Posted on 03/19/2010 9:24:48 AM PDT by chicagolady
LIBERTYVILLE -- Two Republicans, Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran and secretary of state candidate Robert Enriquez, held a press conference Thursday to urge national leaders to address immigration reform.
"Nobody says deport all these people," said Curran. "That's not going to happen. If you think that's going to happen, you're not living in the real world.
"We need to create a situation where they (illegal immigrants) have an opportunity to go through the process," the sheriff added. "Learn the language, take an exam, pay fines and back taxes and get into line.
"We have a serious problem," he said, stressing that the sheriff's office will continue to arrest and deport immigrants who commit crimes. But he doesn't think families should be broken up after being in the United States for two decades.
Enriquez, who lives in Aurora and whose first language was Spanish, said all local elected officials need to push Congress toward immigration reform. "We need to be more pro-active," he said.
Enriquez said he is proud to be a citizen and remembers the first time he ate rhubarb pie, which he liked. The former Marine said he travels a lot, and whenever he returns to the United States he falls in love with it again.
"We're free to say what you want, think what you want and build the dream you want," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at suburbanchicagonews.com ...
Robert Enriquez is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT running for Secretary of State in Illinois. His major objective is to give rivers Licenses to illegal aliens.
The Illinois Republican Party will not back any candidate unless they push AMNESTY.
The Illinois Republican Party is promoting Amnesty Sheriff Curran said at a recent meeting that He spoke with Illinois Republican National Chairman Pat Brady and they both agree that if Republican Do not accept Amnesty the Republican Party will DIE! Maybe they NEED TO DIE!!
Illegal immigration PING!
Given where our demographics are going, we need an influx of younger, but productive people.
A Sheriff and a Republican Candidate PROMOTING a BILL that has NOT been read yet!!
JUST VOTE THEM OUT!!
.
“Nobody says deport all these people,”
I do.
True, but illegal immigration isn’t the way to do it. Down that path lies third world status.
Legal immigration, with strict laws to make sure only productive (or those who want to be) people are allowed in. But I suspect this is what you meant.
And that’s fine and really the only option. There is no way to go and mass deport millions of people all at once. You cannot utilize the military to do this job, the state and local officials cannot do it, the border states are not going to allow the feds to deposit a few million people inside their borders while they are being dumped over the border. What do you do when these illegals being sent home start to riot? Shoot them? Yeah, that will go over really well.
Slow and steady wins the race here. Like a restaurant....no short, no shoes, no service. No citizenship, no green card? TFB.
I agree that our country should have immigration reform. We need to have a law that would triple the fines, for employers who hire illegal aliens. That would usually cause employers to stop hiring illegals. When the illegals can’t find work, they’ll leave the U.S. Some employers will continue to disobey the law and be caught. When that happens, the fines should be used to build a brick wall, along the Mexican border and hire more border patrol agents.
deport all of the illegals.
actually obama is doing a better job than bush on the deportation score.
bush deported +200k in 2008. obama deported +300k in 2009.
Then don't look to Central and South America, their history of "productiveness" doesn't look promising. Their history is one of banana republics that squander their natural resources and change governments faster than you can say "I don't need no steenking job, I live in America".
Not necessary and way too expensive. Most immigrants are not stupid or lazy. Economic incentives brought them to this country. Economic disincentives will make them go back. Just cut off the ability to get work, get welfare and the ability to repatriate money to their old country and they will find creative ways to sneak back across the border.
I vote get ‘em out of this country. Illegal is Illegal no matter how you spell it. Just Do It.
Self-deportation works well. It is already being seen, and needs to keep going. Employer sanctions such as fines and jail time are one component of it that really needs to be stepped up, as you say. The goal must be for all illegals to leave the country, not to make them legal, for they are already lawbreakers by dint of their being here.
But I don’t think the .gov has the stones for it. Too many US Reps depend on the presence of illegals in their districts to keep them in power.
There has to be real punishment for those who continue to hire illegals as well. In fact, I suspect there is grounds to go after the SEIU on RICO statutes due to the fact that they knowingly aid and abet illegals.
A very reasonable post, kudos to you.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan192.htm
THE SHERIFF - MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT
by Alan Stang
March 20, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
For many years, the people’s attention in the Battle for America has been directed toward the federal government and its offices. Candidates stand for the House and the Senate. Patriotic groups publish voting records of incumbents. Considerable time, effort and money are expended in support of candidates for President. After decades of such commendable activity, the record shows it is an utter failure. The danger to the nation is worse than it ever was.
For many of those years, Republicrud bosses whined that if the people would only give them control of the federal government, they would undo Democrud damage and restore Free Enterprise. Finally, the people gave it to them. Remember? The Republicruds controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office long enough to turn the country around. What happened? The Republicruds made our problems much worse. Their spending made the profligate drunken sailor look like Scrooge. They deserved it when the people kicked them out. They lost all credibility.
