The way immigration works is done 'physically' - they actually physically walk over the border. this means they can be physically stopped from doing this. Basically, we need to observe that border is not long enough to stop them all. this means, we need to readjust our thinking towards this sort of behavior. if we were to observe that it costs money to set these things up, we could bulldoze down the earth between the countries, so that the 'hole' or 'ravine' goes down into the land at a slope on one side, and a wall of earth on the other, so that they can walk down from 'mexico' into the hole, then find it hard to go straight up the wall into 'america.'
Hard to dig that ravine for a total of over 1900 miles. And 1200 miles of that border is the Rio Grande river in New Mexico and Texas.
Uncle Ferd says we oughta bill dey's country of origin... More Than Half Of Immigrants On Welfare September 2, 2015 - More than half of the nation's immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that's far higher than the native-born population's, according to a report to be released Wednesday.
For the life of me I cannot understand the obsession some people have with the issue of so-called "illegal immigration." There even seems to be a wall built around America that we cannot even have a civil discourse over the facts of this. Immigration is synonymous with citizenship. Most of the people coming across the border do not want to be citizens nor should we demand that they become such. Therefore, the term "illegal immigrant" is a misnomer. It was American courts and left wing politicians that demanded we pay for the births of babies born to undocumented foreigners. Therein lies part of the cost issue associated with undocumented foreigners. Aside from that, the U.S. has no credible Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. You cannot criminalize liberty; you cannot uncitizen the millions of children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented; can't stop the future migration of the families of those children. Without jeopardizing your own liberty, there are not a lot options unless you're going to advocate for tyranny.
I was also wondering why some people think only people with degrees can become citizens? if you think about it, they will add to a pool of people that can work, but the jobs will disappear. that is why there should be some leeway made for people that will start businesses, instead of working at businesses.
You miss my point. Why do you think that everybody that comes here to work ought to become a citizen?
According to the chief actuary of the Social (ist) Security Administration, 75 percent of the undocumented workers have gotten a Taxpayer Identification Number and they pay the same unconstitutional income taxes as you do. BTW, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified and none of us should make this silly argument that non-citizens don't pay taxes... especially when it is an illegal tax that you ought to be protesting instead of complaining about. Aside from the illegal income tax, non-citizens (regardless of immigration status) pay sales taxes; they pay federal taxes on beer, wine, cigarettes, and federal taxes on every gallon of gas they put in their vehicles (18.4 percent per gallon.) Through their rent (and some even buy) they add to the property tax roll. In all, they pay over a hundred different kinds of taxes. A few years ago, the Congressional Budget Office looked into this issue. At the end of the day, they basically said it is a wash. Undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as the receive in benefits and services. I'm sorry, but you can't win this issue based upon an economic argument. The facts aren't there for you. A multicultural society is lowering our over-all standards... which in turn lowers our moral tone as a nation and ultimately our standard of living. You cannot resolve that issue by empowering a corrupt federal government to do more in the name of making you safe. The bigger danger to our future is not little brown people from south of our border; the real culprits are those in government. IF the foreigner does not pay taxes, you should be asking your elected officials why. And when you're proven wrong, you'd be well served to be thinking of an alternate strategy. It was "our" courts that said welfare was a right. It was "our" legislators that illegally ratified the Sixteenth Amendment and forced you to pay taxes on your labor. It was the Republicans that gave you the Fourteenth Amendment and created this phony idea that the Constitution could be extended to every race, creed, color, religion, and political persuasion on earth. Like the Sixteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth was not done in accordance with the law. Now you want those that created the problem to be rewarded by giving them even MORE control over your life? America was founded on the principle that we are the New Jerusalem of the Bible - that land without walls. We did not have federally mandated handout programs; didn't offer wholesale citizenship (though many came for the opportunities.) We did not tell an employer who they could and could not hire; didn't have a school system controlled by the federal government - not even a federal welfare system as we do today. No, it is NOT necessary to become a citizen in order to pay taxes. The Social (ist) Security Administration and the IRS say that people owe income taxes regardless of immigration status. Most comply. We don't need 11 million more citizens. All you have to do is give strong tax incentives for employers to hire all American workers. Get rid of the notion that welfare is a right. Tax employers that hire foreigners. Create a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. Offer host countries a 2 percent incentive for all the money their citizens earn in the U.S. We tax their wages and give their host country 2 percent. All the host country has to do is make it a crime for their citizens to leave and come here without permission and neighboring countries would assist us by putting their LEOs on the border, doubling the size of immigration officials without costing us a dime. There are better ways to resolve this. The bigger and more intrusive government is NOT a solution.
