Author Topic: TOP DEM PROF SAYS "I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY POLITICIAN WITH BETTER IMMIGRATION PLAN!"  (Read 10711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Because it simply hasn't, due to its potential political toxicity.  I imagine that with all the emphasis that Trump is bringing to it however, some movement for a decision could be made now
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Can't Make Illegals Leave the Country?
Eisenhower Did!


 by Steven Ahle


General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower 1947

Dwight D Eisenhower was the first president who had to deal with illegal immigration.  A study in Texas found that in areas where there were lots of illegals, the pay was half of what fruit and vegetable pickers received in the rest of the state.  He knew that as long as they were willing to take less money farmers would continue to use them in greater numbers.  Since he was the president of the United States and not Mexico, he took firm and immediate action.

The first thing he did was to seal the border.  It is interesting to note he was able to do it with only 1,075 border patrol agents.  That's less than 10% of what we have today.  I realize that technology has evolved, but it evolved for both sides.  The operation is still well known for it's efficiency throughout the Border Control agency.

Now, he had to face the millions of illegals that were in the country.  Never was amnesty a possibility.  No one felt white guilt and no one accused Eisenhower of being a racist and even if they would have, Eisenhower wouldn't care.  He fought and defeated Nazis once and he knew he could do it again. Eisenhower saw only one solution.  Send them back to Mexico and other countries.  Eisenhower was also aware that farmers making huge profits by using illegal labor had the kind of money to buy politicians (Comcast, Microsoft and Google)  They were loathe to give up their profits.  Eisenhower did not pander to the farmers for huge campaign contributions:

Ike appointed a former West Point classmate and soldier, Joseph "Jumping Joe" Swing to head the INS. Lyndon Johnson and Pat McCarran, democrat senators were for open borders and they had allies in strategic offices in the INS.  Swing lived up to his name and jumped right out of the chute and he transferred all of Johnson's cronies away from the border and into jobs where they couldn't influence policy.

Then in June of 1954, the INS began project "Operation Wetback."  In the first two months of the project, they gathered up 50,000 illegal immigrants during raids on farms known to use illegals.  And that was only in Arizona and California.  And better yet, it is estimated that 488,000 illegals fearing arrest left the country.  They then expanded the operation and by September 80,000 illegals were arrested in Texas and thousands more fled the country.  Problem solved.

And Eisenhower didn't drop them off at the border.  He sent them 500 miles south of the US Mexican border.  They were sent on ships that made the trip miserable and discouraged illegals returning to the United States.

Today, the liberal narrative is that it's impossible to send all of the illegals home.  They are wrong.  In fact, it's so simple I am surprised no one has suggested it before.  If a landlord rents an apartment to illegal aliens or if employers hire illegals and are caught they are fined.  DO AWAY WITH THE FINES.  They don't work and the consumer ends up paying the fines anyway.

Let's do this. If a landlord rents an apartment or an employer hires an illegal alien, instead of fines let them serve one year in prison per illegal.  Also, you need to remove judicial discretion. The sentence must be mandatory.

How many would have to be sentenced before all employers decide it's not worth it to do business with illegal aliens?  My guess is very few.  While you are working on that, make sure that illegals are not receiving welfare, Social Security, HEAP, HUD, Food stamps and Obamaphones.  Without jobs, a place to live or government freebies, there would be no sense in staying.

There is just one step left.  No appeals of deportation.  If you are illegal, you leave.  If you feel you deserve to be here, you can always go to the US embassy in your home country and apply like the law abiding do.

That is a real immigration fix and a permanent one too.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 03:02:30 PM by Christians4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
In one century and a half, during which the US tried its best to  exclude Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and so on from citizenship this has NEVER COME UP?

Gimme a break.

If what you say is true, on the other hand, how is this issue less toxic now, when the Hispanic and Chinese population is greater than ever?

There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Wait and see, the future of this is obvious.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What Eisenhower did was deport some people. This was about deporting NON CITIZENS.

It has NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. You are grasping at straws.

You are failing to grasp even one straw. Not even the short, loser straw do you grasp.

Here is the LAW as it stands:

Federal law provides that those who are born in any of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the former Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and Guam are all native-born citizens, including the children of an American Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or any other tribal member.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 03:04:00 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That's one opinion.  Considering that the point I, and I believe Cu4, have been making is that this NEEDS to be interpreted by the Supreme Court for complete & finalized clarity, since the 14th had nothing to do with immigration policy, when it was ratified


Wait and see, the future of this is obvious.

