HERE is "what to do with the 10s of millions of illegals already residing inside our borders". One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States. The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement. General Swing's fast-moving campaign (Operation Wetback) sent agents outs en masse, house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegal aliens. Huge numbers were rounded up and deported. Many more fled back to Mexico, on their own. Operation Wetback soon secured America's borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s. Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today. "Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says. Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p...#contentBounds
Should we also mention that this was a gross violation of the US Constitution by our government? Of course we know the Republican response:
Hate groups? Are you going to tell me that the feminist pro-abortion groups on the left are not hate groups? http://galerouth.blogspot.com/
Hate groups are groups that espouse views not only different from but diametrically opposed to our own. Therefore, to the left any groups that desire a smaller government are considered hate groups while to the right any groups that want more government intrusion into private affairs are hate groups. Since the media are mainly left leaning there tends to be more reporting on right leaning groups as being hate groups.
Two reasons. First of all not all laws are Constitutional. Secondly even when laws are Constitutional the enforcement of them may not be. As we know from the example provided from the 1950's it was a clear violation of the 4th Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure because warrants were not being issued for the searches. The police cannot go house to house on a witch hunt for "illegal aliens" demanding that the people provide any documents related to their immigration status and that's what was happening in the 1950's. The police did not have warrants nor did they have "probably cause" to assume that they were stopping a crime in progress to support their actions. - - - Updated - - - That is not the definition of a Hate Group (that has been previously provided on this thread).
Of course they had probable cause. They knew where criminal illegal aliens lived, and they went and got them. And they should be doing that again now, instead of ludicrously talking about citizenship for these criminals. I'd go a step further. I would arrest them and imprison them for their crimes, and THEN deport them. And I'd be sure that the prisons they did their time in were hellholes, to discourage them from coming back here. Also, if doing what is necessary to protect the American people (ex. millions of unemployed American workers) from harm was ever unconstitutional, than the Constitution should then be amended, to allow that protection to occur. Those who oppose this should be voted out of office.
If they knew who the people were and information that they were "criminal illegal aliens" then law enforcement could have and should have obtained a search and arrest warrant prior to going to the home but that was not done. The police cannot engage in witch hunts by going to a door without a warrant and demand that a person "show me your papers" as that is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
There isn't an enumerated Constitutional authority for the US government to control immigration. The immigration laws are based upon a "progressive interpretation" (social-conservatives choke on this fact) that the Constitutional authority to create "uniform laws of naturalization" somehow relates to an authority to control immigration but not all immigrants seek citizenship by naturalization and the naturalization laws do not apply to them. We can also note that the founders of America had no intentions or desire for the US government to control immigration which is why it wasn't addressed by the US Constitution. The word immigration is not found anywhere in the US Constitution nor is it referred to in either the Federalist or anti-Federalist papers. We can also note that "protectionism" violates "capitalism" so those that support protectionism under our immigration laws are opposed the Capitalism and the Law of Supply and Demand related to Labor.
Yeah, and we might as well add al sharpless and the entire leftist loser gang of hate mongers from msnbc to those hate groups as well.
Anyone who takes the SPLC seriously can't claim to be unbiased themselves. The biggest joke with outfits like the Southern Poverty Law Center is that all but a few token groups on its "Hate Groups" list are White or Christian. All of the racist street and prison gangs, Aryan Brotherhood, M-13, Bloods and Crips are all off the list, although they are all racially exlucsive. And becuase they use real violence against others, like killing rival races in prison---they are not REAL hate groups. Understand?