Oh i see. i start talking about stopping illegal immigration, then you spin it and say i want them there?
Quite frankly, I don't know what you want nor do I understand the "Secure the border" types. What I can tell you is reality. And here is the truth: When America was founded, the first colonists all the way through the founders believed themselves to be the Israelites of the Bible and America as the New Jerusalem. Our country was not built as a theocracy, but it was established upon biblical principles and, if you read the Bible, this New Jerusalem was the city without walls. In 1983 President Ronald Reagan issued Proclamation 5018. A relevant quote from that proclamation goes like this: "The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual." Actually those rights were unalienable, not inalienable and there is a difference, but that's a different thread. Anyway, while all of us had unalienable Rights, not everybody qualified to be a citizen. There were privileges of citizenship: the privilege of voting, being able to receive welfare, etc. We did not confuse those with the unalienable Rights of the individual. Today, the "Secure the border" advocates would nullify God given unalienable Rights in a vain effort to keep foreigners out. They simply don't get it. Your bigger threat is a government big enough to take all you have... and it will if you give them that much power. Big government is not on your side on this issue. I got it about the part that a multicultural America will disenfranchise the posterity of those who fought, bled, and died in order to establish this country. But, the foreigners are not the bigger part of the threat. Big government is. In my view, it should not take a Harvard graduate to figure this out, but if the "Secure the border" advocates had a definable issue, they would work smart. Nothing is stopping you from trying your views out in court. If you think that birth citizenship is not in the Constitution, challenge it. See if the children born in the U.S. to undocumented foreigners are citizens or not. If they are, it might be time to rethink the battle you've signed onto. Here's why: Let's suppose that Donald Trump got elected president and convinced Congress to go along with this mass deportation scheme. You've "won." Right? Well, wait a minute. The undocumented foreigners take their children with them and you feel vindicated. Then the United States Supreme Court steps in and declares those children to be U.S. citizens. So, we wait a few years. Now in a few years those U.S. citizens come back to the border with their birth certificates, Socialist Surveillance Card ...ooops, "Social Security Card" and National ID Card. They've been in Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, etc. for the past few years and no longer speak English. You deported their parents so they have no family support system. They have no education and no job skills. Yet here they come by the MILLIONS. What's your great plan now? Oh, I'm sure you'll have some ill thought out response, but I worked in immigration law for six years. I'm pretty sure what the courts are going to say. It appears to me, and again I don't know factually, that the "Secure the border" people are in the dark as to where their political lobbying efforts began. So, I don't want to accuse you personally of anything - being ignorant to the genesis of this debate is not a crime. But, in 1977 David Duke and Tom Metzger began the Border Watch deal. While Duke was a KKK leader, he had formerly been a member of the American Nazi Party. Metzger never got away from National Socialism. The "Secure the border" guys are parroting the talking points of Duke and Metzger; they are employing the same strategies; they are relying on the same people that Duke and Metzger did for their alleged "facts." I don't think most of them do so knowingly. So, I bring something new to the table. Every single person here has unalienable Rights. That is a part of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code Annotated, which happens to be the official laws of the United States. In addition, the Declaration has been used as controlling precedent in legal cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. In that document, we read: "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..." The bottom line is that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon each of us unalienable Rights. Among those is Liberty. As paperless immigrants - and having not sought the permission of the natives - our forefathers declared that Liberty is an unalienable right. Shall I define liberty for you? It appears to me that you might not understand the meaning because you have been advocating criminalizing it. Let's be honest here. Foreigners come here because there are opportunities. They find willing employers and employers own the jobs they create so they have a God given Right to give those jobs to whomever they want. Our problem is not the foreigner. Our problem is with the government that says YOU cannot hire whomever YOU want. If you did away with anti - discrimination laws, how many "Secure the border" types would quit hiring ANY foreigners? Forget that legal v "illegal" crap. If you had the right to hire whomever you wanted, you might hire the guy you really wanted... not x number of women, non-whites, gays, Muslims, Atheists, etc., etc. IF welfare were a benefit of citizenship and not all foreigners qualified for citizenship, explain to me the incentive for foreigners to even WANT to come here. IF voting were a privilege of citizenship, who would you blame for the massive giveaways that our government creates? If government told employers they could hire whomever they wanted, but the government gave substantial tax incentives to those that hired an all American workforce, who would the employer most likely hire? If we eliminated the income tax and cut welfare by half, forcing the lazy parasites to go to work or starve, who do you think would be working to support America? Foreigners? Again, I don't know what it is, exactly, you want. But what I do know is that the last thirteen years have witnessed the side you're on suffering one defeat after another without a single success... unless you envision a socialist utopia as Duke and Metzger did - in which case I'd stand corrected. Flame away.
