Criminal alien amnesty push yet again

greg334

Veteran Expediter
and then there is the invasive Mexicans that take away from our economy and drain our resources...and lower the quality of life for everyone else...

Not even close.

The Mexicans are not a problem, any and all who invade the country are.

By saying one group or another is a cause takes from the real issues at hand.

Sovereignty isn't being damaged by the individual who is coming across the border, be it a Mexican or Canadian but by the country who promotes it.

In this case, Mexico is the problem, a very serious problem and they want people to migrate to the US so there is a flow of money back to them - pretty much exploitation of the exported labor.

What comes with this is not lowering the our quality of life but that of the person who is invading the country is trapped in a very dismal and propagating form of dispair. Without the proper procedures being followed, Mexico has created in essence a slave class of their own people who get convinced nothing is better than being here and then can't get out of their situation regardless how hard they work and because of this, they turn to other forms of making ends meet because they know no better.

Imagine our "resident immigrant", YOU OVM, being told my Canadian officials that the US quota is filled but they want you to go there anyways and show you how to get there and how to survive the crossing Erie on a raft made of bleach bottles and a pallet. When you get here, you stay with the people you are familiar with but then risk being caught and deported. By not going through the process, you limit yourself and then by being in the shadows, you further fear the inevitable - a return to your home country. Your limitations are with education, with jobs and with you potential as a person living here. You can't just come here and make it, but now with the added burden, you limit yourself by sticking with what you know.

With the Mexicans, I don't blame the individual at all but blame sits with first our government who is tasked to protect the borders regardless what the courts say, what the congress says and what the opinion of the people may be. This also includes the people who are passive and without opinion, they cause the complaciency within the government to happen in the first place.

The second group I blame is the Mexican government who promotes this exploration of their people as an export or commodity.

And the third group of people I blame are the people who are trying to legitimize an invasion at any cost. They are the ones who bring up splitting up families and so on, but actually harm the individuals by accommodating them over the citizens.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Yea in many ways they do. They make it difficult but hand a lot of them a solution that coming here is easy and will solve a lot of their issues.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The proper solution:

1. Close and control our borders
2. Pass an "official language" amendment to the Constitution
making "Standard American English" the language of the
United States
3. Arrest, fingerprint and deport any and all that are here
illegally
4. Develop a plan for imigration plan, quotas, standards etc
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
We do, and enforcing it would be a start. Our laws are out of date with today's reality and the need updating. Tighter, stricter with much lower quotas.
 

wimpy007

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
US Army
Who do you turn to to help pass the Laws need to secure the boarders ??? The House and Senat, good luck. I'll call my Senator, DICK---- DURBIN a lot of help he will be. The issue seems to come down to a common denominator. VOTES, VOTES VOTES.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Our cities are already over crowded and urban sprawl continues unchecked. We already have high unemployment. We already have far too many on welfare. We do not need open borders and unlimited immigration. If a citizen of another country sneaks into the United States, they are just by that fact, a criminal. In the case of Mexico it is an invasion. We have no legal or moral requirement to allow a free for all.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
If the guy writing the blog etc. about totally open immigration welcomes and permanently accepts 382 immigrants into his own home as permanent lifelong residents of his home then perhaps I'll give him a little bit of credibility and his hairbrain idea some credence. What he and the rest of the open border crowd either don't understand or choose to ignore is the limit in resources. The entire world can't live in the U.S. no matter how badly idiots like that want them to. There is nothing practical about that thesis.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
If the guy writing the blog etc. about totally open immigration welcomes and permanently accepts 382 immigrants into his own home as permanent lifelong residents of his home then perhaps I'll give him a little bit of credibility and his hairbrain idea some credence. What he and the rest of the open border crowd either don't understand or choose to ignore is the limit in resources. The entire world can't live in the U.S. no matter how badly idiots like that want them to. There is nothing practical about that thesis.

Sure they can ... when did and why did imperialism become such a nasty word? I have nothing against a portion of a country's population moving here if we get the real estate that goes with them
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The idiot who wrote the article never had to train his foreign Canadian resident replacement and lose his job. We already have in effect open borders but no one seems to see the negative impact to a lot of people in border cities.

Open borders would be an utter disaster to the country and to the economy.

Imagine an influx of people who are here to work at sub-standard wages, I mean people who are working for $4 a hour and pooling money as a family to survive.

Imagine having people, whole extended families living under the same roof and presenting a danger to themselves and others by the cramped living conditions. We, here in this area already have this problem where in some cases 15 to 20 people living in one house.

Imagine the language and cultural issues once we give rights to individuals to come and go as they please who neither want to work for residency or attempt to assimilate to the lowest standard within our society.

Imagine the issues with health care and other services, because we are on the decline with resources, as one example we would have to lower our standards to practice medicine and then import substandard medical professionals to fill the gaps.

It is alright that someone comes here to live as a guest or even work for 6 months but because we can't profile people, we can't determine who is a terrorist, criminal or what ever as the writer said - he seems to be in lala land because he never faced real issues caused by this issue.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
You guys really crack me up ...... :rolleyes:

Some people can only see problems ... where others largely see solutions .....

I would submit that the people who are incapable of seeing solutions are possibly not the ones who should be relied on to solve the issues of the day .....

