PLEASE DONATE
SO THIS SHIVERING PATHETIC SNIVELING
SHADOW OF A DOG CAN GET OUT OF OUR SIGHT!
Posted on 02/01/2012 8:58:48 PM PST by moonshinner_09
Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought when it comes to illegal immigration. There are those who believe in a zero tolerance policy, meaning that all illegal immigrants should be sent home immediately. And there are those who support a pathway to citizenship.
Now, a new, third way is emerging. The movement is officially referred to as “attrition through enforcement” but informally, it is called “self-deportation.” The idea is to make life so difficult for immigrants in the United States that they choose to go home voluntarily.
Self-deportation is gaining conservative support — Mitt Romney said in the Republican debate last Monday night in Florida that he favored the concept as a solution to illegal immigration. But, the method creates more problems than it solves.
Take Alabama, for example. The state recently passed sweeping legislation that encourages self-deportation by requiring state and local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone detained in a routine traffic stop or arrest if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Since inception, the law has caused chaos in schools, unearthed suppressed racial attitudes, and significantly impacted Alabama’s economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at policymic.com ...
I love the concept of self deportation - which is proven BTW - but I have no confidence Romney would go for it.
Here we go again, are we all going to jump behind this blatantly left wing article, just because it targets Romney?
I can live with Newt’s approach to this issue but it’s far more liberal than Romney’s.
I agree, I love self deport, would this policy create more lawsuits than deporting though ?
So, when illegals ‘self deport’ do they take the stolen identities they used to get work, have a bank account, buy a house, etc, with them? How about the credit cards they acquired with the stolen identities? Do they take with them any fradulent earnings? What about money from bank accounts they acquired with stolen identities? What about any traffic tickets they got in the name of the person of whom they stole their identity? Does the real person have to be responsible for them?
What about the abandoned properties acquired with the stolen identity? Does the person whose identity they used get to seize it as it was acquired in their name?
In Maricopa County, AZ some schools are closing due to declining enrollment. That is hardly "chaos" but it does save some taxpayer funds.
Thank you Sheriff Arpaio.
Self deportation is the only way to go. Enforce the laws that are currently on the books and illegals will have no place to work. No work, no pay, no staying in the US.
It is simple, it will work, and it should be done. The problem is that law enforcement does not enforce the current laws.
Are we becoming a lawless nation?
So he’s on his way back to Mexico?
No E-Verify, no workee
No E-Verify, no welfare
This would drain the swamp. Probably be so effective that we’d have to find a better way to bring in legal workers.
It wouldn’t require a national ID or a police-state. Perfect? No, but a good start.
Yep, I like Newt but his approach to illegal aliens gives me heartburn.
I’ve always thought attrition would work if the laws already on the books were just enforced.
Sample legislation.
A person found within the United States, having entered illegally or having overstayed a visa, shall:
1. Receive fifty lashes on the back with a cat o’nine tails.
2. Be branded on both cheeks with the letter “B” for “border crasher,” said brand to be two inches tall.
3. Forfeit all monies and properties earned or amassed in the United States, wherever located.
4. Walk from where apprehended to the Mexican border on a diet of beans and tortillas, sleeping in the open.
5. While returning to Mexico, ejectees shall be guarded by armed men on horseback, and shall be shot on sight if attempting to escape.
6. On their journey, ejectees shall pick up trash, cut grass with scythes and other unpowered tools, trim roadside shrubbery, clean rest area toilets, and perform such other tasks as may be ordered, said tasks not to be unduly hazardous.
7. Any person seen with the letter “B” branded on the cheeks who is not a member of a guarded ejectee party may be shot and killed on sight by any U.S. citizen at any time.
8. Idiots may offer ejectees food and water if they like. The penalty for providing ejectees with arms or assisting them to escape shall be death by firing squad, following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military.
9. Any attempt to bribe a guard is punishable by death, following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military. A bribe can be monetary or in the form of goods and services, especially including carnal services.
10. Any guard accepting a bribe shall be executed following a guilty verdict in a trial to be conducted by three officers of the U.S. military.