And they don't include the NAACP (most racist group in AMerica having done the most harm to the most number of people for the most amount of time) And they don't include dozens of Muslim Brotherhood front groups (ex. CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA, ICNA, FCNA, MAYA, AEF, UASR, IAP, BMI, IIIT, IMANA, AMSE, ICNA, Islamic Institute, AMC, AMF, Success Foundation, GSISS AKA Cordoba University, NAIF, IIFTIKHAR, AMSS, TIAA, IRO, African Muslim Agency, Safa Trust, SAAR Foundation, MMCT, Dar El-Eiman USA, ADAMS, IANA, GRF, MWL, MYNA, HHT, Islamic Academy of Florida, Fairfax Institute, AMT, IIFSO, AMCE, AMAFVAC, CISNA, Isalmic Media Foundation, et al)
Who ever said the US Constitution had oi have anything to do with immigration ? There are thousands of laws on the books which have nothing to do with he US Constitution. As for protectionism, immigration is the opposite of that. It is domestic outsourcing for all those jobs that can only be done inside the US (landscaping, janitorial, construction. etc)
Here's a few questions for you. If the Japanese nation were to again become the imperialist force they were in the 1940s, and they managed to get millions of their people into the US, and we were again at war with Japan (declared or not), would we need warrants to search houses for them ? Would we need warrants to shoot bullets at them ? Would we need warrants to drop bombs on them ? Did the US government need warrants to search for Confederate soldiers ? If the Japanese had invaded the US mainland in the 1930s or 1940s, would we have needed warrants to search for them here ? Are foreign invaders entitled to protection under the 4th Amendment ? Note that the 4th Amendment begins with these 5 words >> "The right of the people..." "THE" people ? Clearly, this refers to the AMERICAN people. If it referred to ANY people (such as foreigners) it would say the right of people. Inclusion of the word "the" is reference to the American people.
Generally speaking the answer to all of the above, with the exception of an invading army in occupation of US territory where actions are addressed under the UCMJ and the laws and customs of war, is yes that a warrant is required for search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. The Constitution refers the People/Persons when addressing anyone subjected to the authority of the US government. It also refers to "Citizens" (e.g. 14th Amendment) and "Citizens" are a subgroup of "People/Persons" and even that is broken down further into "Naturalized Citizens" (individuals that become citizens under the statutory laws of Congress) and "Natural Born Citizens" (individuals born in a State and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States).
"Foreign invader" refers to those individuals that are a part of a "foreign invasion" of the territory where the foreign government is exercising authority and control over the territory it occupies. For example the Israelis in the West Bank, Golan Heights and E Jerusalem are "foreign invaders" because the Israeli military is occupying those territories. Unless someone is proposing that the Mexican government is exercising authority and jurisdiction in Texas, Arizona and California then the term "foreign invader" is inappropriate and false. Is the "right-wing" really this ignorant of the laws and Constitution of the United States?
Actually there few exceptions to the laws passed by Congress under Constitution because of the following clause in Article I Section 8: As noted the US Constitution does not delegate any "power" to Congress to regulate immigration so the "immigration laws" represent "laws... which have nothing to do with the US Constitution." and are technically unconstitutional. If the work is in the United States and is being performed by the "People" (i.e. residents and citizens) of the United States then the work is not being "outsourced" to anyone. "Protectionism" refers to "favoritism by goverment" which is "crony capitalism" (by definition) as opposed to true capitalism. As I stated those that endorse "protectionism" in our immigration laws that violate the Law of Supply and Demand for Labor are opposed to Capitalism and that is a factual statement. Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.
Yeah ? Who says so ? And who says that the 12 million illegal aliens in the US are not invaders (an army of sorts depending on one definition of "army" and/or "invader"). Still the Constitution's 4th Amrndment refer to the protection of American, not the 12 million illegal aliens who I would yes, define as an invading army of cheap labor "troops" in 21st century style imperialism, whereby Mexico (et al) pillage the USA for hundreds of Billions$$$, by way of remittances$$$, and human services payouts$$$ in the anchor baby racket. And since you say that invading armies, like Japanese in 1943 or Mexicans in 2013, do not require search warrants, than you are wrong in thinking that the Gen, Swing/Eisenhower Operation wetback appraoch would be unconstitutional. Why do you think Ike picked a US Army general to lead the operation ? It was military. Then and now.
