Right. That is the key selling point that the "Secure the border" advocates bring to the table. The official version found in the United States Code Annotated (the official laws of the U.S.) reads: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." So, what we have is a Right that is NOT bestowed by government; that is above the legislative process; and a Right that is not limited. Then we have a faction of political activists claiming that no right is unlimited and trying to put a numerical number so as to allow some employers to fill their needs while others cannot. The numbers you speak of are discriminatory in that they deny all employers the equal protection of the laws. Eventually the courts will have to address that aspect of it. If the "Secure the border" side was exposed for what it is, most people would understand that you don't need to be a citizen in order to work a job willingly offered. Furthermore, if the "Secure the border" advocates wanted jobs to go to Americans (and they really don't care about jobs), they would support a platform that rewards employers who take people off the welfare dole, unemployment rolls and hire an American workforce. We could have a system that scrutinizes people living (sometimes for several generations) on the public dole and give them ultimatums... go to work or lose your benefits.