11. When ejectees enter Mexico, U.S. Army or Marine ground forces shall be on site. If the Mexican government or organized crime attempt to stop the ejectees from returning to Mexico, U.S. ground forces shall engage and defeat them. Mexican government forces not killed in the engagement shall be allowed to flee if they surrender or abandon the fight. Gang members shall be killed to the last man, if possible.
12. After the great majority of illegal aliens have been ejected, two fences 10 feet tall and 50 feet apart shall be erected on the Mexican side of the border. The area between the fences shall be heavily planted with anti-personnel mines. Motion-sensor controlled machine guns shall be emplaced at intervals such that interlocking fields of fire can be brought to bear, leaving no gaps.
13. The organization known as “La Raza” and all similar groups are hereby designated domestic enemies of the Constitution. Active membership in such organizations shall be punished by death.
14. The President of the United States shall, before the UN General Assembly, tell the President of Mexico to kiss his ass.
Announce that and see how long it takes them to self-deport.
I proposed something like this a while back.
Very simply deport those illegals that show up for government paid benefits: food stamps, hospitals, military recruitment, civil court cases to sue Americans, police calls, putting their kids in public schools, etc. The effect will be to cut off their benefits without a chance of a court challenge, as directly cutting them off has resulted in. Cut off taxpayer benefits to illegals and many will disappear as it will be too expensive for them to live here.
Given that noot is directly calling for an amnesty program, it's hard to mark this issue as a reason to support him. Romney may very well secretly be for amnesty but he is not arguing for it as a reason to vote for him right now as noot is.
The Republican party is pathetic. They are incapable of handling difficult political issues.
Incorrect.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies coined the term and the concept behind it.
Krikorian pointed out the obvious - we have an immigration problem because our immigration laws are not being enforced.
The allegedly racist laws in Arizona, Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia are simply a restatement of existing federal law, with one twist...
They allow state and local enforcement.
What? No death camps?
You’re all talk.
As far as public employees, and liberals in general, are concerned, anything that reduces the need for government services constitutes “chaos” and “economic apocalypse”.
Just last week, Alabama reported lower unemployment figures — attributable to their “crackdown” on illegals. Sounds pretty positive to me.
I’d still fine employers who failed to use e-verify and use the fines to pay for bounty hunters to bring in illegals and put them on a one-way plane trip to their home country’s capital city (ie, Mexico City rather than just across the border in the case of Mexican nationals). But I’m one of those “hard liners”, I guess.
======================================
"Raza Studies" does not even try to sugar-coat its anti-America agenda and its bloodthirsty plans to kill us off:
One Raza Studies textbook titled “Occupied America,” by Rodolfo Acuña, includes a violent and blood-curdling speech given by university professor Jose Angel Gutierrez: “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him,” (pg. 323).
This is taken directly from Occupied America (pg. 167): “Supporters would execute all white males over age 16,” (this is AKA the Plan of San Diego).
America-hating Raza Studies teach violence and undermining US ntl security----and preaches the need for Mexico to "re-take seven states in the Southwest...in order to make the SW a Chicano nation.
Course, if you oppose this, you are "heartless"....../s.
NOTE WELL: Adelita Grijalva is the woman on the Arizona school board pimping La Raza/LULAC/Mecha/MALDEF indoctrination programs in Tuscon schools.
Adelita is all up in arms about Raza Studies getting tossed via the AZ state legislature's action......she is the daughter of Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7) who was just narrowly re-elected to our US Congress.
Raul Grijalva is one of Mexico’s most productive and loyal representatives in our Congress....aiding and abetting building a Third World on US soil.
Nope. I was going to criticize the article for ignoring Newt’s approach that combines active deportation, border enforcement and a “red card” that doesn’t create a path to citizenship, but lets some illegal immigrants stay.
FReepers with long and very accurate memories will recall that Newt’s approach is very much like what I’ve been advocating for years.
It's a good idea - they got here through perverse incentives - they can go home the same way...
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.