Solving the illegal alien problem.

[nomad]

I`ve been on too many threads here and thats the flavor many perhaps most of the defenders of the illegals would and have used. We who support enforcement of existing laws or the enactment of new laws to curb the torrent of illegals get scurrilously attacked by those who try to stand on some "high ground" of justice or humanity. But what are they defending, and by what methodology? Accusing us of "cattle cars" and witch hunts is not "spittle"?

Will the results of their actions result in an America that recognizes the Founder`s vision of justice? Will there be a similar reference for "justice" in their America, the progressive`s America, or will it be the the progressive definition of "social Justice"?

So what right do illegals have to be here? Are we not composed as a Republic founded by the original intent of the Founding Fathers? If so, then we who already are here by natural birth have precedence, not those who`ve broken OUR laws. By what right do they impose their will on our Rebulblic?,/p>

Is this not a nation of laws, our Constitution, or are we ruled by international law? Did they not break OUR laws or does that not matter?

Well will you defend your stance or make accusations to avoid the points!? If you defend the illegals then sir/madam, DEFEND YOUR VIEWS!

[Vigilanteman]

Illegals coming here to harvest lettuce and pick beans aren't the problem. At one time, we had an orderly guest worker program for those types of jobs.

Then the illegals stayed, branched out into hundreds of other jobs like construction and discovered there were a cornucopia of freebies even if you didn't work.

A carrot and stick program is what is needed. Work visas (even for temporary agricultural work) were once valuable commodities and should be again. Preference to be given to countries which (a)do not encourage illegal immigration, (b)extradite wanted criminals and (c)accept repatriation of their own deported nationals.

It isn't rocket science. If Mexico did not own so many of our congress critters, they would have to compete with Guatemala, Honduras and other countries for a finite number of guest worker visas.

[nomad]

Been so for a while, glen Beck has been on that, others too. That's got to change as well. One power source at a time.

[TexasTransplant]

**** “WE have waited 25 YEARS for the Feds to enforce their own laws.” *****

That is Rick Perry’s Point exactly ... the FED makes the Law .. doesn’t Enforce it ... the States (and ALL Tax Payers) end up with the Bill .... Return those Powers to the States Governors ... chop those $ from the Federal Budget and make the States that want that kind of Largess pay for it them selves.

National Borders are Still the responsibility of the Federal Government ... with added authority to the Sheriff and State Law Enforcement, to enforce State Laws which may be what ever the State deems proper for their State (Because One Size Does not Fit All)

TT

[bwc2221]

“Alabama and Arizona have proven that illegals will self-deport.”

The only problem is these illegals are self-deporting to California and Texas.

[MHGinTN]

When you stop trying to frame my views without me even offering them, then we might be able to have a discussion. I don't sense that you want a discussion if it doesn't conform to your stated perspective from the start. Put another way, I don't think you want me to offer my perspective as much as you want someone for you and others to leap upon in a frenzy.

But since you seem to need a target, here's a point to consider:

How can someone who enters this country illegally birth a legal citizen? In my calculus they cannot. Can an illegal and a leagl citizen birth/bring into the world through pregnancy a legal citizen of the United States? Yes. Can two illegals bring forth legal xitizens? No. ... So, why all the fruitless debate over 'anchor babies? ... Because legislators we elected made it possible for illegals to birth legal U.S. citizens.

[preamble]

I think we should be able to report illegals in our neighborhood.

riding the bus, I saw a Mexican family. the husband had a mexico hat on.

I could have asked him, are you here from Mexico?
where are your papers sir?

No papers, well, I am handcuffing you. I will take your picture sir and
write down where you were located.

Do you think this guy is going to stick around? I will report him
to the Civilian Illegal Alien Group. A militia of citizens.

We will be on the lookout for him and his family and keep reporting
him.

He will leave because he will not want to be hassled.

I will give him information how to immigrate legally.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - National Borders are Still the responsibility of the Federal Government - - - “

Every FDR dime spent on “strengthening the border” is a dime wasted.