Mexican-Americans have a long and proud cultural tradition in the southwest predating the Gringos and as they become the majority there this racism will be a thing of the past. [video=youtube;V_M6GMvdBAI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_M6GMvdBAI[/video]
Maybe they could set up lasers to see how big the people coming through the 'gaps,' how fast they are walking or driving, and how far away they are? the people usually come in groups, so, will be easy to pick up in dirt cars?
So, you're really in love with the idea of an absolute POLICE STATE complete with 24 / 7 / 365 monitoring and surveillance? How do you feel about the Constitution Free Zones? Are you comfortable with the assaults on the Fourth Amendment? Do you really enjoy the evisceration of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty?
What is there to hide? i don't know what a constitution free zone is. i don't know what your fourth amendment is. yes, innocent until proven guilty. I find you are now talking about things people vote on, doubt i will be able to change their minds.
To those who have studied the nazis, you know that a common line among the SS was "if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind if we look." Brett, old buddy, maybe you are offering up opinions when you don't have the facts. Let me clue you in. In America, we enjoy the Right to Privacy. It is so important that the Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In order for that work right, we must presume that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I would submit that it is unreasonable to require people to submit to a violation of their Rights to demand to see their papers (i.e. their ID cards) unless they have probable cause. Exercising your Rights is not probable cause for a law enforcement official to demand to see your papers. The people in the U.S. do not vote on laws. Besides that, Constitution Free Zones are not a law. They are a policy of the federal government which claims that they must suspend the Constitution within a hundred miles of a border in order to enforce such laws as the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act. In order to maintain the guarantee of liberty, you can't go off half cocked and begin chasing people down and kicking them out of the United States. Neither would our founding fathers have been amused by silly people making the claim that only citizens enjoy unalienable Rights. The symptoms that people involve undocumented foreigners could better be addressed by getting the government out of the lives of people. We could allow an employer to hire whomever they please and then give strong tax incentives for those employers that hire an all American work force. We could eliminate most welfare, turning it over to the states AND making welfare a privilege of citizenship, NOT a Right as the courts claim it is. We could pass a law making English the official language of this country. We could start a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. What we don't need is to empower an incompetent and over sized bureaucratic federal government to become bigger, more intrusive and do a bad job even worse.
Now you can see how cluttered and clumsy your constitution is - you cannot even legally stop people from crossing the border.
The United States was not founded that way. Our forefathers believed that America is the New Jerusalem of the Bible. So, they predicated their political views accordingly. While all were free to come here and pursue their dreams, not everyone was able to become a citizen. Our country was not intended to keep people out, but rather to welcome those who wanted to pursue their dreams. Then, for a host of complex reasons, people began thinking that the United States ought to welcome every culture, race, religion, creed, sexual orientation and political persuasion as citizens... except the posterity of the founding fathers. Our problems could be solved by making English the official language; by making welfare a privilege of citizenship; by rewarding employers that hire Americans. The illegally adopted Fourteenth Amendment is part of what destroyed our nation - not the Constitution as originally written and intended.
Not really. We have a bunch of prisoners who could and should be put to work. - - - Updated - - - What??
You question me and then prove my point. The 1795 Naturalization Act applies to the subject of citizenship. Once again, pay close attention: LIBERTY is a God given unalienable Right Citizenship is a privilege. Those are totally different concepts. Citizens can, in a lawful (de jure) constitutional Republic get welfare, an education at taxpayer expense and exercise the privilege of voting. In short, citizens become a part of the body politic. Not every inhabitant can become a citizen. You do not have to be a citizen in order to be present in the United States. In 1795 AND thereafter, according to the STATE CONSTITUTIONS, all candidates for public office had to be white and they had to profess a belief in the Bible (in one form or another.) That was indicative of the body politic... the citizens. Yet, we allowed every kind of person you can name to come here and live among the citizens. We never extended the privileges of citizenship to guests. But, we have always protected and preserved their unalienable Rights. Understand it now?