The propriety of the term "foreigh invader" is not dependent upon the Mexican govt exercising authority and jurisdiction in Texas, Arizona and California. It has nothing at all to do with exercising authority and jurisdiction. It has only to do with large numbers of people from a outside a country entereing that country agains t its will. Simple as that. When Vikings invaded England centuries ago, they didn't exercise authority and jurisdiction in England. They just arrived, plundered the country for its wealth, and left with the goods (some remained). But the wealth did not remain . It went from England to what is now Denmark and Norway. Same as it is now. The wealth is extracted out of the US, and re-inserted into Mexico. Just the remittances alone have been $25 Billion/year. The Vikings would be envious.
Residents who are not citizens of the US, and who came here in violation of US immigration laws, are not part of "the People"..This term refers to the American people, not illegal aliens. The work given to illegal aliens IS certainly outsourced to them, as collectively, they are a foreign nation (which just happens to be inside US borders). This is (domestic) outsourcing to foreigners, for those jobs than can only be done inside the USA (landscaping, janitorial, construction. etc)
In the US Constitution the term "People/Person(s)" refers to all individuals living under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States government. The violation of statutory law does not remove someone from being one of the "People/Person(s)" of the United States. Where do some come up with this ignorance related to the US Constitution? Sometimes talking to a "conservative" about the Constitution is like trying to talk to a two year old about calculus. They don't even have the fundamental knowledge of what the words being used mean.
Being racially exclusive alone does not establish a group as being a "hate group" under the definition of "hate groups" provided previously. Gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, M-13, Bloods, and Crips, while being racially exclusive in membership are fundamentally crime syndicates and their crimes are based upon criminal activities and not based upon stereotyping of individuals based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, etc., that would qualify them as being "hate groups" under the definition. Yes, it is true that most of the groups that are identified as "hate groups" are "white" and "Christian" because "white Christians" represent the dominate population in the United States. It is not nor should it be surprising that the "dominate group" in the United States (i.e. white Christians) would also be dominate in the "hate group" category. We can also note that it's logical for the rapid expansion of "white Christian" hate groups to be occuring as "white Christian" dominance is being challenged today in the United States. This feeling of the "loss of domination power" is inciting extremists in the "white Christian" category to form "hate groups" to try and continue their dominance in the politics and social social structure of America. They are unwilling to accept that a black, Hispanic, Jew, homosexuals or other groups are their equal because their loss of the feeling of superiorty makes them insecure as persons. I would suggest reading the following link provided that addresses the psychology of individuals that form hate groups and the stages they go through from which I'll only provide a few quotations: http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups355.html Sadly we see members of Political Forum that are actively engaged in Stage 1 thru 4 here in numerous threads they create. It is so evident when we look at threads attacking African-Americans, Hispanic immigrants, or claims that the Jews are controlling the United States (or the world). We've seen those that attack homosexuals calling them perverts and pedophiles. They try to recruit others in their hatred and it is evident to everyone but the blind man. And at the bottom of all of this is really the insecurity of the "hater" that is attempting to compensate for their personal insecurity by a false sense of superiority over those they attack with their message of hate.
You and the other people who support the silly definition of a hate group are clearly biased. Thinking that mainly Whites and Christians are the only ones who hate is pure racism itself. In the SPLC "Hate Groups List" of the 1007 groups listed, only a tiny few percent are non-White or non-Chrisitian. Since Whites only make up some 78% of the population, an objective list would be more diverse. The few groups listed are some Black Panthers types, and a token inclusion of Jews and Hispanics. Your pyschology list of hate groups is designed to keep all the racist and violent street and prison gangs out of the discussion. Are you so dense to think a step #6 must occur for a group to be included in a "real" hate group? Gangs like the Crips and M-13 all follow most of these patterns. They may form temporary alliances with outsiders, but are really pure zenophobes that tolerate no racial groups outside there own in their gangs. Also, please explain why La Raza is not on the SPLC (your own) hate list? Also do you also think that major media outlets like MSNBC, Time-Warner (CNN), Comcast, Viacom and Disney are also hate goups because they none of them have a single conservative Christian anywhere in their leadership, as Chairpersons, Studio or news dept heads, news editors or producers?
You've made an omission. You forgot hatred based on ideological difference. What you are saying in essence is that conservatives must be treated by the federal govt. with suspicion despite their American citizenship. That violates the Social Contract.