The border is 2000 miles long, 1200 of it in Texas.

The problem is not the border, but the non-hostile US Federal Government attitude toward illegal aliens.

It is all about the money.

Until Legal Americans forces the damn US Federal Government to change to a VERY hostile toward illegal aliens, we taxpayers are going to continue to be shafted by the Feds.

[TexasTransplant]

***** “ There has been a great deal of discussion over the issue of illegals and amnesty. Some have accused the majority of calling for “cattle cars” to “brutalize” the poor illegals. I never thought I`d hear such demogoguery here on Freerepublic, and simply to support a favored candidate. Be that as it may, I`d like to issue this challenge to all who claim to support Conservatism: With the e-verify system, an admitedly imperfect but very improvable system, we can begin to verify who is and who isn`t legal to work in America;

Therfore, since it is a federal law (immigration) thats being broken and given that protection of the borders IS one of the Costitutionally prescribed duties of the federal government, will you call on your candidate of choice to:

A: Make it a federal offense and a felony to hire an illegal alien.

B: Impose massive fines and imprisonment on employers who do.

C:Make it illegal to give any public money in support to illegals-welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, tuition assistance-ANY Government support.

And D:Make it a federal offense and felony to aid or abet an illegal through the furnishing of forged ID or documentation that would allow them to use this form of indentity theft to attempt to aquire employment or stay here against the law.” *****

I Nomad would take you up on that challenge ... I have a problem with E Verify ... it is Federal not State and I understand that National Borders are the Jurisdiction of the Fed (which are the very Laws that they do not Enforce) I propose that Enforcement of same said Laws be Financed by the Fed but Enforced by the State .. and furthermore each State have what ever Emigration Policy that they deem appropriate (Hell if they can have different 2nd Amendment Policies City to City let alone State to State .. this shouldn’t even be an issue) but the trade is what ever Immigration Policy they have is theirs ... so far my idea won’t work because we have ... Federal Un-employment Insurance Laws, Federal ETC ETC ETC (ONE SIZE FITS ALL LAWS) ... do away with the “One Size Fits all” Fed Strangulation of the Nation ... my plan works ...

So with your points C and D we are 100% with your points A and B just leave out the Federal Govt... Plug in State Governors and State Law and whatever those Laws may be with the Caveat that “No Other State shall be Burdened, nor Profit or be Accountable for any other States Immigration Laws” In other words the Immigrant can become a Citizen of the State ... as a step to becoming a Citizen of the United States.

What do you think of that idea?

TT

[hosepipe]

Pretty good idea(s)..... any laws can be “adjusted” once they are “proven” in use..

Also some illegals can be hired “cheaply” to make “the WALL”.. with a green card available at the end...

Using Unions to make the wall would be a serious mistake..
All U.S. Unions have engaged in “sedition” with George Soros..

[nomad]

My point sir, we follow the contractual law or our Constitution. Not the revisionist`s version of how they would have written it but the actual version as it was written or amended. It does NOW give natural birth as an avenue to THAT person`s citizenship, not the illegal`s, regardless of whether one or both are legal, my interpretation, don`t like it but it`s the law (Hate it, so lets please change it!).

But let me ask you: Does a legal document/agreement change simply because its “old”? Do we not have the ability to change the Agreement we call our Constitution by the Constitutional Amendment process? Then if it`s detractors wish to, why don`t they do so with out the rule by judges or the “living document” excuse?

I believe this Republic IS the result of "natural law" but of only those who have loaned that expression of that individual sovereignty to establish the Republic we live in. Do we not have the right to set WHAT EVER rules WE wish for gaining citizenship OR legal status-regardless of what one or the whole world thinks? Does a person even if they are not a citizen, enjoy ALL the rights OF a citizen or do we have the right, as the sovereign guarantors/owners of our Republic, to set the rules for those who have not sacrificed their sovereignty to help create this Republic?