The idiot who wrote the article ......
The "idiot" who wrote that article (Dr. Harry Binswanger) happens to have been a close personal friend and former associate of Ayn Rand, he edited the new material in the second edition of Ayn Rand's book, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, published in 1990 after her death, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute:

Harry Binswanger

Yup ..... we got some real brainiacs around these parts ...... too funny .... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Sure they can ... when did and why did imperialism become such a nasty word ?
When people woke up and realized that:

1. human beings have inherent rights, given to them by their Creator (something that doesn't only apply to citizens of the US - a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of some, apparently) ...... which should not be subject to being violated by other human beings (who apparently think that doing so is somehow their right), and

2. that when one employs certain criminal methods, such as theft, subjugation, domination and the use of force generally, it has a rather ironic and funny way of recoiling back on one (It's that old "Live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword" thing .... :rolleyes:)

"Imperialism, defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

....... some, apparently, still slumber however .....
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Don't care who he is, he's an idiot.

Solutions?

Open borders don't solve problems, they create more.

Look around, it is not an intellectual issue, it is a reality issue. We don't need high level abstract solutions with examples about people who come here from northern Europe but realistic restraints to better the nation, to stop growth at the bottom of society so to allow people who want to come here to actually grow when they get here.

If you are thinking that open borders would help, then tell us where and how.

Show us where the solutions would be with a population that has little education and show us how in todays situation where this would become an advantage to our society and country, where it will move us forward without the cost of supporting people once the economy declines.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'll have to agree with Greg...Open borders would be a disaster.

The idea of immigration is too build a society/culture that already exists here..we don't need to import yet another culture to co-exist with another and so on....the total society would get too fragmented. Each separate culture building it's own society...

This is America, with an established society, American culture and a set of goals and values of it's own....There is a country to build on those parameters...freedom from persecution and the pursuit of happiness.

I came from Canada and left my culture behind to be here and part of this culture....
The goal of any immigrant should be to help build a better America...

Well said, my friend, well said. You will be a credit here. (with a little more coaching of course :p)
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
When people woke up and realized that:

1. human beings have inherent rights, given to them by their Creator (something that doesn't only apply to citizens of the US - a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of some, apparently) ...... which should not be subject to being violated by other human beings (who apparently think that doing so is somehow their right), and

2. that when one employs certain criminal methods, such as theft, subjugation, domination and the use of force generally, it has a rather ironic and funny way of recoiling back on one (It's that old "Live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword" thing .... :rolleyes:)

"Imperialism, defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

....... some, apparently, still slumber however .....

I assure you most are hitting the snooze button here (1)because generally most of your -ism type governments do just that to their populations under the guise equality and fairness.Those on the far left do believe it is there right to do so.

Secondly Mathew had many problems with logic, " live by the sword..." being his pinnacle master piece of tomfoolery, it's so horribly wrong as to cross the line into being an out right lie. Many a person in history has died a straw death after a lifetime of open struggle their weapons prowess allowed them to reach a ripe old age, likewise there are whole villages who's population had never touched a weapon who have been wiped off the map. Now if Mathew was trying to tell us being a war lord will lead to an early death that's somewhat logical but he or we have totally missed this intention.

by the way eye-rolling has always been indicative of the clarity of thought possessed by most 13 year olds.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I assure you most are hitting the snooze button here (1)because generally most of your -ism type governments do just that to their populations under the guise equality and fairness.Those on the far left do believe it is there right to do so.
I would submit that those on the far left are not the only ones who are prone to employing that logic, and becoming authoritarian (to whatever extent) ..... and that governments (of any ilk) generally, in the end, evolve towards that very end ....

Secondly Matthew had many problems with logic, " live by the sword..." being his pinnacle master piece of tomfoolery, it's so horribly wrong as to cross the line into being an outright lie ...... Now if Mathew was trying to tell us being a war lord will lead to an early death that's somewhat logical but he or we have totally missed this intention.
Well, I guess it would depend on whether your understanding was that he was speaking only of this world, or of both this world and the spiritual world ....

Of course, it is always up to anyone to acquire their own understanding of what the ultimate meaning (and wisdom) of any religious scriptures are ....

My understanding of it however is something along the of:

The use of force or violence begats the use of force or violence .....

In my estimation, that this indeed true in Life (even in this world) would seem to be fairly self-evident .... if one is inclined to disbelieve that it were so, all one has to do is go out on the street and punch someone in the nose ..... if you don't receive the immediate force and violence of the individual you hit punching back, then it is quite likely you will receive the force and violence of the state for having done so ......

If there is any one particular class of individual who (apparently) believes that this is not so, it is the criminal ..... for he believes that his actions have no consequences ....

Many a person in history has died a straw death after a lifetime of open struggle their weapons prowess allowed them to reach a ripe old age, likewise there are whole villages who's population had never touched a weapon who have been wiped off the map.
What do you make of the premise in this one - it's a little older than Matthew:

"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

Of course, when speaking of death as you do above, there is always the matter of whether is talking about a physical death, or a spiritual death ......

I would submit that there are those walking among us, who, while their physical bodies are alive and breathing, have long ago died (or are very near) a spiritual death ..... and are but spiritually lifeless shells ....

by the way eye-rolling has always been indicative of the clarity of thought possessed by most 13 year olds.
Really ?

My mother (God rest her soul) used to do it fairly often ...... she was a straight-A student in high school, a member of the National Honor Society, and class valedictorian ...... and although she never had the opportunity to attend college, she went on with my father to build a business that in it's heyday employed around 60 people ....

She did however have a sense of humor ..... wit ..... and irony .... perhaps that explains it ..... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Looks like this is an appropriate time to post this again.
I have a plan to destroy America
by Richard D. Lamm
I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

Here is my plan:
1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.
Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” –Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Michelle Malkin “I have a plan to destroy America” — by Richard D. Lamm
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
At the risk of offending the copy-and-paste police, here's another article with a good idea:
Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
by
J. Michael Waller

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org
 
Last edited:
Top