You act as if that Act proves that immigration was an open-ended game. Clearly it was not. It was restricted to white people.
Citizenship was restricted to white people. Bear in mind that was the case and in Dred Scott v Sanford, the United States Supreme Court ruled, essentially, that only whites could be citizens. That court decision led the Republican Party to illegally ratify the Fourteenth Amendment so that literally anybody could claim citizenship. I don't understand what is so hard for some to comprehend here. The borders have always been open. The Chinese built our railroad system. They weren't citizens. In a perfect world, maybe the U.S. could be like the rest of the world and restrict this country so that only white Christians would be allowed to even be here. I don't really know. But, I deal in realities. Immigration = citizenship. Those terms are synonymous. Guests are not immigrants. They are not seeking citizenship. Our current laws seem to be oblivious to that. Again, the statute is irrelevant to the issue. One need not be a citizen in order to be present in the U.S. The non-citizen simply lacks the standing to be part of the body politic in a de jure (lawful) Republic. Consequently, they cannot receive welfare, vote, get Socialist Security, nor would they be entitled to a free public education. That is the area where you need to focus. Take the privileges of citizenship off the table and your "problem" would vanish overnight.
Don't you think the whole of africa should go to america then? what would you do if that happened? all they got to do is grab a boat over there. Okay, have you heard of a green card? that is the legal way to become a citizen as far as i can remember. http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...rces/A Guide to Naturalization/PDFs/M-480.pdf So, why is it so important for people to become u.s. citizens? is it because you believe there is a better way of living there? Let me tell you a story. there was a ship called the titanic. it sank. some people were lucky enough to have boats, but, those without boats scambled aboard and they all drowned. if they had let the people on the boats radio for help, then there might have been more success stories, yes? Let me tell you a similar story? there was some blacks in south africa. they heard there was money in the city, and they moved there. they now live in shanty towns, because there are not enough jobs for all of them. So, it sounds to me like we will have a shantit if you ask me.
A Green Card is a document that shows a person's lawful permanent residence status in the United States. Every time the critics of Liberty try to have a showdown with me on this issue, they imply that the only way a person ought to be in the United States is if they want to seek permanent status (yet another synonym for citizen.) Again, America cannot be compared to the other countries of the world. At the base of the Statute of Liberty you will find these words: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" The welcome mat of the United States has a poem, written by a Jewish Marxist, yet there it is. Instead of challenging the welcome mat, the critics of Liberty are content with allowing anyone to get in the door... provided of course they do so in some non-existent "legal" manner. In other words, if you come here "legally," it's perfectly acceptable to be the wretched refuse (synonymous with miserable garbage) to come here and leech off the system and be co-equals, provided they do so "legally." Oh, my critics have already weighed in and admitted how anti - white racist the current immigration laws are, but they want them enforced. Brett Nortje wants to compare South Africa to the USA. Well, we aren't the same. South Africa is a DEMOCRACY. The de jure (lawful) government in the United States is a REPUBLIC. So, what happens in South Africa does not happen in the U.S. His other analogy isn't even an analogy and deserves no response. America has every Right and every Duty to regulate those who come and go. However, that is NOT immigration. Let us properly define immigration: Immigration - The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country The laws do not anticipate, nor do they deal with, people that want to come here on a temporary basis and work in non-agricultural occupations. It is a violation of the Constitution to allow some employers (farmers) the ability to take advantage of low cost foreign labor while other employers (non-agricultural) are openly discriminated against. IF an individual has a means of supporting themselves and they do not intend to become a citizen, then the United States government is powerless to do anything about it. Bear in mind, our laws only cover ENTRY into the United States. Title 8 USC 1325, a civil statute, concerns itself with Improper Entry. Being present in the United States is acceptable. If the authorities don't catch someone in the act, all they can do is deport the individual. Being here is not a crime... and like a running a red light - the the authorities don't see it, they can't prosecute it.