That was part of the Federalist compromise that created the Republic they "WE the People" created the "more perfect union" not they the world,as we are individual islands unto ourselves, so are we an individual island nation unto ourselves by right of our individual sovereignty, loaned to the state in order for it to exist-"goverment by consent of the governed" in it`s truest sense.

[nomad]

A “full faith and credit version” for the immigration laws? Then whats to prevent the more “progressive” states from opening the floodgates and forcing the rest of us, thru this “full faith and credit” approach, to take it and like it or lump it? The Constitution,imperfect as it may be, MUST be the guide and at present IT clearly gives the borders to the feds, change it if you want and its a different matter.

[nomad]

(final paragraph) ...Republic. They or,"WE the people"...

Misprint there.

[TexasTransplant]

***** “ A “full faith and credit version” for the immigration laws? Then whats to prevent the more “progressive” states from opening the floodgates and forcing the rest of us, thru this “full faith and credit” approach, to take it and like it or lump it? The Constitution,imperfect as it may be, MUST be the guide and at present IT clearly gives the borders to the feds, change it if you want and its a different matter. “ ****

Let’s use the 2nd Amendment as a Ground Stake ... is their any State that can FORCE all other States to “Like it or Lump it?”
Governors will easily be able to return / ship back those “State Citizens that cross the State Borders .. because they can (and will), the Fed doesn’t even enter the picture... once the States are on the hook $ and the Fed is out of the picture things become a lot more efficient ... (all Politics is Local and if folks can show up at your Office or went to school with your Mom or whatever... things are different ... you don’t have the shield of “it’s not my fault” Federal scoundrels)

The Constitution IS the premise of my idea ...

I think my idea has Merit ... the Federal Government is what I have lost faith in

TT

[Windflier]

The “starve ‘em out” approach is the best solution to the problem, in my view, and it also comports with the laws on the books.

I think we need to demand that every candidate adopt this as the best policy going forward, and pledge to see it done if they’re elected.

[TexasTransplant]

My point exactly ...

Let us use the 2nd Amendment as an example ... Is there any State that has or can make all the States “Like it or Lump it”? We have different Laws from City to City let alone State to State for a “RIGHT” that is easily defined and most certainly spelled out in 8th Grade Language in our own Constitution and yet no Nationwide “Like it or Lump it”

Governors of States can Enforce their Laws make deals with other States but at their own peril and those Laws are much easier to undo than those of the Fed ...

You said ***** “The Constitution,imperfect as it may be, MUST be the guide and at present IT clearly gives the borders to the feds” *****

Again I say “Exactly”

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
“
The Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers “delegated” to the Federal Government. And in delegating just a few specific powers to the Federal Government, the States are Sovereign (or at least should still be).

The Borders still belong to the Feds, the National Immigration Policy still belongs to the Fed but what happens inside State boundaries still belongs to the State and as it should.

No Constitutional changes required ... just do away with Federal Mandates (One Size Fits all stuff) do away with Federal Agencies and the Fed getting into Employment Insurance, Health Insurance etc etc etc bust the agencies up (first cut them at least in half then like Congress Critters divvy them up by population and spread them out to the States and make the Governors of those States their Boss)

It is a work in progress but I will never run for Office so it is just for discussion anyway

TT

[rmlew]

We need heavy public investment into agricultural mechanization research. Carter killed those funds so he could get more illegals into the country.
We can have a Bracero program, a highly regulated guest worker program. We don't need illegals.

[rmlew]

Under your revisionist history, Eisenhower was a Nazi for kicking out Mexican illegal workers. You fail history and the Goodwin test with leftist tripe.

[9YearLurker]

It is because we’ve had illegals doing the work that we haven’t improved those jobs and their productivity. Enough already. There’s no good reason for certain farm jobs to be stuck in the dark ages—and for us to have special guest worker programs. They are consistent problems in and for the countries that have them.

[rmlew]

The government has been securing our borders since day one. Immigration was curtailed in the 1790s. What part of the federal responsibility to protect against invasion don’t you understand. Stop calling the Founding fathers Satanists, if you are going to pretend to be a conservative.