Yes, there is Dr. Ron Paul. But Dr. No is a political aberration. Time and again, he stands alone. He has neither men’s room problems nor woman problems. He doesn’t take congressional retirement. He actually returns “money” (computer entries) to the federal treasury. He proposes abolishing the Fed and the income tax and replacing them with nothing. In foreign affairs he suggests that we mind our own business. Imagine! But, again, he is an aberration.
Why? Certainly one reason has to be that we ship the successful congressional candidate off to the District of Corruption. However good the new congressman may have been when he or she boarded the plane to the District; he is subjected to intoxicating blandishments when he arrives in the enemy camp.
Soon, he succumbs to the blandishments, maybe even making himself blackmailable, and begins to vote as the party boss says, without even reading the bills. Instead of representing the people of his congressional district in the District of Criminals, he represents the D.C. to the C.D. He or she now is one of the boys or the girls. It has happened hundreds of times.
So, if the long, heroic effort to elect federal legislators has failed, does there remain any governmental Horatius who can stand in the gap; who can lead the Battle for America and restore the Constitution? There is. Lock and load, mount up and prepare for the return of the sheriff.
My guess is that in the minds of many Americans the sheriff is an antiquated figure who lives in the movies. In the older movies he is the hero; he is Gary Cooper in “High Noon,” awaiting the train that will bring killer Frank Miller back to town. In the new ones, he is the southern sheriff, even bigger than Rosie O’Donnell, sneering, sadistic, racist, violent, etc. He has no modern relevance.
But now here comes Sheriff Richard Mack, elected and re-elected in Graham County, Arizona, where he served for eight years. During his tenure, three federal agents came to a meeting of Arizona sheriffs and told them in certain terms how they would be dragooned as unpaid federal bureaucrats and administer the new, federal Brady gun registration law.
The law was named of course for Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, who was severely wounded in the immensely suspicious attempt to assassinate the President. Since then, Mrs. Brady has become a leader of the campaign for Nazi gun confiscation. I don’t know whether she was as crazy before the shootings as she is now. Just one more increment of lunacy and they would have to lock her up.
Advertisement
Richard Mack and the other Arizona sheriffs at the meeting rebelled. Sheriff Richard says the language he heard – in which he did not participate – could not be repeated in the presence of genteel Christian ladies, so we can’t tell you here what the sheriffs said. But Sheriff Mack did take the government to court. He sued the United States, and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana joined him as plaintiff.
On June 27th, 1997, the sheriffs won; in Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court struck Brady down. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the ruling for the Court, in which he explained our system of government at length. The justly revered system of checks and balances is the key:
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.
He quotes President Madison again: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (P. 922)
No one could make this any clearer. The primary purpose of the Fathers was to prevent someone from grabbing all the power. When that happens, they knew, the result is arbitrary, confiscatory, government, the kind Tom Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence. We would call it totalitarian.
Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.
To prevent that from happening, they divided the power. First, they divided the federal power into three parts: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They would bicker among themselves, so that no one of them could seize all the power the Constitution grants to the federal government.
The Founders divided the power even more. They set the limited power the Constitution grants the “general authority,” Madison’s term for the federal government, against the vast residual powers of the states. Each sphere of government, state and federal, would be supreme in its own sphere. Neither could control the other. Each protects itself from intervention by the other. Each has its own laws and rules.
Madison says this: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” Loc. Cit.
What does all this mean today in the Battle for America? Sheriff Mack says it proves that the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction – inside his county – the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers.
What? The sheriff can do that? He’s not just a character in a movie? That’s right. Not only can the sheriff do that; sheriffs have already done that, more than once. Most Americans are not aware of that because lying, conspiracy scumbags like Rush Humbug, Shallow Sean Hannitwerp and Hugh Blewitt (a lawyer) etc., haven’t told them.
Advertisement
Remember, the office of sheriff has a pedigree so long, we are not positive about when it was created. We think it was in the Ninth Century in England. We do know that each land district, or “shire,” was governed by a “reeve.” The sheriff of Nottingham became famous. At first, the king appointed them. With few exceptions, our American shire reeves are elected by the people.
In 1997, in Nye County, Nevada, federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. The cows stayed where they were. Wyoming sheriffs have told federal agencies they must check with the respective sheriff before they serve any papers, make any arrests or confiscate any property.
In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was “inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.” More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.
While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t fix it. First they had to do an “environmental impact study,” to replace a bridge already there. They were in no hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.
The people’s suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.
So the long dormant spirit of America is reviving. The states are beginning to adopt Tenth Amendment resolutions, using powers they have always had. The people are restoring our long unbalanced constitutional system. There is something “blowin’ in the wind,” but it isn’t what Bob Dylan thought it was. Recently, Sheriff Mack addressed 570 people in Fredericksburg, Texas. He reports that the reception was “beyond fantastic.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.