Looking forward to it
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
We will all be dead and turned to worm turds long, long  before the Court rules to abolish birthright citizenship.
 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Good thing no one is arguing about the abolishment of birthright citizenship then.     oy   ::)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
In the beginning, according to the basis of all out laws, English common laws states that anyone born here is a citizen.
 
Dred Scott changed that to declare that Negroes were NOT citizens.

Then the 14th Amendment declared that everyone born here WAS a citizen, including slaves.

Only slaves and Negroes and for a time Indians not taxed, have ever been excluded, ever, and they were declared citizens again in 1865 by the XIV Amendment.

The reason this has not been contested is that it is 100% clear: NO ONE born here is not a citizen. There are no grounds to contest it.

No court can change English common law and all the XIV Amendment did was to  void the Dred Scott decision.

It has not been contested because it cannot be contested.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
If what you say is true, on the other hand, how is this issue less toxic now,
when the Hispanic and Chinese population is greater than ever?

Most Hispanics and most Chinese are not illegals.
The law should be enforced or we do not have a border.

There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The "anchor baby agenda" will be found outside the original intent and will be outlawed.

The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the
world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens

The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)


DEVELOPED NATIONS
Birthright Citizenship:

     
YES
Canada   
United States   

NO
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
In the beginning, according to the basis of all out laws, English common laws states that anyone born here is a citizen.
 
the 14th Amendment declared that everyone born here WAS a citizen, including slaves.

Only slaves and Negroes and for a time Indians not taxed, have ever been excluded, ever, and they were declared citizens again in 1865 by the XIV Amendment.


And none have that has anything to do with immigration policy


The reason this has not been contested is that it is 100% clear: NO ONE born here is not a citizen. There are no grounds to contest it.  It has not been contested because it cannot be contested.

Of course it can be....and NEEDS to be since the clear intent of the 14th, that was specific to freed slaves, has been whitewashed with its application to those who have come here, on their own free will, illegally.  The statute requires complete interpretation.....along the lines that any child born here to a LEGAL Immigrant or Citizen receives the 14th amendment's bestowing of automatic citizenship.

Problem solved
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What other countries do has NO BEARING on US citizenship. at all.

Anyone born here is a citizen. To change this will require a constitutional amendment.

Several such amendments have been proposed, but none has been supported by either party/

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
What other countries do has NO BEARING on US citizenship. at all.

This coming from the fella that belly aches about "every other country's supposed universal healthcare".  The point C was making is exactly the point you keep trying to pull with the "look at all those other countries that do 'x'"


Anyone born here is a citizen. To change this will require a constitutional amendment.

No, it won't.


Several such amendments have been proposed, but none has been supported by either party/

Which is why you keep trying to harp this to require an amendment process, knowing how much more involved it is.  When in legal reality, it doesn't, since the 14th had nothing to do with Immigration policy.  The Supeme Court wil simply have to provide a final interpretation, which given the clear intent of the 14th, will be applicable to LEGAL immigrants and citizens of this country
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Supreme Court, as I suspected, has ALREADY RULED on birthright citizenship. This was done in 1898 while Donald Trump, cu4, sirs and the dimbulbs at breitbart and their invented "top Dem Prof" were still unborn. The case is  US vs. Wong Kim Ark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

In addition, Trump proposes to DEPORT all the illegals. That is 11 or 12 million people, 62% of whom have been in the US for over 10 years. He also wants to deport their American born children, to "keep the families together". This is called ex post facto as it makes something that was legal when it occurred9the birth of these children)  illegal by a law passed after the supposed offense. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US and always have been.

So this "top Dem PROF"  is either a creation of breitbart or an idiot. possibly both.


The Supreme Court rare rules on decisions made by previous courts: the usual procedure is not to hear them at all, and let previous decisions stand unchanged.

And again, Trump cannot pass laws, and cannot change the Constitution. An amendment would CLEARLY be necessary, and it ain't happening.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Pay attention.....I'll try to keep the words small.....
- NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. 
- The Supreme Court HAS NOT RULED on the the application of the 14th amendment to IMMIGRATION POLICY
- THAT's what's required from the Supreme Court, and it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment to make that interpretation
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The case is  US vs. Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were not in the country illegally...which is a completely different dynamic.

This can be done by Congress or the Supreme Court....
and if Trump is elected it will be because "anchor babies" by illegal parents was not the intended purpose and is insanity.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987